Forums: Climbing Information: Gear Heads:
Saw this in the gunks last weekend.
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Gear Heads

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


wivanoff


Apr 13, 2013, 4:49 AM
Post #26 of 42 (1853 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 144

Re: [mojomonkey] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mojomonkey wrote:
Which is irrelevant to this situation, where they (likely scrambled up to) set up a toprope on a short climb.

Very true. Scramble up the Uberfall descent route and hike over to Ken's Crack. IIRC, there's a large tree on top directly above and a large block slightly to the right for anchors. Ken's would be more fun if it was longer. Very popular, tho. Here's a pic after a big rainstorm. http://www.rockclimbing.com/...aterfall__62967.html

I'll say this: if their 5mm TR anchor broke, the landing is TERRIBLE. You'd get hurt really badly on the huge block at the bottom


kobaz


Apr 13, 2013, 7:26 AM
Post #27 of 42 (1828 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 717

Re: [bearbreeder] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
...
as to TR anchors ... lead anchors need to withstand MUCH higher forces .. so realistically if you arent going to put whats basically bodyweigh + the pulley effect ... you shouldnt be leading off it if you have any choice

Wink

The single girth hitched tree anchor on a multipitch belay that we've been talking about equates to tr anchor forces as well. It would be the anchor for belaying up a second.


bearbreeder


Apr 13, 2013, 8:09 AM
Post #28 of 42 (1822 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [kobaz] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kobaz wrote:
The single girth hitched tree anchor on a multipitch belay that we've been talking about equates to tr anchor forces as well. It would be the anchor for belaying up a second.

which if you used the proper diameter cord/rope or a solid sling/webbing is not an issue for a belay anchor ... for bringing up a second especially

think about all those people here who girth hitch purcells prussics to their harnesses made of 7mm cord ... and expect that theyll survive whippers on static meterials should they fall ... the girth hitch aint the issue


Syd


Apr 13, 2013, 1:32 PM
Post #29 of 42 (1781 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [bearbreeder] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:

think about all those people here who girth hitch purcells prussics to their harnesses made of 7mm cord ... and expect that theyll survive whippers on static meterials should they fall ... the girth hitch aint the issue

What's the scenario and how should it be done correctly ?


Partner rgold


Apr 13, 2013, 1:58 PM
Post #30 of 42 (1774 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [bearbreeder] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

I agree with Bearbreeder that neither the girth hitch on the tree nor the strop knot joining the slings is, by itself, a significant issue. Nor is putting a girth hitch high up on a solid tree necessarily a serious concern---in fact there are a number of well-used Gunks rap anchors set up this way.

I do think the cord diameters are way out of line. The 7 mil lower cord is going to be running over an edge and will be subject to abrasion there, and 5 mil too thin for comfort anywhere.

But whether this set up is adequate for, say, multipitch climbs is not the point. I think it appropriate, in a top-rope anchor that you walk up to, to make a serious attempt at "over-engineering." This is not a multi-pitch climb or some other situation in which time, weight, or complexity are of any concern whatsoever. Your materials should be beefy and redundant, as would be dictated by any specifications outside the world of climbing. You want at the very least the three-sigma failure potential of the rest of your climbing gear, if not more. This is even more true when other people are going to be blindly trusting that you've done things right.

We often see arguments about various practices in which people advocate things that are too cumbersome and too slow for long climbs, and sometimes we get madenningly stuck behind parties using such practices. But there is a flip side, and that is when time and complexity are not part of the safety consideration, then more is better than less and adequate isn't really good enough. People should know how to modulate their anchoring policies based on the totality of the actual demands of the situation at hand.

In this sense, I think the pictured anchor is a bad one. What is of the most concern is not that the anchor won't hold, because it probably will and apparently did, but that the thought processes and understandings of the person who constructed that anchor are poorly adapted to climbing realities.

Frankly, I think there is an moral dimension to this. If circumstances forced it, I wouldn't be at all worried about rapping off that anchor myself. But I would never subject a group of people who had no role in choosing their level of safety and perhaps no knowledge about how to judge it to that kind of set-up.

A young woman on her first climb ever was killed a year ago in the Gunks when her top rope anchor simply fell to the ground when she did. People setting up anchors are responsible for the lives of others. You don't uphold that responsibility with 5mm slings and 7mm cords over edges.


bearbreeder


Apr 13, 2013, 4:01 PM
Post #31 of 42 (1752 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [Syd] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Syd wrote:

What's the scenario and how should it be done correctly ?

if it was done with full strength slings or webbing, or full strength cord (8-10mm+) ... its not something id freak out over on the internet

personally id build it out of much thicker rope, or use redundant slings ... or both

BUT ... theres a big difference between what someone would do personally ... and what they would do before telling others theyre wrong or unsafe ... and posting it online

in this case the diameter of the cord if the description is correct, is clearly not the accepted practice or particularly safe ... but like i said before its not the girth hitch nor the "single" rope that makes this thread intraweb worthy ....

