|
|
|
|
wjca
Jun 20, 2005, 3:31 PM
Post #1 of 9
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
I'll let the collective wisdom of RC.com decide.
I was cragging at Rocks State Park, MD this weekend. Along one wall there is an oak tree (about 2 feet thick at the base) whose trunk is about 15 feet from the base of the wall, but at the top of the wall the tree is only about 2 feet away. This is a combination of a slightly overhanging wall and a slightly leaning tree. At the point where the tree extends past the top of the rock, the tree splits into two main branches.
There is not a ton of options to build the top rope anchor t the top without using gear, but it is certainly possible to do with enough static line and webbing.
I was cleaning our anchor when I noticed a new group setting up their anchor. The guy had one foot on the rock and one foot in the branch of the tree, stradling a fall of about 55 feet. He set up the anchor in the fork of the tree. The anchor, other that not being redundant was solid. However, the anchor point was in the tree. Any fall off the rock would result in a swing off the rock and into the tree trunk, with the potential of not being able to get back onto the rock.
The funniest/scariest part was that his partner was a noob and he was adamant that this was "how you do it." The noob I took out very correctly questioned the set up right away.
I hope I have described the situation clearly, and was wondering who would climb on this setup. I personally don't think I would, just because I know there are several better ways to build the anchor at that spot. Maybe he didn't have the right gear, but if it were me, I wait until I did. It was definately sketchy watching him actually set up the anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
danegerous
Jun 20, 2005, 3:56 PM
Post #2 of 9
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 141
|
if i wanted to climb trees, id be on treeclimbing.com.
i wouldnt do it. ive never seen a rock get split if half from a tornado...i trust the rock more...not to mention to dude was stradling a 55 foot fall...cant be too smart.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jun 20, 2005, 4:17 PM
Post #3 of 9
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
sketchy.
but you just have to love some people's logic when it comes to anchor building!
|
|
|
|
|
grover
Jun 20, 2005, 4:22 PM
Post #4 of 9
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 569
|
Hey wjca.
Record a whack of chain-saw sounds and keep them handy for such occasions. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jun 20, 2005, 4:24 PM
Post #5 of 9
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
A big live oak tree? He was fine.
It is a wierd set up for sure, but I doubt that thing was going to uproot and fall.
As far as the tree climbing, I've downclimbed trees that tall after free-solo's. It sucks but if you are careful, you are unlikely to fall. Unsafe yes, actually being at risk - it depends.
I would not set up a TR this way, I don't think anyone is going die though.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jun 20, 2005, 4:26 PM
Post #6 of 9
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
IF the guy had ever swung backwards into a tree on top rope, he'd have known better.
|
|
|
|
|
mgoodro
Jun 20, 2005, 4:41 PM
Post #7 of 9
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2004
Posts: 119
|
If it could be avoided, I would never set an anchor behind the climber. There are plenty of overhung climbs where a fall will swing you into a tree, but intentionally setting up an anchor where this would happen is foolish, especially with a n00b climber in his group (that statement includes the implicit assumption that a n00b is more likely to take a fall - sorry :wink: ).
I'm guessing whoever took him there first set up this way and he never questioned it, or was told that's how it's done. That would explain his assurance.
2¢
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 20, 2005, 5:18 PM
Post #8 of 9
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
A little dodgy, but unless that tree was on its last legs, not enough for me to say anything to him about it.
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jun 20, 2005, 6:15 PM
Post #9 of 9
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
If he had a foot on the rock and a foot on the tree then his anchor was not very far from the top edge of the climb. So a top rope anchor on the rock itself would have had the same kind of swing out from the rock and into the tree. The tree anchor just made it a bit worse (his leg span at the most) according to your description. No obvious problem there.
As for standing on the tree 50 feet up. that's his choice just like climbing without a rope is also his choice. I tend not to rick my life over a top rope like that.
Doesn't sound so bad on the internet. I think everyone would have to see it to know if it was truly stupid or not.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
