|
rtwilli4
May 24, 2008, 6:14 AM
Post #1 of 81
(4239 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 1867
|
Is there ever any time when you should attach a biner to your harness by using both the waist belt and leg loop? Please tell me if there is because I can't think of one. Why do people insist on doing this, and even worse, teaching others to do this. It is the most common mistake that I see as far as improper use of equipment. To make it worse, I just read a post in the accident forum where someone stated that their biner was attached in this way and it took like 6 people posting before anyone said anything about it. Where has this technique come from and why is it SO widespread. Information that comes with harnesses specifically say that this is incorrect, and some of them even have a diagram printed on the belay loop!!
Sorry I don't mean to start a stupid thread but I just don't understand why this issue is still an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
corankinrok
May 24, 2008, 6:40 AM
Post #2 of 81
(4229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 34
|
OK I'll bite. If you are using for example a BD Alpine Bod you better clip both the leg loop and waist belt or do it your way.
|
|
|
|
|
poedoe
May 24, 2008, 7:11 AM
Post #3 of 81
(4218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2005
Posts: 107
|
I find it's extremely prevalent in gyms that use grigri's which are permanently attached to the ropes (rope is threaded and steel quicklink is attached). Because this creates a twisting when you correctly use the belay loop I see a lot of people at these gyms (who usually learned to climb at the gym) do what you're talking about.
OR it may be because clipping into both points with a biner is stronger because the metal biner is stronger than the nylon belay loop.
|
|
|
|
|
bodyboarder
May 24, 2008, 7:23 AM
Post #4 of 81
(4210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2005
Posts: 298
|
poedoe wrote: OR it may be because clipping into both points with a biner is stronger because the metal biner is stronger than the nylon belay loop.
But it's not....
|
|
|
|
|
talmek
May 24, 2008, 7:32 AM
Post #5 of 81
(4207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 3
|
I think the reason is to bypass the belay loop, which is a single point of failure. If either the waist loop or the leg loop fails, you have the other to keep you attached to the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
colatownkid
May 24, 2008, 1:20 PM
Post #6 of 81
(4131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512
|
talmek wrote: I think the reason is to bypass the belay loop, which is a single point of failure.
except the rope is also a "single point of failure."
belay loops are there for a reason. if they weren't over-engineered to be damn near unbreakable they wouldn't be on harnesses in the first place. clipping biners to tie-in points and leg loops adds unnecessary redundancy. it also adds triaxial loading to the biner. so while you may be backing up the extraordinarily beefy belay loop that's designed to take massive loads, you're also making the carabiner much more likely to break. personally i'd rather take me chances with the belay loop.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
May 24, 2008, 1:27 PM
Post #7 of 81
(4122 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
When belaying from the ground I always clip to my leg loops and waist belt.
The argument against it is the the biner might get cross loaded, but when I do it doesn't.
The argument for clipping to the belay loop is to prevent cross loading which it does frequently when I do it!!! I can assure you that clipping into the belay loop is not safer for me when belaying from the ground.
What I do on multi-pitch varies according to the situation and gear I am using.
Use a system that is safe and works for you.
|
|
|
|
|
rtwilli4
May 24, 2008, 2:33 PM
Post #8 of 81
(4090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 1867
|
In reply to: belay loops are there for a reason. if they weren't over-engineered to be damn near unbreakable they wouldn't be on harnesses in the first place. clipping biners to tie-in points and leg loops adds unnecessary redundancy. it also adds triaxial loading to the biner. so while you may be backing up the extraordinarily beefy belay loop that's designed to take massive loads, you're also making the carabiner much more likely to break. personally i'd rather take me chances with the belay loop.
i was hoping someone would say that
mheyman, I understand you want to do what is safest for you but why do you get cross loading on the belay loop ? it's very easy to prevent while on the ground and at an anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
May 24, 2008, 3:36 PM
Post #9 of 81
(4053 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
In reply to: why do you get cross loading on the belay loop?
I don’t use pinch and slide and I do keep my partners locked off thumb toward the device in its strongest position to arrest a fall. But, the harness loop biner belay device is to long for for my arms to comfortably hold tight with the rope locked off.
Then while I am watching a climber top out, and I begin to lower, I eventually look down and find the biner rotated with the rope across the gate! Never happens clipped to my leg loops and waist belt.
Note that I generally belay from appropriate locations relatively near to climb - IE not slingshot. The rope rides in the top of the biner. If I needed to belay from a slingshot location I might reconsider for that spot.
In reply to: it's very easy to prevent while on the ground and at an anchor.
