Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 04:33pm PT
|
Ryan - it's another topic for another thread, this is a different discussion. That topic has been discussed extensively on other threads both here and on RC however. The short answer is, as you noted, always tie-in with the rope.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 05:13pm PT
|
This is great info but I need to derive from it some practical rules of thumb, even if they are provisional.
So far there are (broadly speaking) two potential failures and four possible scenarios.
The potential failures include:
1) the belay itself failing, meaning that a leader fall will generate so much force that the belayer will not be albe to hold said leader fall, the belay will fail and the leader will pitch to the end of the rope, and,
2) the falling climber will generate such peak force that when the belayer arrests the falling leader via the belay, the forces transmitted to the anchor will cause it to fail, "sweeping" the team off the face.
The four scenarios are:
1) the anchor is sh#t and there is no chance to place a "Jesus Nut" (first piece of pro off the belay) for at least 20"
2) the anchor is stout and there is no chance to place a "Jesus Nut" (first piece off pro of the belay) for at least 20"
3) the anchor is sh#t and the leader can set a sound Jesus Nut straight off the belay
4) The anchor is stout and a Jesus nut is available right off the belay
The question: In light of the "possible failures" (belay failure and anchor failure) and given these 4 scenarios, when should the leader run the lead rope through the anchor, and when should he avoid doing so?
Happy Thanksgiving, Peeps!
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 05:33pm PT
|
Karl Baba: "Thing is, with the forces involved in climbing, a really crap anchor pulls no matter what and a bomber anchor stays no matter what. I'd be surprised if the grey area of anchors that may or may not pull was very large"
I have to take great exception to this line of thinking. As someone who still regularly free climbs above aid gear and pre-slices screamers at various angles to vary their loading dynamics, I explicitly view managing all of the various "grey areas" in climbing as the very reason why one would develop the exact [ancient] sensibilities Patrick Oliver describes in his "evolution".
Peter Hann: "And I would add that anchors nowadays are incredibly much better than they were even just three decades ago, so mostly they are correctly perceived as bombproof."
If you are talking 3/8" and 1/2" SS two / three bolt anchors, then yes. If you are talking trad anchors then I'd say it's actually often a case of 'worse and worser' as climbers who start in gyms and sport attempt to 'cross-over' to trad.
jstan: "Personally I would never consider clipping a belay device directly to a fixed anchor."
Amen, brother! In general I consider this, a commercial activity at best, and one that breeds entirely the wrong long-term 'sensibilities'; at worst, I think it's slovenly in a way that divorces you from any number of sensory pathways to knowing what is going on with your partner. I only even redirect under rare circumstances.
Patrick Oliver: "I could go on and on, but I began to feel somewhat of an expert at the realities of such falls and such forces. I developed a mindset to be always prepared, no matter the skill level of my partner."
In these discussions I always wonder how many folks have actually held falls directly onto their belay. Patrick is talking from experience and I believe jstan has said he has as well, as have I several times. In my case the result has been the same as I'm interpreting it was with Patrick - such falls aren't exceptional edge cases, but rather are simply another 'catch' - albeit, ones which set your standards and mindset for every belay you do.
Patrick Oliver: "A bad mistake is to get into that habitual mentality, where you simply do the same thing at every belay that you always do, a kind of mindless routine approach."
Another 'amen, brother!' This is another problem area for folks who are crossing over from the [monochrome] world of gyms and sport - the 'sameness' of their experience leaves them at first grasping for the "rules" of trad climbing so they can apply them. It's very hard for them (and even many trad climbers back in the day) to understand that every single circumstance is unique - that rather than 'rules', you have to extrapolate or transpose from out of a depth of knowledge and experience and onto each new situation in turn. In essense, the 'rules' by themselves have limited value.
Patrick Oliver: "They don't even think about body position or of catching a fall and instead leave it to the gear to do the job. I have found the belay is much stronger by relying on oneself first, and secondarily the gear -- as a general rule."
For years now, I've been 'preaching' about the art and craft of "stancing" to a largely deaf digital ether. I consider stancing, and surveying for the various body locks one can apply, and shift through in the process of a belay, to be a key element of selecting where to belay. I, too, consider an anchor as simply a backup to my belay in all circumstance where an adequate stance can be established. Where a dubious stance is all that's offered I still employ it as a 'contribution' to the overall anchoring chain even if it that stance might ultimately fail.
Patrick Oliver: "still don't use a belay device and prefer a hip belay, with a carabiner to clip the leader's rope on my swami on the opposite side of the brake hand. Probably sounds archaic, but it has always worked."
