History of ethics of lowering and TRing through fixed gear/quickdraws

Mark E Dixon wrote:If you discover anchors are dangerously grooved or whatever, it's not hard to leave a couple of biners.

I like marks idea of leaving a biner behind if you aren't comfortable rapping off of some hardware which is not easily replacable. But I've run across many deeply grooved coldshuts, and even a grooved steel rap ring or two, and I'm sick of it. It is irresponsible to let that happen. Yes it is probably caused by TRing, but lowering will eventually wear it out too.

I personally don't feel safe loading any hardware that is deeply grooved. Clipping a carbiner to a grooved cold shut doesn't make me feel any safer. Those of you advocating to lower in all situations and not to worry about grooving are being a little short sighted I think. Thinking something is safe simply because you can't think of any accidents is a dangerous mentality. You may end up being the accident. Use common sense. If a piece of steel is worn 2\3rds through its strength is reduced by an even greater factor, plus it has sharp edges that can shred ropes. It might not kill you, but its a ticking time bomb.

I dont think it is ever appropriate to lower through a lap link or cold shut, or glue in. Cold shuts cant be replaced easily when they wear out, plus they are made of soft metal that wears easily. Lap links can shred ropes. Glue ins cant be replaced at all, only thing to do is re drill. If you are going to lower 100% of the time, then at least leave a biner behind when using one of these anchor setups.

When you get to an anchor ask yourself, "can the thing I'm running my rope through be easily replaced?". If the answer is no then don't lower through it.

rockandice.com/lates-news/c…

Ok, the accidents mentioned were on fixed draws rather than anchors, but the principle is the same: rope side biners, worn from friction/abrasion, cuts or damages ropes.

It occurred to me that the hardness argument is actually irrelevant; the problem is NOT biner - biner wear (in this case, it would be totally valid and explains why you always need a designated rope and bolt side biner), but rather friction and abrasion from the rope running through the rings. For this, hardness is irrelevant, and stainless steel WILL wear, albeit likely at a lower rate than aluminum. This is why toproping through fixed anchors is such a dick move; you are repeatedly running an entire rope length through a fixed piece of hardware under heavy load (both the climber and the belayer are in the system). Add to that the extra dynamic load from falls (very minor, obviously, but still significant), and multiply this exponentially from repeated use, and you have dangerously grooved, rope cutting anchors in surprisingly short periods of time. Although lowering to clean only has to happen once per party, this can still add up when you look at popular climbs at high volume areas. The bottom line is that climbing anchors have to be continuously inspected and replaced, more so if lowering is the common practice for cleaning. Now, as exemplified by the many generous setters on this thread, some people feel this is an acceptable trade off and are willing to put in the time, in which case: go for it. However, this is not always the case, and in many smaller/more bushwhacked areas (or, conversely, ridiculously over-trafficked areas like the Red), inspections and replacements might not be as regular as needed for regular lowering.

Bob Johnson wrote: This got me thinking about these ethics. I understand it varies from place to place and that there are some areas/routes in the US that are set up for climbers to be lowered. ?

No one will take the time to really answer the question? Sheeh, I will.

Answer: Yes.

Really this is an argument of two camps, and usually those camps choose to frequent different crags, so it's not a geographical thing but a social/psychological thing. I have been to the lovely shit show called Ton-Sai and truly that is one of the few places where both of these camps go to climb, so that could be one reason why you are just noticing this now.

Camp one has a mixture of Old, weird, weak, chuffish, and dangerous climbers, many of which are obsessed with gear and some of which will eventually die. How many more people have to hit the ground repelling before camp one changes their behavior? A lot more.

Camp two is a group of people who regularly sport climb, project routes, push themselves physically, and don't care nearly as much about the gear as about getting to the next route. They recognize that so much time and money is spent training, getting to the crag, etc, they never think about the gear, and they lower through what is sometimes fucking crazily suspect shit.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Regardless, its a lot easier for folks to just leave a couple of regular biners and these can be swapped out whenever worn. .

This is the real answer. Many of the people in camp two actively leave biners at their crags to help stop this nonsense. To them we should listen up and tip our hats. However, they don't leave them at the crags of camp one, and when camp one does visit a camp two crag, camp one just steals those biners and claims it's booty while making up excuses about ethics and repelling.

Then camp one leaves those stolen biners as actual booty when over their head, and camp two rescues them again to be placed where they should be, at the top of the climb for easy lowering.

It's a nice little self repeating process we get to poke fun at several times a year up in here.

Ask yourself fools:

Which camp are you?

You stealing lowering biners or rescuing booty biners?

So glad I never have to worry about any of this nonsense.

Friggin' sportos.

I am not sure why this is even a debate? In my mind it is simple, what do the locals do? Then do that. Climbing is inherently dangerous and whether you lower or rappel you need to manage the risk.

This is a serious question. Do most people actually understand the difference between an aluminum rap ring and a steel lowering ring? I think not.

the schmuck wrote:This is a serious question. Do most people actually understand the difference between an aluminum rap ring and a steel lowering ring? I think not.