Suggestion?. I am willing to try.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
May 24, 2008, 3:51 PM
Post #10 of 81
(4049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
rtwilli4 wrote: Is there ever any time when you should attach a biner to your harness by using both the waist belt and leg loop? Please tell me if there is because I can't think of one. Why do people insist on doing this, and even worse, teaching others to do this. It is the most common mistake that I see as far as improper use of equipment. To make it worse, I just read a post in the accident forum where someone stated that their biner was attached in this way and it took like 6 people posting before anyone said anything about it. Where has this technique come from and why is it SO widespread. Information that comes with harnesses specifically say that this is incorrect, and some of them even have a diagram printed on the belay loop!!
I'll be the first. Try using the search function.
Does your harness has a belay loop? Then use it. If it doesn't, you need to be mindful of possible tri-loading when times call for you to put a biner through both the leg and waist loops.
rtwilli4 wrote: Sorry I don't mean to start a stupid thread but I just don't understand why this issue is still an issue.
D'oh
|
|
|
|
|
hopperhopper
May 24, 2008, 3:58 PM
Post #11 of 81
(4041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 475
|
it's called a belay loop for a reason. use it to belay.
|
|
|
|
|
snakedevil
May 24, 2008, 4:03 PM
Post #12 of 81
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2006
Posts: 41
|
correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you clip to both the leg loops and the waist loops, then yes, it would create triaxial loading if you fell away from the wall at a right angle. But generally gravity forces you downward, so in a real fall the leg loop and the biner will be taking the majority of the force, with the waist loop not really loading the carabiner at all.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
May 24, 2008, 4:20 PM
Post #13 of 81
(4026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
cross loading isn't the problem when belaying with the biner through you two tie-in loops. The problem is tri-axel loading, causing the force to be incorrectly loaded onto the biner (IE not along the spine)
If you want to avoid cross loding, get a DMM belay master (damn ncie biner and relly usefull for those awkward cramped clusterF"£*ck belays).
but FFS, biners go on the belay loop, rope goes through the tie-ins, and those are the only things you should attach to the harness.
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
May 24, 2008, 5:00 PM
Post #14 of 81
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: In reply to:belay loops are there for a reason. if they weren't over-engineered to be damn near unbreakable they wouldn't be on harnesses in the first place. clipping biners to tie-in points and leg loops adds unnecessary redundancy. it also adds triaxial loading to the biner. so while you may be backing up the extraordinarily beefy belay loop that's designed to take massive loads, you're also making the carabiner much more likely to break. personally i'd rather take me chances with the belay loop. i was hoping someone would say that
I'll start by saying that I use the belay loop, so it's not like I just don't trust it, or think it's a terrible idea, or anything like that, but:
--They are 14 KN. Whoever said before that belay loops are stronger than 'biners is dead wrong. While one 'biner, if cross loaded, is weaker than 14KN, using two would eliminate the argument that the belay loop is stronger, even if one of them does cross load. When belaying, with attention, there is really no justifiable reason for your 'biners to cross load when properly clipped in through both leg loop and waist belt as your set up should be constantly inspected by you, the belayer.
--Belay loops are a single point of failure, and they are one that experiences wear and tear (unlike 'biners). If you don't believe it, then my answer to you is "Todd Skinner".
--'Biners directly through the swami really are no big deal. Nobody is "stupid" for doing it this way. They usually do not cross load, and the system can absorb enormous force. If you don't believe it, then my answer to you is "Roped soloing self-belay", which relies (with my device) on two locking biners, gates opposed, clipped directly through leg loops and swami, and will sustain enormous loads generated by lead fall directly onto static anchors. There is a reason that you don't clip into the belay loop to absorb that kind of force.
I'm not knocking the loop per se (I use it inconsistently). But those who choose to ignore it aren't idiots by any stretch of the imagination. As far as I can tell, the belay loop is essentially designed for folks who aren't experienced enough to evaluate loads, loading, and risk within their own belay systems. And if you can't do that, should you even be out there?
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
May 24, 2008, 5:18 PM
Post #15 of 81
(3973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: If you don't believe it, then my answer to you is "Roped soloing self-belay", which relies (with my device) on two locking biners, gates opposed, clipped directly through leg loops and swami, and will sustain enormous loads generated by lead fall directly onto static anchors. There is a reason that you don't clip into the belay loop to absorb that kind of force.
What kind of forces (?kn) are you putting on your harness with a dynamic rope in your system?
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on May 24, 2008, 5:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sherron99
May 24, 2008, 5:21 PM
Post #16 of 81
(3965 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2007
Posts: 224
|
Actually, when me and partner rope up for glacier travel we use this method because for a rope of two it makes escaping the rope easier after a crevasse fall.
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
May 24, 2008, 5:34 PM
Post #17 of 81
(3955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: What kind of forces (?kn) are you putting on your harness with a dynamic rope in your system?
That's difficult to say. It's not like falling directly on to an anchor vs. on to a human belayed system doubles forces or anything to that extreme. Suffice to say though, that self belayed falls result in increased loads when compared with human-belayed falls. There are a lot of variables in there though. Like: Is my person belaying off the anchor or off the harness? If I am self-belaying, and I equalize with a dynamic cordlette, then what? What if I equalize with the dynamic lead rope itself? These variables make it difficult to provide precise numbers. And I'm not a lab tech. I just build the system to specs that I know exceed the anticipated loads. And then I add a little more (for peace of mind.....True "experts" trust their own system more than I do....I have proven myself to be fallible, so I try to account for my own known inconsistencies).
I understand the purpose of the belay loop, in terms of distributing force into the harness properly, but it's primary weakness is that it is made of cloth and is subject to wear in the real world. Cutting it off, and replacing it with two opposed locking 'biners through the tie-in points would result in a stronger, more reliable system. (That loop is just extra garbage "in the way" when rope-soloing).
What is interesting, is that quality (there are poor quality ones available as well) tree harnesses utilize a "tie in loop" as well, but it is a stainless steel quicklink, and an enormous one at that (probably 60-70 KN). It's a pain in the ass, due to it's weight, but there is probably a middle-ground, reliable solution that is seriously strong, metal, and light-weight enough to be suitable for rock climbing.
Sorry to not really answer your question that well.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 24, 2008, 5:56 PM
Post #18 of 81
(3919 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: I understand the purpose of the belay loop, in terms of distributing force into the harness properly, but it's primary weakness is that it is made of cloth and is subject to wear in the real world. Cutting it off, and replacing it with two opposed locking 'biners through the tie-in points would result in a stronger, more reliable system.
In the real world, the harness's tie-in points wear out before the belay loop, so the harness has to be retired before wear of the belay loop becomes a concern. I don't think I've ever heard of a belay loop failing, except for Todd Skinner's case, which was a clear abuse of equipment; so I don't see any evidence that belay loops aren't essentially 100% reliable.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
May 24, 2008, 6:11 PM
Post #20 of 81
(3906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: Information that comes with harnesses specifically say that this is incorrect, and some of them even have a diagram printed on the belay loop!!
This isn't about a belay loop, but I'll relate a short story to you.
I purchased a harness a few years back from a reputable manufacturer. It was worn properly, etc. A month after purchase, I took a good (15-20') lead fall wearing the harness. Upon connecting with the ground again, after the andrenaline shock wore off, I looked down to see that one of the leg loops had broken.
It turns out, that the leg loop was not a continuous piece of webbing (like BD harnesses are), but held together with a tiny plastic buckle, smaller than you'd see on a backpack or other non-climbing-safe piece of equipment. The integrity of the harness depended on a connection point rated to oh, say....60 lbs.
I took the harness to a nearby shop, and had them look at it.....They were shocked, and confirmed that the design was seriously flawed to any intelligent observer. It was actually inexcusable that the manufacturer had put the design on the market. They promised to mail it back for me, with comments. I didn't want to replace it with a new one from the same company. The company was indeed reputable, and I can only hope that they redesigned the harness.
The point is: Manufacturers can be wrong. They have been wrong. "Fads" come and go, and it won't suprise me in the least if belay loops, as they are presently designed, will be another fad either destined to be abandoned or (more likely) re-engineered for improved safety in the future.
Your safety is your responsibility, and that responsibility depends on your understanding of loads, and weak points within your safety system. You will not gain this understanding by assuming that your manufacturer is correct 100% of the time, or that there isn't "another way" (or even, a better way) to do things safely. Remember, that manufacturers assume your stupidity, rather than your intelligence, and instruct you accordingly (as they should). Which is why, even though Gri-Gri's are not approved by the manufacturer for self-belay, intelligent people still choose to adapt them to that purpose (but not me....).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 24, 2008, 6:18 PM
Post #21 of 81
(3898 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: The integrity of the harness depended on a connection point rated to oh, say....60 lbs.
I don't believe that. Which manufacturer? Which harness?
In reply to: The point is: Manufacturers can be wrong.
I suspect that you are more likely to be wrong than the manufacturer.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 24, 2008, 6:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
May 24, 2008, 6:29 PM
Post #22 of 81
(3883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: I don't believe that. Which manufacturer? Which harness?
Fair enough. It was a Misty Mtn. harness. I don't remember the "model"...it was one of the less expenseive ones, and it was in 2004. The 60 lbs. thing was a bit cheeky, since I don't really know what it was rated too, but it couldn't have been more than a couple of hundred pounds, max.
They flawed design was observed and confirmed by a number of experienced climbers. We're not manufacturers, but we're not stupid, either.
In reply to: I suspect that you are more likely to be wrong than the manufacturer.
I don't make a habit of second-guessing manufacturers. In this case, I received a piece of bunk equipment. I don't really care what you suspect or don't. I was right. The harness was poorly designed and broke under normal loading. It is foolish to debate that point. I was there (and so were others), you were not. All due respect, though, since it's usually more likely that operator error occurs than a manufacturing flaw.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 24, 2008, 6:40 PM
Post #23 of 81
(3876 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: In reply to: I don't believe that. Which manufacturer? Which harness? Fair enough. It was a Misty Mtn. harness. I don't remember the "model"...it was one of the less expenseive ones, and it was in 2004. The 60 lbs. thing was a bit cheeky, since I don't really know what it was rated too, but it couldn't have been more than a couple of hundred pounds, max. They flawed design was observed and confirmed by a number of experienced climbers. We're not manufacturers, but we're not stupid, either. In reply to: I suspect that you are more likely to be wrong than the manufacturer. I don't make a habit of second-guessing manufacturers. In this case, I received a piece of bunk equipment. I don't really care what you suspect or don't. I was right. The harness was poorly designed and broke under normal loading. It is foolish to debate that point. I was there (and so were others), you were not. All due respect, though, since it's usually more likely that operator error occurs than a manufacturing flaw.
It is only foolish to debate the point because you have not substantiated your claim with any evidence, or even a detailed description of this so-called "failure." I have no reason to believe that you're making this story up, but I also have no reason to believe that you were necessarily using the equipment properly, or misinterpreted the failure of a retaining strap as a failure of a leg loop.
That a commercial climbing equipment manufacturer would design a harness that would fail under body weight loads when CE standards require it have 20-some kN of strength is a pretty big claim. Big claims require big support to be believable. And you haven't presented anywhere near that level of support.
Consider that if your claim were true, we should have heard of multiple failure of this particular harness model, since falls of the magnitude you describe are commonplace. And, this harness would have been recalled. Furthermore, a climbing manufacturer marketing a harness that would fail at 200 lb should have been big news in the climbing magazines. It is hard to understand how your story could be the first we heard about this.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 24, 2008, 6:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wcfauna
May 24, 2008, 6:41 PM
Post #24 of 81
(3873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 19
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: In reply to: --They are 14 KN. Whoever said before that belay loops are stronger than 'biners is dead wrong. While one 'biner, if cross loaded, is weaker than 14KN, using two would eliminate the argument that the belay loop is stronger, even if one of them does cross load. When belaying, with attention, there is really no justifiable reason for your 'biners to cross load when properly clipped in through both leg loop and waist belt as your set up should be constantly inspected by you, the belayer. I'm sorry but it seems that you have misunderstood the construction of belay loop and their strenght. As can be seen on harnesses with a belay loop, it is made of not one, but two rounds of webbing, sewed together. If one round loop of sewn webbing can take 22KN, how come that two rounds take only 14KN?
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
May 24, 2008, 6:54 PM
Post #25 of 81
(3854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: It is only foolish to debate the point because you have not substantiated your claim with any evidence, or even a detailed description of this so-called "failure." I have no reason to believe that you're making this story up, but I also have no reason to believe that you were necessarily using the equipment properly, or misinterpreted the failure of a retaining strap as a failure of a leg loop. That a commercial climbing equipment manufacturer would design a harness that would fail under body weight loads when CE standards require it have 20-some kN of strength is a pretty big claim. Big claims require big support to be believable. And you haven't presented anywhere near that level of support. Jay
You got me. I cannot substantiate the claim to your satisfaction, nor could my space-cadet partners present at the time, and that is why I originally left out the name of the manufacturer, 'lest anyone think that I'm slandering a company with a good reputation.
At time of incident, the "evidence" was enough for me to purchase another brand of harness in which the leg-loop was continuous webbing, and not held together with the small buckle.
We sent the harness back to Misty Mtn. for their evaluation with a brief explanation of the "incident". I have absolute faith that they took an objective look at their design and the failure, and came to a reasonable conclusion (which may have been, "operator error, the design stands"). Nobody should be avoiding Misty Mtn. gear due to my comments, for, as Jay pointed out, my claim cannot be reasonably substantiated at all.
I'm already sorry that I mentioned their name in negative context at all.
In reply to: misinterpreted the failure of a retaining strap as a failure of a leg loop.
I'm a smart guy. I know the difference. The leg loop broke. The retaining strap remained functional. I might also say, that I struck the wall on my way down, and we considered the possibility that slamming into the wall resulted in the buckle breaking. Our inability to observe any damage on the buckle consistent with smashing into the wall does not mean that this did not occur, as the position of the buckle and my body would have likely struck the buckle against the wall with force. If that did occur, I wouldn't consider it to be a design flaw, so I best put that right out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
