Oval Biners on a TR anchor?

Stagg54 wrote: 3? really?

+1

3 is hard to believe as industry standard.

As if the AMGA has any corner on the friggin' market of what's adequate and correct. And a 'single pitch manual'? How much do they soak you for that nonsense? Jeebus, carry on, but it's a nuts discussion and more than anything points out some pretty dubious risk perception and prioritization.

Scott E. wrote:For Lhotsa and Stagg54: Ps. When I'm sport climbing at the crag I just clip the anchors with draws like everyone else. The above technique is used primarily for setting multiple top rope anchors quickly in a guide situation.

I believe that is what they say. I just can't believe they actually say that. I've been around a lot of guides and I don't think I've ever seen any of them use 3 nonlockers in place of a locker. 2 seems to be the standard (outside the AMGA) and plenty fine. I don't see how adding one more adds any more safety margin. If you are going to use 3, why not use 4 or 5? why not just put every biner you have there?

Both Leubben and Long recommend 3 non lockers as an alternative lockers in their anchors books. Don't believe I've ever actually seen somebody do it, but it definitely is canon.

I used to use one locker or two non-lockers O&O.

I sometimes use 3 non-lockers now. Not because of redundancy or strength or because of what AMGA says. I do it because the way they sit against the rock when loaded.

It may not always be so, but it seems to me that one locker or two O&O tend to pinch the rope against the rock - unless they are free hanging in space. With 3 opposed non-lockers it seems they sit so that the spine of the carabiners bear against the rock and the rope comes out the "sides" and does not pinch.

Ted Pinson wrote:Both Leubben and Long recommend 3 non lockers as an alternative lockers in their anchors books. Don't believe I've ever actually seen somebody do it, but it definitely is canon.

How many sport climbers are there in the US? I would venture that 90% of them just clip 2 draws opposite and opposed - (most of the rest use a quad or some prerigged slings with lockers) I have never seen anyone use 3 biners.

If you want to argue that 2 regular biners o/o is equal to 1 locker and then argue that since you would normally use 2 lockers, that you should use 4 regular biners, then that might make some logical sense, but 3? How did they come up with 3? How are the 3 supposed to be arranged opposite/opposed? Should the odd one out face the cliff or away? How in the world does that make anything safer? With 2 there is already no way the rope can come out under normal circumstances? What does the extra biner protect against?

It might be "canon" as you call it or the "AMGA standard", but it is definitely not "standard practice".

Billy Clyde wrote:Was doing some reading and found that oval biners are not as strong as d shaped. Also that they are primarily designed for aid climbing. I just wanted to make sure that I had the equipment really dialed in so that I can make the best anchor I can. Also I do think the sliding x is the best choice in the way that I was using it for the dude that made the comment about that. The two slings are definitely overkill though I agree but it can't hurt.

Sure D's are a little stronger but there isn't a carabiner made by the majors that can't handle what your looking for. Keep it simple. Two slings and four biners.

Stagg54 wrote: How many sport climbers are there in the US? I would venture that 90% of them just clip 2 draws opposite and opposed - (most of the rest use a quad or some prerigged slings with lockers) I have never seen anyone use 3 biners. If you want to argue that 2 regular biners o/o is equal to 1 locker and then argue that since you would normally use 2 lockers, that you should use 4 regular biners, then that might make some logical sense, but 3? How did they come up with 3? How are the 3 supposed to be arranged opposite/opposed? Should the odd one out face the cliff or away? How in the world does that make anything safer? With 2 there is already no way the rope can come out under normal circumstances? What does the extra biner protect against? It might be "canon" as you call it or the "AMGA standard", but it is definitely not "standard practice".

Here, I think this will help:

youtu.be/3zc4bGkU05o

This discussion is a bit like a "Ford vs Chevy" is better argument. In "Ford vs Chevy", the objective is have transportation. Both brands provide transportation, and which you choose is a matter of personal preference.

All of the setups described here accomplish the task - to provide a safe and redundant top rope anchor. Which one you prefer is a personal preference based on each persons experience.

When I was deputy director and training director for Teton County SAR, we would sometimes have disagreements over how an anchor was setup for a technical rope rescue. On EVERY occasion, there were no fatal flaws in the way the anchor was set up - it was a "that's not the way I would do it" disagreement. However, time is critical in a rescue situation so having a protracted discussion or redoing the anchors is counter productive. We came up with the rule that you only intervene if you see a fatal flaw in the system. We also had two people assigned to the anchor setup and were responsible for checking each others rigging.

Whenever I give advice, I always say "take what you like and what works for you and forget about the rest." I think that applies to these posts.

I prefer the equalette over two quckdraws for sport climb anchors for three reason:
1. Top roping puts significant wear on the rope end carabiners - I want my lead gear to be as strong as possible.
2. If the bolts are not at the same level, much of the loading will be on one anchor.
3. Use of the equalette is consistent with the methodology I use when trad climbing and setting gear - equalization is more difficult and perhaps more important.

I would say it's not so much like 'ford vs chevy' and more like 'abrams tank vs volkswagen' - one is more than adequate for the job, the other is paranoid overkill.

Healyje wrote:I would say it's not so much like 'ford vs chevy' and more like 'abrams tank vs volkswagen' - one is more than adequate for the job, the other is paranoid overkill.

A bolt anchor has a typical breaking strength of 25kN and a quickdraw around 22kN. Since a toprope only puts 2 kN of force on the anchor, clipping both bolts is "paranoid overkill" by your standards. But I'll bet you clip both bolts! Or use more than one piece of gear in a trad anchor.

Wouldn't it be tragic if you only clipped one bolt when two were there, it failed, and your climbing partner was killed because the bolt failed?

Unfortunately, I've been on a number if rescues where simple mistakes or gear failures led to serious injury or death. Wierd things happen, and are not always predictable.

So the PRUDENT, not paranoid approach, is to make your margin of safety large.

Arlo F Niederer wrote: A bolt anchor has a typical breaking strength of 25kN and a quickdraw around 22kN. Since a toprope only puts 2 kN of force on the anchor, clipping both bolts is "paranoid overkill" by your standards. But I'll bet you clip both bolts! Or use more than one piece of gear in a trad anchor. Wouldn't it be tragic if you only clipped one bolt when two were there, it failed, and your climbing partner was killed because the bolt failed? Unfortunately, I've been on a number if rescues where simple mistakes or gear failures led to serious injury or death. Wierd things happen, and are not always predictable. So the PRUDENT, not paranoid approach, is to make your margin of safety large.

Right, but you are entirely missing the point. We don't clip two anchor points because we are worried about the reaching the breaking strength of a carabiner, we add a second carabiner to add redundancy, not necessarily make the anchor stronger. So like everyone has been saying 2 carabiners are fine and three is just reaching the point of overkill. Like everyone else has said if 3 biners is better than 2 why don't we just put 10 biners on every anchor point!?

Arlo F Niederer wrote: A bolt anchor has a typical breaking strength of 25kN and a quickdraw around 22kN. Since a toprope only puts 2 kN of force on the anchor, clipping both bolts is "paranoid overkill" by your standards. But I'll bet you clip both bolts! Or use more than one piece of gear in a trad anchor. Wouldn't it be tragic if you only clipped one bolt when two were there, it failed, and your climbing partner was killed because the bolt failed? Unfortunately, I've been on a number if rescues where simple mistakes or gear failures led to serious injury or death. Wierd things happen, and are not always predictable. So the PRUDENT, not paranoid approach, is to make your margin of safety large.

A brand new bolt anchor with a brand new QuickDraw maybe, but those are not real world figures. Bolts can and do fail, particularly in soft rock or high corrosion areas. Regardless, the primary concern is not bolt/QD failure, but rather the rope becoming unclipped. This is why the two QDs must be opposite & opposed, or locking. Both adequately prevent the rope from catastrophically unclipping in either direction. Redundancy in the event of bolt/gear failure is an added bonus that provides a very comfortable safety margin. There's always more that you could do to improve your safety margin; the prudent choice would be the one that strikes a reasonable balance between safety, simplicity, and efficiency.

Arlo F Niederer wrote:So the PRUDENT, not paranoid approach, is to make your margin of safety large.

Two draws is actually prudent, effective and highly failure resistant and if you somehow manage to fuck that up I should think it wouldn't matter if you had twelve lockers and sixty feet of webbing involved

Scott E. wrote:...me working with other people's kids at the crag...

I don't really distinguish between or otherwise assign different values to different people tied into the end of a rope - child or adult, it's a life. Nothing about that changes my opinion on the safety of two draws on a two bolt anchor versus any other contraption.

Scott E. wrote: Ps. The three oval masterpoint biners have nothing to do with added strength or redundancy. They are to help prevent the rope getting pinched between the master point biner(s) and the rock, for what it's worth.

Finally an explanation that actually makes a little sense. I can definitely see that if you are using D biners that they do pinch the rope, and I can see how that would help. If you are using ovals (as in the OPs post), then not an issue.

I did not see any mention of this, so... I have 2 QDs, with lockers, that are always used at the anchor. This is done to prevent excessive wear on my light weight lead QDs. I usually have to replace the bottom biners every year. YMMV

Scott E. wrote: Ps. The three oval masterpoint biners have nothing to do with added strength or redundancy. They are to help prevent the rope getting pinched between the master point biner(s) and the rock, for what it's worth.

Forgive my ignorance, but can you explain this? How do you get the rope stuck between the masterpoint and the rock in the first place?

Scott E. wrote:As Gaines explains, the idea is that the wide radius created by the three ovals provides a stable platform for the rope and tends not to flip sideways as often as two lockers, which can pin the rope against the rock while lowering if the climber's (weighted) strand is on the outside, away from the rock. It's just a technique that some choose to use.

ah I misunderstood. I thought is was the rope getting pinched between 2 asymmetrical Ds.

Some people have too much freetime to be thinking about things at this level of detail...

Ted Pinson wrote: There's always more that you could do to improve your safety margin; the prudent choice would be the one that strikes a reasonable balance between safety, simplicity, and efficiency.

That was my point... thank you for stating it a lot clearer.

Since this thread is already off the rails, I'll add a little context to the discussion of the AMGA and 3 non-lockers.

For full disclosure, I'd like to preface by saying that I teach for the AMGA Single Pitch Instructor program. I'll also add that I think the current iteration of the AMGA Single Pitch Manual, while not perfect, does a great job of centralizing a number of skills. The manual is the result of a large amount of feedback from AMGA students who wished to have a single reference volume following their course so they could continue to practice skills. Readings from the manual are also often used to encourage critical thinking skills as there are frequently contradictions between the manual and what is taught in the course. These opportunities allow us to teach students about situational decision-making--that is, often there are multiple correct answers.

Regarding the 3 oval non-lockers, I'll go so far as to posit that there is some regionalism inherent in this recommendation as well. Bob Gaines, one of the principle authors, spends a great deal of time working in Joshua Tree, which is located in a desert full of sand. Many of the local guides in J-Tree use steel carabiners for their top rope master points simply so that their carabiners last more than a few days when using sandy top ropes!

Steel ovals are more than adequate for the task of top roping and also present a cost-effective solution relative to steel lockers. The recommendation for 3 ovals to prevent the rope from pinching against the rock is likely borne from Bob's years of introductory top roping work watching students struggle to lower, particularly with the rope pinched against rough J-Tree granite and rubbing across a characteristically slabby top-out. He seems to have found a viable solution.

That said, this isn't "canonical" per se, nor is it prescriptive. When constructing top rope anchors, I and many of my colleagues use many of the systems described upthread and the presence of a locker or the number of carabiners in the masterpoint depends on the situation at hand. Students are taught this as well and are encouraged to make cogent decisions about their anchor building (and all other technical systems) given the particular terrain where they work.