|
|
|
|
Maxx640
Nov 16, 2009, 5:17 PM
Post #1 of 39
(6193 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2008
Posts: 31
|
Hello,
I was talking with a friend who climbs mostly trad, and he showed me the way he does his anchors (when there are 2 points: see image).
1. He ties himself in on each point with his rope using a clove hitch.
2. He ties a loop with the two ropes together (the ones towards the other climber) so that the tension is equalized.
3. On that loop he places a Reverso and belays the second.
4. When the second arrives, he clips in on the loop, takes the gear. The leader puts the reverso on his harness, the second clips the rope in on the loop as first placement not to shock the anchor in case of a fall, unclips and starts off as leader.
Isn't there a risk when belaying directly on the rope instead of using slings? He also has an other technique where instead of a sling he uses a piece of 8.6mm rope with a loop on each end placed on the anchor and a loop knot in the middle. It's a Y shape.
Is that safe? If it is, it would save a lot of cluster.
|
|
Attachments:
|
Belay idea.jpg
(49.8 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
subantz
Nov 16, 2009, 5:23 PM
Post #2 of 39
(6182 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247
|
You should have been a art major!
|
|
|
|
|
crazy_fingers84
Nov 16, 2009, 5:29 PM
Post #3 of 39
(6167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2006
Posts: 418
|
Maxx640 wrote: Hello, I was talking with a friend who climbs mostly trad, and he showed me the way he does his anchors (when there are 2 points: see image). 1. He ties himself in on each point with his rope using a clove hitch. 2. He ties a loop with the two ropes together (the ones towards the other climber) so that the tension is equalized. 3. On that loop he places a Reverso and belays the second. 4. When the second arrives, he clips in on the loop, takes the gear. The leader puts the reverso on his harness, the second clips the rope in on the loop as first placement not to shock the anchor in case of a fall, unclips and starts off as leader. Isn't there a risk when belaying directly on the rope instead of using slings? He also has an other technique where instead of a sling he uses a piece of 8.6mm rope with a loop on each end placed on the anchor and a loop knot in the middle. It's a Y shape. Is that safe? If it is, it would save a lot of cluster.  |
|
|
|
|
crazy_fingers84
Nov 16, 2009, 5:30 PM
Post #4 of 39
(6165 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2006
Posts: 418
|
subantz wrote: You should have been a art major!
you should have been an english major.
|
|
|
|
|
Maxx640
Nov 16, 2009, 5:34 PM
Post #5 of 39
(6161 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2008
Posts: 31
|
Sorry for the English bit, it's not my language and I had to look around on internet to translate the technical terms.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Nov 16, 2009, 5:35 PM
Post #6 of 39
(6157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
I honestly cannot tell from your awful picture, but why would the rope be less safe than slings. That makes no sense whatsoever. You probably belay through your tie in points.
|
|
|
|
|
lostlazy
Nov 16, 2009, 5:49 PM
Post #7 of 39
(6130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 136
|
Maxx640 wrote: Hello, I was talking with a friend who climbs mostly trad, and he showed me the way he does his anchors (when there are 2 points: see image). 1. He ties himself in on each point with his rope using a clove hitch. 2. He ties a loop with the two ropes together (the ones towards the other climber) so that the tension is equalized. 3. On that loop he places a Reverso and belays the second. 4. When the second arrives, he clips in on the loop, takes the gear. The leader puts the reverso on his harness, the second clips the rope in on the loop as first placement not to shock the anchor in case of a fall, unclips and starts off as leader. Isn't there a risk when belaying directly on the rope instead of using slings? He also has an other technique where instead of a sling he uses a piece of 8.6mm rope with a loop on each end placed on the anchor and a loop knot in the middle. It's a Y shape. Is that safe? If it is, it would save a lot of cluster.
So the leader of the next pitch makes that loop their first placement...that doesn't make much sense to me. Unless I am losing something in the translation.
|
|
|
|
|
crazy_fingers84
Nov 16, 2009, 6:01 PM
Post #8 of 39
(6105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2006
Posts: 418
|
Maxx640 wrote: Sorry for the English bit, it's not my language and I had to look around on internet to translate the technical terms.
i wasn't knocking your english skills.
|
|
|
|
|
Maxx640
Nov 16, 2009, 6:10 PM
Post #9 of 39
(6092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2008
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: So the leader of the next pitch makes that loop their first placement...that doesn't make much sense to me. Unless I am losing something in the translation.
Yes, but it's only temporary. If the leader of the next pitch falls before his first piece he doesn't fall directly on the belayer.