I honestly don't know anyone who wouldn't be able to tell the difference. In reality though, the only place you will ever see a rolled aluminum rap ring is attached to a big cluster of webbing at a rap station on a trad route. You will never see one at the top of a sport route.

Here's a photo of different rap rings for anyone who doesn't know the difference:



From left to right, rolled aluminum rap ring, forged aluminum rap ring, welded stainless rap ring.

Of the three rap rings in the photo, the only one that you shouldn't lower from is the left rolled aluminum ring. These are easy to tell by how incredibly light weight they are (when you touch one you will know), and can also be identified by the fold of metal that runs around the entire diameter of the ring and the lack of any weld.

The forged aluminum ring is not unsafe to lower through although it will wear much faster then a stainless ring and would need to be replaced much more often which is why it shouldn't be used for a sport anchor, it is easily identified by it's light weight, the super smooth finish, and the lack of any welded joint.

The right side stainless rap ring is the one that lowering off of is a-okay. It is identified by it's substantial weight and the very obvious welded joint.

The only reason I say that is that folks keep referring to lowering rings as "rap rings," which they are not. By the way, you still do see aluminum rap rings on obscure routes even at popular sport areas such as Shelf. Rare, but they are there.

So, out of curiosity: if they are A-ok to lower off of, shouldn't they also be ok to toprope through? Why is it still universally frowned upon to toprope through "lowering" or "rappel" rings if rope abrasion does not affect the former?

Btw:

Quite clearly stainless steel, quite clearly grooved and worn from excessive rope abrasion. :/

the schmuck wrote:The only reason I say that is that folks keep referring to lowering rings as "rap rings," which they are not. By the way, you still do see aluminum rap rings on obscure routes even at popular sport areas such as Shelf. Rare, but they are there.

Maybe the reason people refer to them as rap rings and not lowering rings is that they are sold under the title "rappel ring". fixehardware.com/shop/rappe…

Ted Pinson wrote: Btw: Quite clearly stainless steel, quite clearly grooved and worn from excessive rope abrasion. :/

Nice picture, and a familiar sight. I love how they each have grooves on opposite sides. Top ropers manage to groove one side just enough that the ring can't freely rotate anymore without catching on the hanger. So then the ring can only wear on opposite sides since either the rope falls into the groove or the hanger catches on it.

Seems like this wear pattern happens more often on these fixe hanger ring combos. I suppose it's because the ring sits against the rock and can't spin when it is loaded (e.g. when someone is lowering off it). On the other hand they spin just fine when they are lightly loaded (e.g. when retrieving the rope after rappelling). It's almost like they were designed for some specific purpose (maybe for rappelling).

Note: you may ignore the parenthesised text if you are religiously opposed to rappelling

Ted Pinson wrote:So, out of curiosity: if they are A-ok to lower off of, shouldn't they also be ok to toprope through? Why is it still universally frowned upon to toprope through "lowering" or "rappel" rings if rope abrasion does not affect the former?

Nobody is arguing that lowering off the fixed hardware doesn't cause wear, we're arguing that the pros of lowering off outweight the cons. The last person in a group to clean the anchor by lowering off, doesn't put as much wear on the anchor as a group of people toproping through the fixed hardware. And you do know that even pulling the rope through the anchor after you rap off still cause wear on the anchor, don't you? But there is an even better way than rappelling that will put absolutely zero wear and tear on the anchor: downleading. You clean your gear as you downclimb, so you won't even have a rope through the anchor. This is hands down the best way to clean, the anchor will basically last forever (or until it rusts to nothing). So all the people who raps because they don't want to wear out the fixed hardware should really be downleading instead of rappelling. I know I'm convinced, I'm switching to downleading.

aikibujin wrote: Nobody is arguing that lowering off the fixed hardware doesn't cause wear, we're arguing that the pros of lowering off outweight the cons. The last person in a group to clean the anchor by lowering off, doesn't put as much wear on the anchor as a group of people toproping through the fixed hardware. And you do know that even pulling the rope through the anchor after you rap off still cause wear on the anchor, don't you? But there is an even better way than rappelling that will put absolutely zero wear and tear on the anchor: downleading. You clean your gear as you downclimb, so you won't even have a rope through the anchor. This is hands down the best way to clean, the anchor will basically last forever (or until it rusts to nothing). So all the people who raps because they don't want to wear out the fixed hardware should really be downleading instead of rappelling. I know I'm convinced, I'm switching to downleading.

Or untie and jump. That really preserves the anchors. Which is the main point of climbing anyway.

Haha. Actually, it WAS argued that lowering put no strain on the rings, earlier in the thread. ;)

Just to be clear: I have never argued against lowering. I'm simply expressing the ethic that has been communicated to me and that seems to be fairly widespread throughout the US. I'm also arguing that, perhaps, there is some validity to it, and that it should be respected if it is the wish of setters in the area. Unless I've actually talked to the setter and gotten the ok (apparently, next time I'm in Rumney ;) ), if I see rings, I rappel. The risk associated with rappelling off of bolted anchors is an acceptable one to me, and I find cleaning easier as long as the route is not severely overhanging (I would not even consider rappelling off anything in the madness cave, but I couldn't climb anything there, anyways ;) ).

Ted Pinson wrote:Haha. Actually, it WAS argued that lowering put no strain on the rings, earlier in the thread. ;)

I don't recall reading that. Can you post a quote?

aikibujin wrote:So all the people who raps because they don't want to wear out the fixed hardware should really be downleading instead of rappelling. I know I'm convinced, I'm switching to downleading.

If I am one of those people you are referring to, let me be clear. I lower off of fixed hardware frequently, and I don't look down on anyone who doesn't feel comfortable rappelling. I lower far more often than I rappel. Most anchor setups are perfectly fine for lowering IMHO.

What I don't do is lower through certain kinds of hardware that can't easily be replaced (e.g. cold shuts, glue-ins), or which is heavily grooved already. I rappel though those setups. But if I wasn't comfortable rappelling, I would just leave a biner or quick link, and lower through that. I completely agree that rappeling is statistically more dangerous than lowering.

As a lot of others have been saying, the problem, IMHO, isn't lowering off to clean a route, it is top rope belaying and then lowering through the anchors. If you have a group of people who want to climb a certain route, have the first person up put in a couple of draws and belay/lower the group through them. The last person up can get lowered through the anchors.

cyclestupor wrote: Nice picture, and a familiar sight. I love how they each have grooves on opposite sides. Top ropers manage to groove one side just enough that the ring can't freely rotate anymore without catching on the hanger. So then the ring can only wear on opposite sides since either the rope falls into the groove or the hanger catches on it. Seems like this wear pattern happens more often on these fixe hanger ring combos. I suppose it's because the ring sits against the rock and can't spin when it is loaded (e.g. when someone is lowering off it). On the other hand they spin just fine when they are lightly loaded (e.g. when retrieving the rope after rappelling). It's almost like they were designed for some specific purpose (maybe for rappelling). Note: you may ignore the parenthesised text if you are religiously opposed to rappelling

Rings don´t spin when you are lowering anyway, the theory is they spin when you pull the rope down afterwards and settle in a new position. However as in the examples posted and all the others I´ve seen the culprit is the weld which stops them spinning (and climbers who aren´t intelligent enough to rotate them before they put any load on) an so you always see one groove opposite the weld and the other one beside the weld.
I make my rings perfectly round AND grind the weld away inside so the ring is perfectly smooth to rotate, costs more than Fixe but you get what you pay for.

In a sport-climbing context rappeling sucks and rings aren´t a great idea either but then again I´m a)a Euro b)a manufacturer. I´ve never rapped off a sport route and never installed a ring on over 1,000 new routes.

J Q wrote: No one will take the time to really answer the question? Sheeh, I will. Answer: Yes. Really this is an argument of two camps, and usually those camps choose to frequent different crags, so it's not a geographical thing but a social/psychological thing. I have been to the lovely shit show called Ton-Sai and truly that is one of the few places where both of these camps go to climb, so that could be one reason why you are just noticing this now. Camp one has a mixture of Old, weird, weak, chuffish, and dangerous climbers, many of which are obsessed with gear and some of which will eventually die. How many more people have to hit the ground repelling before camp one changes their behavior? A lot more. Camp two is a group of people who regularly sport climb, project routes, push themselves physically, and don't care nearly as much about the gear as about getting to the next route. They recognize that so much time and money is spent training, getting to the crag, etc, they never think about the gear, and they lower through what is sometimes fucking crazily suspect shit. This is the real answer. Many of the people in camp two actively leave biners at their crags to help stop this nonsense. To them we should listen up and tip our hats. However, they don't leave them at the crags of camp one, and when camp one does visit a camp two crag, camp one just steals those biners and claims it's booty while making up excuses about ethics and repelling. Then camp one leaves those stolen biners as actual booty when over their head, and camp two rescues them again to be placed where they should be, at the top of the climb for easy lowering. It's a nice little self repeating process we get to poke fun at several times a year up in here. Ask yourself fools: Which camp are you? You stealing lowering biners or rescuing booty biners?

MP Gold.

Dylan B. wrote:I will continue to rappel off of sport routes because I enjoy rappelling. I like the feeling of total independence I get after flashing a route, of going in direct and getting off belay, and setting up a rappel. I know I have ascended and descended on my own, with a belayer only as a backup if I fall. I also prefer to maintain the rappelling habits that I use in multi-pitch. For me, lowering off a sport route is less fun than rappelling it.

Sport climbs technically begin at 5.12 according to some. If you ever climb steep overhanging sport climbs you may change your position on rappelling vs. lowering.

I agree with Mr. Titt, I never rappel on a sport climb, and I don't place rings on sport climbs, and I like to replace rings with something easier to just clip in and lower in areas where I frequently climb. Call me lazy or whatever, but when I am sport climbing I want convenience and the added safety of not rappelling.
I do plenty of rappelling when doing other types of climbing, no need to do it when sports climbing.