This is how we always belayed as well and it took a decade of deep suspicion to 'trust' any form of belay device. I've held many hundreds of solid lead falls, including several directly onto my belay, with this technique. It is as safe and effective as any belay device touted in today's 'modern' world. I still hip belay for a good portion of my belays - particularly anytime a partner is going to be moving fast as it's simply more responsive than any device.
Karl Baba: "It's true in the modern age that many climbers are more willing to fall long and hard and this just won't wash anymore. I took a factor two fall past my belayer using a hip belay BITD on the second pitch of Mud Flats and it burned his hand."
Bunk! We actively despised the "leader must not fall" mentality and took plenty of long lead dives on our hip belays (roofs and steep are just that way). If your second got burned, he either wasn't using a directional biner as Patrick describes, he didn't lockoff effectively [by diving the brake hand between his thighs], had a bad/no stance, or he simply wasn't experienced hip-belaying. I've never been burned in similar situations (and in fact, to some extent, think gloves could tend to mask bad practices; I don't use them anyway).
Patrick Oliver: "It sometimes amazes me when I climb with people who have all the newest gear and gadgetry who can't comprehend how I could survive using the system I do."
Patrick, your combined comments are breath of fresh air. Whether this conversation were taking place in '68, '78, '88, '98, or '08 - the issues are the same. And I simply think that even back in the day only a certain percentage of climbers really "got it" relative to the technical, or craft, side of climbing let alone the perceptual and sensory awarenesses necessary to raise it to 'art'. The combination of mindset, body-awareness, stancing, technique, alertness, and active attention to and adjustment of every detail in the overall 'system' is the heart of what raises belaying to a craft and even art in my eyes.
That doesn't even include the focus necessary to learn a leader's habits such that you can anticipate them via 'listening on the line' by maintaining enough subtle tension to have a shot at actively understanding what an out-of-sight leader is doing on a second-by-second basis.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 05:47pm PT
|
As to the actual question of clipping the anchor - new [well] bolted anchors, sure. Trad anchors? Never. I'd rather catch the fall directly on my belay. When I set a trad anchor it is always woven into a performant whole; in almost all cases, clipping a piece of it would, by definition, disrupt all the intentions and design of that performant whole 'anchor system'.
I'd rather worry about catching the fall then have to worry about my anchor failing.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 06:11pm PT
|
One way for people to learn how important good belay technique, and solid belays, are:
(Also posted elsewhere.)
Or they can learn from reading "Belaying the Leader". As long as they don't get any odd ideas about climbing being safe. If they learn how to do a hip belay, and a carabiner brake rappel, that would be a GOOD THING. Learning how to use a slide rule optional, though.
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 06:13pm PT
|
Well perhaps we don't actually differ, you and I, Healje. If I had a clearly bad anchor assembly and no good piece to start off leading with separate from the anchor array, besides this being an advanced situation and the team would be on red alert of course, I would not clip into the anchors either (since you magnify the fall force if you do and you also introduce usually some suddenly developing slack if the fall pulls the anchors) and would attempt to obtain the best possible stance as the first order and would have to hope that taking a fall on the belay device directly would be actually better than loading the anchor array. But this would be very unusual situation and obviously very dangerous (as in you don't even want to rely on your anchors).
And in 45 years of climbing, I have only been in this situation a ten or twenty times. And I would also add that when the anchors are that bad sometimes we move the bad belay up (inchworm or simulclimb style) after the second has reached an appropriate point to do so and has generated enough new lead rope to allow further progress, since apparently the lead rope just is not long enough for the situation.
If I had great anchors I would clip FROM the master point (not some part of the anchor array) but with a separate carabiner for a first piece if the direction works and would immediately attempt to get another piece asap in the next few feet. This is the most common belay situation for my friends and i.
Taking a fall directly on the belayer and his device with nothing intervening is a very nasty situation, very violent and I would imagine that most people would find that they simply could not stop a fullsized climber falling 15-20 feet even, that they would lose their stance completely and be injured along with the leader, if not killed. But yeah, clipping the anchors in this situation would have meant that all possibility of survival has been precluded in a big fall....RR used to say, "we don't use a rope so that both of us would die".
But yeah, if the anchors are not competent don't clip them. The discussion mostly is revolving around what kind of anchors we are all thinking about.
|
|
George R
climber
The Gray Area
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 09:29pm PT
|
My perspective on rgold's initial question:
As with most questions, the best answer is "It depends".