So you seem to say it's ok to follow that method?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 16, 2009, 6:15 PM
Post #10 of 39
(6083 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
French guy technique seems OK to me. Its not the way I do things but I'd climb with a competent partner belaying like that, sure.
No additional risk incorporating rope into belay anchor, no. Some minor complications, if for example leader runs out of rope before reaching adequate belay and 2nd has to disassemble belay quickly... Or belay escape is leader is damaged.... Complications are easily managed I would add.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Nov 16, 2009, 6:17 PM
Post #11 of 39
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
Majid! As if we wouldn't know ...
|
|
|
|
|
subantz
Nov 16, 2009, 6:17 PM
Post #12 of 39
(6076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247
|
And you should be a Male message therepist. Here you can start rubbing on this 8====D---
|
|
|
|
|
subantz
Nov 16, 2009, 7:03 PM
Post #14 of 39
(6010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247
|
Dont you have potato's to harvest.
|
|
|
|
|
dolphja
Nov 16, 2009, 7:10 PM
Post #15 of 39
(6000 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2001
Posts: 298
|
crazy_fingers84 wrote: subantz wrote: And you should be a Male message therepist. Here you can start rubbing on this 8====D--- not really sure what a message therepist is.
i think a message therepist is the guy who sends you a pm because you didn't do spell check before sending your message .... sorry, i couldn't resist
(This post was edited by dolphja on Nov 16, 2009, 7:14 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
crazy_fingers84
Nov 16, 2009, 7:11 PM
Post #16 of 39
(5996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2006
Posts: 418
|
subantz wrote: Dont you have potato's to harvest.
don't you have a cousin to sleep with?
|
|
|
|
|
subantz
Nov 16, 2009, 7:24 PM
Post #17 of 39
(5982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247
|
Go spin a gerbil.
|
|
|
|
|
dugl33
Nov 16, 2009, 7:31 PM
Post #18 of 39
(5978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740
|
Seems ok to me, assuming I'm picturing this right.
Only disadvantages that come to mind would be if 1.) the next pitch is long enough to need the full rope length, 2.) it would be trickier to escape the belay, and 3.) requires swinging leads or rearranging the anchor if not swinging leads.
Regarding "not shock loading the anchor" I don't see how this is really the case. The fall will be distributed to both sides of the anchor, but you're still landing on it. Part of the advantage of a three piece anchor is that if one piece fails, you're still on a two piece anchor. If you're on a two piece anchor, each piece better be bomber.
And, with regards to the y loop of 8.6 mm, bear in mind that anytime you make single strand connections, in webbing, cord, whatever... the single strand has half the strength a loop would have. Not saying this is necessarily dangerous, just something to keep in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
lostlazy
Nov 16, 2009, 8:16 PM
Post #19 of 39
(5930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 136
|
Maxx640 wrote: In reply to: So the leader of the next pitch makes that loop their first placement...that doesn't make much sense to me. Unless I am losing something in the translation. Yes, but it's only temporary. If the leader of the next pitch falls before his first piece he doesn't fall directly on the belayer. So you seem to say it's ok to follow that method?
No, not at all, as I still don't quite understand how the loop will be used at the first placement. How will rope be fed if the loop is clipped to the first placement ?
As far as the anchor set up goes, if you are confident in the pieces you have placed, and keep the triangle as tight as possible, I say OK to the anchor, especially if you are swinging leads and don't want to carry a bunch of extra belay gear with you, but I always love a third piece.
Still can't wrap my head around the belay loop in the ropes being used as first placement though...
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Nov 16, 2009, 9:15 PM
Post #20 of 39
(5887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
lostlazy wrote: Maxx640 wrote: In reply to: So the leader of the next pitch makes that loop their first placement...that doesn't make much sense to me. Unless I am losing something in the translation. Yes, but it's only temporary. If the leader of the next pitch falls before his first piece he doesn't fall directly on the belayer. So you seem to say it's ok to follow that method? No, not at all, as I still don't quite understand how the loop will be used at the first placement. How will rope be fed if the loop is clipped to the first placement ? As far as the anchor set up goes, if you are confident in the pieces you have placed, and keep the triangle as tight as possible, I say OK to the anchor, especially if you are swinging leads and don't want to carry a bunch of extra belay gear with you, but I always love a third piece. Still can't wrap my head around the belay loop in the ropes being used as first placement though...
I'm pretty sure he is saying that when the leader takes off on the "next" pitch, the belay would be from the harness with the master point ("loop") as the first point of protection.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Nov 16, 2009, 9:18 PM
Post #21 of 39
(5877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Aside from the points raised by Dingus and dugl33 I don't see a real problem with this. Wasn't too long ago that many/ most anchors were constructed with the climbing rope. Kind of a lost art these days...
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Nov 16, 2009, 9:22 PM
Post #22 of 39
(5875 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
lostlazy wrote: Maxx640 wrote: In reply to: So the leader of the next pitch makes that loop their first placement...that doesn't make much sense to me. Unless I am losing something in the translation. Yes, but it's only temporary. If the leader of the next pitch falls before his first piece he doesn't fall directly on the belayer. So you seem to say it's ok to follow that method? No, not at all, as I still don't quite understand how the loop will be used at the first placement. How will rope be fed if the loop is clipped to the first placement ? As far as the anchor set up goes, if you are confident in the pieces you have placed, and keep the triangle as tight as possible, I say OK to the anchor, especially if you are swinging leads and don't want to carry a bunch of extra belay gear with you, but I always love a third piece. Still can't wrap my head around the belay loop in the ropes being used as first placement though...
The "loop" is the masterpoint of the anchor, from which #2 was being belayed. Once #2 arrives, he clips into the masterpoint. #1 takes the belay device off the masterpoint, clips it to his harness, and prepares to belay #2. #2 clips the masterpoint as the first piece of gear, basically making the ENTIRE anchor his first piece. Unclips the safety off the masterpoint then starts climbing.
The idea is like using one piece of your anchor as the first pro, so you don't take a FF2 onto the anchor. But in this case, I'm not sure how much of a difference it's going to make, as the masterpoint (at least in the drawing) is at the same level as the belayer. Seems to me that a fall on the masterpoint is just going to pull the masterpoint to the belayer without doing much to reduce the distance of the fall. For it to be effective, it would have to be a distance above the belayer.
|
|
|
|
|
lostlazy
Nov 16, 2009, 10:08 PM
Post #23 of 39
(5822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 136
|
qtm wrote: lostlazy wrote: Maxx640 wrote: In reply to: So the leader of the next pitch makes that loop their first placement...that doesn't make much sense to me. Unless I am losing something in the translation. Yes, but it's only temporary. If the leader of the next pitch falls before his first piece he doesn't fall directly on the belayer. So you seem to say it's ok to follow that method? No, not at all, as I still don't quite understand how the loop will be used at the first placement. How will rope be fed if the loop is clipped to the first placement ? As far as the anchor set up goes, if you are confident in the pieces you have placed, and keep the triangle as tight as possible, I say OK to the anchor, especially if you are swinging leads and don't want to carry a bunch of extra belay gear with you, but I always love a third piece. Still can't wrap my head around the belay loop in the ropes being used as first placement though... The "loop" is the masterpoint of the anchor, from which #2 was being belayed. Once #2 arrives, he clips into the masterpoint. #1 takes the belay device off the masterpoint, clips it to his harness, and prepares to belay #2. #2 clips the masterpoint as the first piece of gear, basically making the ENTIRE anchor his first piece. Unclips the safety off the masterpoint then starts climbing. The idea is like using one piece of your anchor as the first pro, so you don't take a FF2 onto the anchor. But in this case, I'm not sure how much of a difference it's going to make, as the masterpoint (at least in the drawing) is at the same level as the belayer. Seems to me that a fall on the masterpoint is just going to pull the masterpoint to the belayer without doing much to reduce the distance of the fall. For it to be effective, it would have to be a distance above the belayer.
Thanks for clearing it up and agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Nov 17, 2009, 1:27 PM
Post #24 of 39
(5721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
As long as your two points are bomber, this is perfectly fine. If you are switching leads and on a 2-bolt anchor, then this is pretty quick.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Nov 17, 2009, 4:24 PM
Post #25 of 39
(5652 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
Having a bit difficulty with the art, but I think I get it.
Your system looks wrong, your partner should be directly cloved or hard knotted into the anchor points first, the system should then branch off from there by creating a master point with the free strands connected to YOU for the device. The way the guide or reverso is connected to the belay in this rendering is not correct or ideal for its auto locking mode .It should have its own isolated and equalized hard point connection on the strands connected to ME. The weight of the climber should be being distributed equally between both anchor points and at the proper angle in the event the rig should be loaded. It should hang free and higher off its own master point , to gain its proper , and most mechanical advantage… (belaying up the second should be done off the anchor in most cases, not the harness)because you do not generate the ff of a leader fall on toprope …it is probably just the drawing. Right?
When setup correctly…That looks similar to the rig we use on big walls when using double ropes on bolt anchors - its a little different on gear anchors but the same rig is very safe as long as the placements are good and the system is redundant. When setup correctly ,it is very simple, very strong, very safe, and as a bonus you save the weight of the extra cordage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