every summer theres people walking around here telling you how bad your anchors are and how youre going to die because of it VERY loudly ... some mean well, others just want to show off to their friends how awwwsuuum their anchor building skills are

people like these dilute the message by crying wolf on anchors that may not be utterly perfect according to their view, but which are fine for the loads they are subject to ... if you do tell people that their anchor is crap, make sure you point out the right reasons and that there is an immediate failure potential ....

ive had people come up to me and tell me im "unsafe" for using 2 opposed draws, a standard fig 8, any variation of a sliding X, a tensionless hitch ... etc ...

if you came to squamish youd have a field day in the bluffs with all the groups of gangbangers and others who use less than "best" practices ... and youd get into more arguments than RC Wink


Syd


Apr 13, 2013, 11:54 PM
Post #32 of 42 (1708 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [bearbreeder] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks bearbreeder but I was referring to your comment:
"... think about all those people here who girth hitch purcells prussics to their harnesses made of 7mm cord ... and expect that theyll survive whippers on static meterials should they fall ... "


bearbreeder


Apr 14, 2013, 7:52 AM
Post #33 of 42 (1679 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [Syd] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Syd wrote:
Thanks bearbreeder but I was referring to your comment:
"... think about all those people here who girth hitch purcells prussics to their harnesses made of 7mm cord ... and expect that theyll survive whippers on static meterials should they fall ... "


the purcell is fine with 7mm ... and itll survive a fall right off the anchors ... which is why the girth hitch fear on TR forces is quite interesting ...


majid_sabet


Apr 14, 2013, 8:21 AM
Post #34 of 42 (1669 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8352

Re: [kobaz] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kobaz wrote:
Disclaimer: No one was injured during the recreation of this anchor.

I saw this exact setup at the top of Kens Crack this past Saturday.

[image]http://i.imgur.com/xVL5ohA.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i.imgur.com/jkwGEn9.jpg[/image]

That's it. That's everything.. (except the two locking biners on the end of the red cord)

Entire anchor description:
One 5mm cord girth hitched *high* up on a tree.
One 7mm cord girth hitched to the blue cord.
Two locking biners on the end of the 7mm cord with the toprope running through.

No one was climbing on the rig while I walked by and I was thinking of dismantling the whole thing and throwing the rope down... I should have. Earlier in the day I saw a half dozen kids taking laps on the route.

I talked to one lady who seemed to be with that group and mentioned that her anchor was unsafe and inadequate. She gave me a blank stare and replied with "uh huh".

I talked to some other climbers in the area and they informed me that an amga guide had previously gave them the same spiel that I did to no avail.

I then proceeded to walk away to avoid having to be involved in any rescue.


To the fellow rc'ers... What would you have done?


Very typical n00b TR anchor setup


robx


Apr 25, 2013, 10:39 AM
Post #35 of 42 (1461 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 10, 2011
Posts: 108

Re: [bearbreeder] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think you're right and prefer/use thick cord, but I'm curious what the actual rated difference is between 5mm and 7mm. I use 7mm, but for a while carried 6mm with me. I replaced it and haven't looked back, but I don't really know what the strength difference is.


bearbreeder


Apr 25, 2013, 6:26 PM
Post #36 of 42 (1391 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [robx] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

it depends on the type ... 5mm tech cord is full strength, youre just supposed to replace it more often

personally i use 7mm generally ... some use 6mm, but for me the extra abrasion resistance and strength of 7mm makes is worth it

the thickness of cord you use is situational dependent ... on a sole anchor point i use full strength material, IE 8-9mm+/slings/webbing, or double up the 7mm


Partner cracklover


Apr 26, 2013, 9:56 AM
Post #37 of 42 (1320 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9999

Re: [rgold] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
But whether this set up is adequate for, say, multipitch climbs is not the point. I think it appropriate, in a top-rope anchor that you walk up to, to make a serious attempt at "over-engineering." This is not a multi-pitch climb or some other situation in which time, weight, or complexity are of any concern whatsoever. Your materials should be beefy and redundant, as would be dictated by any specifications outside the world of climbing. You want at the very least the three-sigma failure potential of the rest of your climbing gear, if not more. This is even more true when other people are going to be blindly trusting that you've done things right.

I agree with everything in your post, but I do feel that the above paragraph could be misinterpreted, and could be construed as support for any number of ridiculous anchors.

I've seen people arguing on rc.com for anchors that are either over-complicated, or too-overly-engineered merely to add redundancy or strength where none is needed. I think this most commonly happens when the person making the anchor doesn't have a very good understanding of the fundamentals involved in constructing an anchor, and they hope to make up for their ignorance by over-engineering.

While this is understandable, putting extra or stronger gear is still no replacement for having the best understanding of the fundamental principles involved. And an anchor that's well constructed with adequate materials is still better than one that's poorly constructed with beefier materials and/or redundant redundancy.