If I'm confident the belay anchor can withstand the increased force involved in being used as the first point of protection, then I will be comfortable with clipping the lead rope through the anchor. Otherwise not.
My bias is against clipping the anchor because:
1) Unprotected (factor 2) leader falls are survivable. Unpleasant no doubt, but survivable, IF the belay anchor holds.
2) Belay anchor failure will almost certainly result in death for everyone attached to that anchor.
3) Clipping the lead rope through the anchor increases the likelihood of anchor failure, by increasing the force on the anchor.
So, I don't routinely do it, but I will consider it if I feel the anchor clears the bar of being strong enough to hold the additional force.
Considering Largo's question: "...when should the leader run the lead rope through the anchor, and when should he avoid doing so?" Here's my take on it:
Scenario 1) the anchor is sh#t and there is no chance to place a "Jesus Nut" (first piece of pro off the belay) for at least 20"
NO. If I'm not completely confident the anchor will hold the increased force, I would not clip the rope to the anchor. This is the most difficult and scary case. How to deal with the situation, (move belay, bail off, etc.) will depend on the other elements of the situation.
Scenario 2) the anchor is stout and there is no chance to place a "Jesus Nut" (first piece off pro of the belay) for at least 20"
YES. This is the one case in which I would clip the anchor.
Scenario 3) the anchor is sh#t and the leader can set a sound Jesus Nut straight off the belay
NO. Same as Scenario 1 plus if you can get sound protection right off, there's no point to clipping the belay anchor anyway.
Scenario 4) The anchor is stout and a Jesus nut is available right off the belay
NO. Even though the anchor is stout, there's no need to clip the anchor if you can get good pro immediately.
I believe that a lot of climbers do not understand that using the belay anchor as the leader's first protection point will almost certainly increase the force it may have to withstand. I hope this discussion contributes to correcting that. Thanks to all for a great discussion!
G
|
|
martygarrison
Trad climber
The Great North these days......
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 09:36pm PT
|
I am not going to get into the physics of this debate. My rule of thumb has always been to never have the leader clip the anchor as pro. I held a complete factor two on na wall pitch three where my leader pulled everything and went sailing past me on to my two inch swamie, hip belayed. I then had to hold him as he jugged back up to the belay. I can attest had I clipped him through the anchors, quarter inch bolt and a couple of pins, we would both be dead.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 10:28pm PT
|
Who really is the anchor .....
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 11:10pm PT
|
Thanks, George.
Marty, that NA falls sounds horrifying. Good catch, dood!
We were always afraid of this kind of fall, especially when we were doing new face climbs at Tahquitz and Suicide and on Middle Cathedral (early 70s) - all this, using a hip belay. The fear was that if, say, your left hand was the brake hand and the leader fell past you on your right, the rope (if not clipped through the anchor) would peel the belay off your right hip and out of your guide (right) hand and then there would be no way to hold on. So we started clipping a biner into our swami and running the rope (opposite the brake hand) through that so as not to have the rope torn around our back should the leader fall onto the belay. Eventually we started clipping the leader into the anchor without knowing jack about force multiplication or the pulley effect or any such thing. It really is a wonder nobody ever fell killed us all on routes like Greasy but Groovy, et al, which featured huge (like 75 feet) runouts right off the belay.
Don't fall . . .
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008 - 11:24pm PT
|
Largo: "So we started clipping a biner into our swami and running the rope (opposite the brake hand) through that so as not to have the rope torn around our back should the leader fall onto the belay. Eventually we started clipping the leader into the anchor without knowing jack about force multiplication or the pulley effect or any such thing."
Making the biner 'captive' in the front is the reason we switched from swamis to 1" tied harnesses.
|
|
Gilwad
climber
Frozen In Somewhere
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008 - 12:00am PT
|
The reason I don't generally clip the top piece in an anchor is that the belayer's hand often gets pounded into the carabiner so hard that the force can break bones, destroy skin or otherwise cause such extreme distress that he or she will let go with both hands. The belayer also gets pounded into the wall very, very hard, and the instinctual reaction is to leg to and protect one's face. For these reasons alone I'd rather not have the top piece in an anchor clipped. I have caught a factor two on a hip belay (first real leader fall I ever caught, aid climbing in a cave), catching one with modern belay device should be relatively OK for most people. And then there's the physics of it all too... There are situations where clipping the top piece makes sense, but they are relatively rare. I can't think of the last time I clipped the top piece off an anchor.
The falling rock picture brought back memories of learning to belay. Before you could belay in my school program (the White Mountain School) you had to catch a falling log on a hip belay. It was set up so you were jerked into the air, spun upside down and left dangling through several bounces. More of that sort of training would be good, that training is still ingrained my head. Thanks Fitz.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008 - 01:22am PT
|
General idea:
Once experienced climbers have a familiarity and comfort with the gear and systems, they can adjust their strategy to the tast, anchor, rock and problem at hand.
Still, some rules of thumb and procedures are well advised for those to don't grasp everything. Of course, even experienced climbers have been known not to understand the dangers of things like "the american triangle" but somehow, most accident for the seasoned climber don't seem to boil down to issues like we are discussing.
I'd use a different term than "Jesus nut" since I think it's preferable to have an omnidirectional piece like a cam as a first piece of pro. Nuts are prone up an upward zipper when the highest piece of pro has the rope weighted through it and the belay is back or to the side of the climbing.
peace
Karl
|
|
G_Gnome
Trad climber
In the mountains... somewhere...
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008 - 01:51am PT
|
I've been pulled up the wall 10 feet ripping evulsions on the backs of my fingers, I've had my hand pulled into the directional biner (no broken bones), I've caught big falls off the belay device. I would rather get pulled into a biner. I will never let go and I am in control. Sorry, but a pull straight onto the belay device is my least favorite and most unsafe way to catch. Now, if the anchor really is that bad then I might make other choices, but in any other situation (like almost every time) I WILL use a directional.
So then, if the anchor can't really hold a big fall then do what you feel is safest (retreat?), otherwise I will used a directional.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008 - 02:05am PT
|
"You are on belay, but don't fall!"
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008 - 02:19am PT
|
As I believe Oli said in Swaramandal: "Don't fall or we'll both go!" Quoting one of his early partners.
|
|
JohnRoe
Trad climber
State College, PA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008 - 11:46am PT
|
Geek stuff:
I put the fall model I used for the previous calculations up on my website as an Excel spreadsheet
here.
You can download it and play around with the parameters (rope out, mass of climbers, etc). The figures in my previous post were too large because of the assumed 40kN rope modulus. I found a more plausible figure of 11.2kN in
this thread from 2006.
The calculations indicate that with 80kg climbers, the belayer 1m below the anchor, then what rgold calls the "breakeven" point occurs with 1.5m rope out if the belayer is statically anchored for upward pull, and with 2.2m rope out if the belayer is hanging. In other words, beyond that point a factor-2 fall direct on the belayer puts less force on the anchor than clipping the anchor as the first piece.
Anti-geek stuff: Mathematical models are only as good as their assumptions (garbage in, garbage out - as in valuing mortgage securities...). To test those assumptions, one needs to be experienced with the situation being modeled, not simply to be a mathematician. There is an awesome amount of experience on this thread.
One assumption which is pretty unrealistic is that the clip is made to the power point of the anchor. Usually the leader clips the topmost piece, or one bolt if the anchor is bolted. So the (usually higher) force in the "clip" scenario is being applied to the anchor in a very un-equalized way.
JohnR
|
|
JohnRoe
Trad climber
State College, PA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008 - 01:07pm PT
|
Karl wrote
"John, if you could run one more scenario, Factor two fall when the belayer is belaying with a gri-gri directly off the powerpoint, but is hanging on the anchor. (possible aid climb scenario)"
Although the set-up is different, physically this is equivalent to "Scenario 1" in my list so the numbers should be the same.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008 - 04:31pm PT
|
Why not just be smart and belay with a Gri-Gri? If you want, you can rig it to the anchor and it is not a pulley. Just be smart and throw in a Bomber directional. I prefer to belay the leader off my harness. Holding a struggling climber who is actually falling onto the belay is a bitch with an ATC. Just holding their weight gets old. If you work anything hard, ATC is exhausting. Fatigue is not good. Yeah, sometimes you can give a nice dyno off the ATC but that is a judgment call and skill not to be expected from beginners. I believe the Reverso can sub for the Gri-Gri if you don't like bulk and weight. Don't ask me to set this up though. I don't own a reverso.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008 - 04:46pm PT
|
"Chainsaw: Why not just be smart and belay with a Gri-Gri?"
Too many reasons to go into here as it's a fairly off topic and another discussion altogether. Suffice it to say, likely a bunch of us here just don't use grigris. I used for soloing before I got an Edelrid Eddy, but didn't and don't use either for belaying.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!