|
pcrawford
Nov 6, 2006, 4:39 PM
Post #1 of 29
(7698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2006
Posts: 4
|
After leading a climb I usually clip two of my longer QDs into the two anchors and then lower off. If my second is not leading the route they usually just top rope off this setup. One draw on each anchor and the gates opposed on the rope.
One guy I was climbing with this weekend didn't like this set up and prefered to have locking beaners on the anchors vs non-locking QD's... I'm courous how you do this and what you think about the locking vs. non-locking setup.
|
|
|
|
|
yazey
Nov 6, 2006, 5:01 PM
Post #2 of 29
(7693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 64
|
I too am a little nervous about two QD without lockers for anchors.
Eventhough the gates are opposed. Just replace a non-locker for a locker in the QD.
|
|
|
|
|
krusher4
Nov 6, 2006, 5:08 PM
Post #3 of 29
(7694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
|
lockers would be safer, however I am fine with opposed QD's for myself.
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Nov 6, 2006, 5:19 PM
Post #4 of 29
(7693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
Generally both methods are OK.
But if you are climbing with a group, and you might leave the route to play elsewhere, you should go even safer that that:
To leave the TR up for the whole day, I'd replace the QD's with slings and lockers. Each sling is clipped onto the anchor with a locker, and each sling has another locker hanging down, with the TR rope threaded through both. That's a lot safer, it doesn't wear down the anchors, and it's just as easy to take down.
|
|
|
|
|
pcrawford
Nov 6, 2006, 6:07 PM
Post #5 of 29
(7693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2006
Posts: 4
|
to add to the discussion. have you ever seen or heard of a rope coming up-clipped in QD setup mentioned above?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Nov 6, 2006, 6:38 PM
Post #6 of 29
(7693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Nothing at all wrong with reversed and opposed nonlockers.
|
|
|
|
|
endercore
Nov 7, 2006, 1:11 AM
Post #7 of 29
(7693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 100
|
i climb like that all the time.
however, when setting TR's at camp, I use lockers and webbing.
|
|
|
|
|
devils_advocate
Nov 7, 2006, 1:24 AM
Post #8 of 29
(7693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1823
|
In reply to: But if you are climbing with a group, and you might leave the route to play elsewhere, you should go even safer that that:
You know, I can see if you happen to climb in some remote area where [sport] climbing isn't very populated. But most [sport] areas I've been to are flooded with people - actually, I believe that's the definition of sport climbing. I hate, hate, hate, when people string up TRs on 3-4 routes across a wall and just leave them there unused for half a day. Free it up for others, and make a small attempt at minimizing the gym appearance of our sport areas.
It's a sport route, when your party wants to get back on it again, get your leader (or one of the many) to hop on there real quick and throw the line back up. It takes 5 minutes. It's sport climbing.
Edit: as far as the OP. Krusher4 summed it all up: It's a personal preference. Obviously lockers are safer, but there's nothing wrong with opposite and opposed.
|
|
|
|
|
bighairyd
Nov 9, 2006, 11:24 PM
Post #9 of 29
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2006
Posts: 4
|
I say always be as safe as you can. Lockers are definately safer so that's what I use.
|
|
|
|
|
lexmark
Nov 9, 2006, 11:43 PM
Post #10 of 29
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2002
Posts: 90
|
[quote="dan2see"] That's a lot safer, it doesn't wear down the anchors, and it's just as easy to take down.
How do lockers on the anchors wear them down any less than a normal qd biner?
I'd say that the differences in 1 and 3 about cancel out.
Add in the fact that if anyone wants to lead the route after your set-up, they're gonna have to hang on a looong time to unscrew and clip the anchors.
I'm all about lockers when I rap down and bolt a route.
From personal experience, whether or not to use a biner on your chalk bag (to attach it) while toproping is more of an real issue than lockers or not on top setups.
|
|
|
|
|
devils_advocate
Nov 10, 2006, 12:08 AM
Post #11 of 29
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1823
|
In reply to: From personal experience, whether or not to use a biner on your chalk bag (to attach it) while toproping is more of an real issue than lockers or not on top setups.
Are you kidding? I always use a locker for my chalkbag while TR-ing. If it's Multi-pitch TR I'll usually throw on another biner, opposite and opposed, just to be sure. :D
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Nov 10, 2006, 1:01 PM
Post #12 of 29
(6352 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
[quote:3c18030725="pcrawford"]After leading a climb I usually clip two of my longer QDs into the two anchors and then lower off. If my second is not leading the route they usually just top rope off this setup. One draw on each anchor and the gates opposed on the rope.
One guy I was climbing with this weekend didn't like this set up and prefered to have locking beaners on the anchors vs non-locking QD's... I'm courous how you do this and what you think about the locking vs. non-locking setup.[/quote:3c18030725]
Come on. I cant believe that there is really a debate here. Lockers or opposite and opposed non lockers for a TR. Gimme me a break... Whats next, should I use my 10.2 mm or 10.5 mm rope on TR?...
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
Nov 10, 2006, 1:29 PM
Post #13 of 29
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
Lockers on the anchor side of your QD would be safer, but seeing as how in this situation there's little chance of anything loading the gate, lockers probably aren't necessary. As for the rope side, however, you can use either two opposite and opposed biners or one locking biner. They are equivalent. I suggest you don't use a locker when someone is going to lead the route after you, though. Unlocking a locker when you're pumped at the anchors sucks!
|
|
|
|
|
nnowinowski
Nov 10, 2006, 3:58 PM
Post #14 of 29
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 84
|
If there are cold shuts I girth hitch a 2 foot sling to one shut and leave a free hanging backup locker on the rope. Might be best to do this with at least 12mil spectra nylon blend.
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Nov 10, 2006, 4:44 PM
Post #15 of 29
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
In reply to: In reply to: That's a lot safer, it doesn't wear down the anchors, and it's just as easy to take down. How do lockers on the anchors wear them down any less than a normal qd biner?
Oops, I was thinking about a short-cut some guys use. They thread their rope directly through the rings on the anchor and TR off that. No hardware at all. It works, but it will eventually wear the rings.
That's what I meant to say.
My friends don't do that, we always use something to isolate the rope action from the rings, on TR. On the other hand, if I lead a route, and nobody else is going to climb soon, then I do thread the rings, get lowered, and pull down my rope.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Nov 10, 2006, 4:46 PM
Post #16 of 29
(7693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
Another vote for 2 QDs opposite/opposed.
Though I don't understand why you guys are saying that unlocking a locked 'biner would be hard for the person who desides to lead after top-roper with locked 'biner set-up on anchors. What's wrong with the leader ignoring the locked 'biners, slings, etc, already at the anchor, clipping your own quickdraws/rope at the anchors, and then unscrewing free-hanging unloaded locked biner at your leusure?
|
|
|
|
|
112
Nov 10, 2006, 5:03 PM
Post #17 of 29
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 432
|
I go with 2 long draws as a standard TR set-up on bolts, but when I want to be even more safe (not often), I carry an extra oversized locker and throw it in between the 2 non-lockers on the rope side. That's it, nothing more!
|
|
|
|
|
cam
Nov 10, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #18 of 29
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 219
|
In reply to: As for the rope side, however, you can use either two opposite and opposed biners or one locking biner. They are equivalent.
No, they are not. Using one biner instead of two is begging for tri-axial loading. Your replacing one problem with another. Since we're talking about being ultra safe here, why would you try to improve on two biners, with one tri-axially loaded biner? Sure, the risk of a single biner being loaded in such a way on the anchor is small, but so is the chance of a rope somehow finding its way out of two opposite and opposed biners. Further, the method by which the rope would become disengaged from two biners would surely toss around a single biner allowing a tri-axial load situation.