Furthermore, I think that once you create an anchor that is appropriate to the situation, adding more to it is a bad idea for three reasons:

1 - Added complexity means more potential for screw ups. KISS.
2 - Added gear in one anchor may mean less available for something else that may need it.
3 - If you intend to go beyond toproping, you need to develop a head for what is appropriate for the situation, and when is it best to save the extra for later.

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 26, 2013, 10:00 AM
Post #38 of 42 (1318 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9999

Re: [gblauer] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

gblauer wrote:
From what I understand she was belaying her second without a re-direct (she was belaying from the top)

Off-topic, but since it was brought up, and the last comments do not reflect what we now now, I'll just add:

The accident in the Gunks was caused when a leader was bringing up her second redirected off a single piece. When the piece popped, and the direction of braking changed, she failed to catch her second, who outweighed her by 100 lbs.

GO


retr2327


Apr 26, 2013, 11:28 AM
Post #39 of 42 (1295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53

Re: [rgold] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hi Rich:

I'd agree that a little redundancy would be a good (and desirable) thing, but I'm not sure that 5mm tech cord (if that's what it is) is, in itself, a reason for discomfort. A quick search indicates it's rated at 5,000 lbs. For toproping purposes, at least, that seems like plenty, no?

I'd be more worried about how they made a loop out of it; the knot's a lot more likely to fail than the cord itself.


Tfinney110


Apr 26, 2013, 1:23 PM
Post #40 of 42 (1271 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 30, 2012
Posts: 31

Re: [Kartessa] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Kartessa wrote:
kobaz wrote:
To the fellow rc'ers... What would you have done?


1 of 2 things happen in a situation like this:

1. I cut up the cord, bring it to the owner, offer my personal cord and show them how to set up properly, letting them keep it. I get tons of shit free/cheap so I'm not against the karma points of sharing the love.

or

2. If the person is a royal doucher, I cut up the cord, throw it down and say "You're an idiot, go home"


Option 3 would only be if I was a dude, I'd just go to the edge and piss down on their shitty anchor, their rope and the idiot who will climb on such a time bomb.


Wait, your not a dude?!?!


Partner rgold


Apr 26, 2013, 6:31 PM
Post #41 of 42 (1231 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [cracklover] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I agree with everything in your post, but I do feel that the above paragraph could be misinterpreted, and could be construed as support for any number of ridiculous anchors.

Sigh---too true, too true. I agree with everything in your post too.

retr2327 wrote:
I'd agree that a little redundancy would be a good (and desirable) thing, but I'm not sure that 5mm tech cord (if that's what it is) is, in itself, a reason for discomfort. A quick search indicates it's rated at 5,000 lbs. For toproping purposes, at least, that seems like plenty, no?

The OP didn't say it was tech cord, just 5mm cord. In any case, the issue isn't strength or knotted strength, it is abrasion resistance.

I've seen relatively new 1" webbing seriously abraded by tree bark after cyclical loading combined with slight direction shifts. I know people use 5mm tech cord for cordelettes, but I wouldn't be fully comfortable with it for an unattended top-rope anchor that is going to get a lot of use and may not be periodically inspected.

This seems to me to be one of those situations in which even if what was used is probably ok, a little more is appropriate for the application at hand.


ACJ


May 16, 2013, 3:48 PM
Post #42 of 42 (981 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 161

Re: [kobaz] Saw this in the gunks last weekend. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In my 8 years of climbing I've seen a lot of really bad anchors and spoken to people about them. Most are totally receptive if approached in the right way. With that being said.. I tend to think climbing gear is built to be idiot proof so that people can get away with that crap for a while.

The scary thing will be if that setup is being used for a church group, camp, boy scouts, whatever and is going to be done like that for the next 5 years until it breaks.

I don't mind people doing stupid stuff around me if they are adults. If they are putting kids at risk then it is a different story (I run adventure programming, primarily climbing, for at risk youth). When I approach situations like this where there are youth involved I try to get the name of the organization before I even mention the problems. Yeah maybe that's a manipulative thing to do but if they don't respond appropriately I'll talk with parents on site or simply file a complaint with the organization and the forest service about unsafe practices.

Yeah that's maybe extreme but it's what I do now. 3 months into my climbing career I was 100% focused on building a toprope anchor and didn't realize the people next to me. 3/4 of the way through building my anchor the girls head was smashed open after a 15' fall from the top of the cliff onto a ledge below where she laid until I had to rescue her. If I had more experience at the time I would have noticed the swiss seat, XXL gloves, overhanging rappel, walmart rope, figure 8 and the fact that the girl had never climbed or rappelled before. Instead I was only able to keep myself safe. Now I have 800 days of rock site experience so I can take things in a lot faster.

In summary, be nice, be firm, confrontation on the spot rarely helps unless you see a near death situation. Follow up complaints go a LONG way.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Gear Heads

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$21.56 (10% off)
$15.52 (10% off)
$233.96 (10% off)
$49.46 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook