double clove hitches

T Roper wrote: bitching about "strong 1" or "strong 2" is similar to bitching about the type of toilet paper you wipe with. ;)

Except for the previously mentioned problem / solution thought processes issue. Would I TR, sport or bolder with someone who built TR anchors with rope-to-rope friction issues like that? Sure. Would I trad climb with them? No way.

Healyje wrote: Except for the previously mentioned problem / solution thought processes issue. Would I TR, sport or bolder with someone who built TR anchors with rope-to-rope friction issues like that? Sure. Would I trad climb with them? No way.

You are very picky sir. I'd huck huge off of both of those, repeatedly off the one with a biner.

T Roper wrote: You are very picky sir. I'd huck huge off of both of those, repeatedly off the one with a biner.

Yeah, I am and still leading reasonably hard trad 41 years later because of it.

Again, this issue isn't whether any of those rigs will survive the day or the intended purpose, but rather the thinking that decides to complicate a tie-off with a single biner or that rope-on-rope friction like that is ok in any circumstance. They're plain and simple just a stupid ways to tie-off a tree. Will you die doing it? Nope. But it's bad enough of an idea that I wouldn't want that kind of thinking extrapolated out to any of a myriad of aspects of trad climbing where sound and concise judgment are at a premium.

You are right, I didn't look closely enough. The usual variations that i see with qds are foe shockload bolt failures.

In this case the qd is to prevent the bight from coming over the stem of the eight and un-isolating the strand.

Pete Spri wrote:On an additional note RE: The QD guide anchor using eights... Canyoneering does stuff like this on occasion. The QD is for redundancy and to reduce shockloading. The eights isolate each strand of rope to set up single rope rappels on either side. This can be done after the rope has already been set up for rappel, as has been done here. This is definitely a group rappeling set up. Not saying I would use this, but it does have the advantage of also not having to untie a knot after 6 people have rapped it in a canyoneering scenario. Search stone eight for more on this anchor.

While this setup is often used for group large group rappels in canyoneering, the primary reason is that each side is releasable. Otherwise the group could rap on each side of a figure 8 or BFK.

Also back on topic, I would happily rely on either 'strong 1' or 'strong 2', and would be OK with the picture in the OP, though it might garner a tiny bit of the stink-eye beforehand for the reasons listed above.

Mike wrote: While this setup is often used for group large group rappels in canyoneering, the primary reason is that each side is releasable. Otherwise the group could rap on each side of a figure 8 or BFK. Also back on topic, I would happily rely on either 'strong 1' or 'strong 2', and would be OK with the picture in the OP, though it might garner a tiny bit of the stink-eye beforehand for the reasons listed above.

I'm not seeing that set up as releasable. They are set up for rapping at the half mark. With no slack available, I see nothing releasable about that system in its current configuration.

Pete Spri wrote: I'm not seeing that set up as releasable. They are set up for rapping at the half mark. With no slack available, I see nothing releasable about that system in its current configuration.

Either side is releasable by undoing the other side.

Generally one person will rap on side A, while another rigs on side B. When side A is on or near the bottom, side B will start to rap. If one should have some type of issue, the other side can be released, and the person having the issue can be lowered.

It is mostly used on a Totem, but can be used with other devices as well. It is somewhat common in the canyoneering world for large groups and guiding.

If I were setting this up, the point would be able to release either side at any time. Therefore, to me, this is not a functionally releasable system since the whole purpose is to have two lines being rapped seperstely at the same time... And if that is happening on this system, you wont be releasing it.

Why build such a bull sh!t anchor when you could easily build a simple super bomber one that sets up just as quickly? Tie a figure 8 on the rope wrapped the sharp end around the tree rethread the figure rate back it up. Done Unless you are Greg D then this will be gibberous😜

djh860 wrote:Why build such a bull sh!t anchor when you could easily build a simple super bomber one that sets up just as quickly? Tie a figure 8 on the rope wrapped the sharp end around the tree rethread the figure rate back it up. Done

That would be totally sick bro. You should write a book. Hopefully you write something that actually makes sense. Cuz what you just said was some gibberous.

Sorry for the late reply on this; I should have payed more attention to it.

Pete Spri wrote:If I were setting this up, the point would be able to release either side at any time...

You can.

Pete Spri wrote: ...since the whole purpose is to have two lines being rapped seperstely (sic) at the same time...

That is not the only purpose, although it works well for this also. Often in practice (as I wrote earlier) one person will rap on one side, while another rigs (IE gets completely ready) on the other side.

Also I would recommend that before knocking it, give it a try once or twice. You may find that it works pretty well. Like many climbers, I was quick to poo-poo many canyoneering-specific techniques until I tried them many times in actual canyoneering situations. Like many, I was wrong. Some canyon-specific techniques are IMHO inefficient, unnecessary, or just plain scary. However some of them work great and have since become my common practice. This is one of them.

YMMV. If you find (after actually trying it) that you prefer other systems, then that is great. There are many ways to do it.

djh860 wrote:Why build such a bull sh!t anchor when you could easily build a simple super bomber one that sets up just as quickly? Tie a figure 8 on the rope wrapped the sharp end around the tree rethread the figure rate back it up. Done Unless you are Greg D then this will be gibberous😜

That was fantastic. You managed to edit your post to include my name after I post. But you can't do a basic proof read.

Sharp end?
Wrapped?
Figure rate?

Her dee der.

Healyje wrote:... I dunno, here's another suggestion: learn to use the appropriate knot for the task at hand. In the case of 'strong 1', it has two unnecessary wraps around the tree and that's a less than ideal application of a figure eight on a bight. A straight bowline with a backup overhand would be a simpler response and one without the undesirable friction between the rope and the bight of the figure eight.

Well, a "tensionless hitch", is just that: the 3 wraps around the tree can in theory hold the rappeller quite well on their own.. but, it's not ideal to let the tail end possibly work back around the tree and cause the hitch to fail -hence, the attachment of the tail to the working strand via an 8 or an 8+ biner. You don't actually want the tail end attachment to be tight to the tree - you want the friction of the wraps to bear the burden, not the knot.

Sharp end is a rope term and is correct as is wrapped. You did get me on the figure 8 one. Haha

You may want to look into meaning of sharp end. And standing end.

Sharp end

I guess standing end is correct

Well done.