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Nov 10, 2006, 11:11 PM
Post #19 of 29
(7693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
In reply to: In reply to: As for the rope side, however, you can use either two opposite and opposed biners or one locking biner. They are equivalent. No, they are not. Using one biner instead of two is begging for tri-axial loading. Your replacing one problem with another. Since we're talking about being ultra safe here, why would you try to improve on two biners, with one tri-axially loaded biner? Sure, the risk of a single biner being loaded in such a way on the anchor is small, but so is the chance of a rope somehow finding its way out of two opposite and opposed biners. Further, the method by which the rope would become disengaged from two biners would surely toss around a single biner allowing a tri-axial load situation.
I imagine he was referring to some sort of a sliding x system as opposed to two quick draws and a single locking biner.
|
|
|
|
|
cam
Nov 11, 2006, 12:13 AM
Post #20 of 29
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 219
|
Well, looks like someone didn't like my post above. Makes me wonder why. If it's because they think I'm full of crap, then I encourage THAT PERSON to adopt the system in question and let me know when it fails.
You know, you try to help someone out by pointing out potentially dangerous info and some prick flings a turd at you. Real nice.
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
Nov 13, 2006, 3:34 PM
Post #21 of 29
(6741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
[reply][quote][quote]As for the rope side, however, you can use either two opposite and opposed biners or one locking biner. They are equivalent. [/quote]
No, they are not. Using one biner instead of two is begging for tri-axial loading. Your replacing one problem with another. Since we're talking about being ultra safe here, why would you try to improve on two biners, with one tri-axially loaded biner? Sure, the risk of a single biner being loaded in such a way on the anchor is small, but so is the chance of a rope somehow finding its way out of two opposite and opposed biners. Further, the method by which the rope would become disengaged from two biners would surely toss around a single biner allowing a tri-axial load situation.[/quote]
I imagine he was referring to some sort of a sliding x system as opposed to two quick draws and a single locking biner.[/reply]
@jumpingrock: Yes, that is what I was referring to, but I should have made that more clear. When I wrote in the original post, for some stupid reason I decided to forget, for that one sentence, that we were talking about anchoring off of quickdraws. In that situation, my advice was incorrect and just plain stupid. Cam, was 100% correct in saying that that would cause tri-axial loading that would actually decrease the overall safety of the system.
I started thinking about sliding x's (which have been on my mind a lot recently, btw) in which you could use either a single locker or two, opposite and opposed non-lockers and that is why I said what I did.
@cam: If, in your last post you are referring to me, I apologize for not replying sooner. I tried on Friday but I'm stuck on crappy-ass dial-up while here at work and RC.com was not cooperating. Then the site went down all weekend and I'm just now getting back to you.
Patience, my young Padawan! Patience!
|
|
|
|
|
cam
Nov 13, 2006, 4:59 PM
Post #22 of 29
(6712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 219
|
In reply to: @cam: If, in your last post you are referring to me, I apologize for not replying sooner. I tried on Friday but I'm stuck on crappy-ass dial-up while here at work and RC.com was not cooperating. Then the site went down all weekend and I'm just now getting back to you.
Nope, wasn't refering to you, unless you were the one that rated my post with a steaming pile of turd. Can't for the life of me figure out why some rated my post with a turd...it was spot on. Whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
Nov 13, 2006, 5:22 PM
Post #23 of 29
(6690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
In reply to: In reply to: @cam: If, in your last post you are referring to me, I apologize for not replying sooner. I tried on Friday but I'm stuck on crappy-ass dial-up while here at work and RC.com was not cooperating. Then the site went down all weekend and I'm just now getting back to you. Nope, wasn't refering to you, unless you were the one that rated my post with a steaming pile of turd. Can't for the life of me figure out why some rated my post with a turd...it was spot on. Whatever.
Nope, wasn't me. I thought your post was spot on as well, and I'm the one who made the original comment!
|
|
|
|
|
coolklimber
Nov 13, 2006, 10:48 PM
Post #24 of 29
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 299
|
Usually lockers are preferred, because of the probability that the two top biners will be rubbing on rock, possibly catching the gate and opening it.
>Cam
|
|
|
|
|
aerodrift
Nov 23, 2006, 5:30 AM
Post #25 of 29
(6523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 9
|
always two lockers and two biners opposite and opposed for redundancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
