How do you like this tether/ rappel extension ?

Again, haters don't have to read this stuff. I don't understand why you keep coming back.

Thanks for some of you telling me rock climbing isn't for me. That's really helpful and friendly and not at all elitist assholery.

Keep it coming!

Brandon.Phillips wrote:This thread is still happening?

Every few weeks the OP comes up with some elaborate, needlessly complex bit of macrame to supposedly improve upon some tried and true method that hundreds of thousands of climbers have used for many decades. He will then argue to death the theoretical advantages despite the collective experience of hundreds of years of climbing from replying posters. About the only possible rationales for this are:

1. A distinct lack of understanding of the forces involved in climbing.
2. A distinct lack of understanding of how climbing rigging and anchoring works and the strength of climbing gear.
3. A misguided approach to achieving the impossibility of 0% risk.
4. A victim of the Kruger-Dunning effect.
5. An elaborate set of troll posts for the usual reasons people troll - typically the seeking of attention.

I go with the last one.

Marc801 wrote: Every few weeks the OP comes up with some elaborate, needlessly complex bit of macrame to supposedly improve upon some tried and true method that hundreds of thousands of climbers have used for many decades. He will then argue to death the theoretical advantages despite the collective experience of hundreds of years of climbing from replying posters. About the only possible rationales for this are: 1. A distinct lack of understanding of the forces involved in climbing. 2. A distinct lack of understanding of how climbing rigging and anchoring works and the strength of climbing gear. 3. A misguided approach to achieving the impossibility of 0% risk. 4. A victim of the Kruger-Dunning effect. 5. An elaborate set of troll posts for the usual reasons people troll - typically the seeking of attention. I go with the last one.

Congratulations! You're winning Biggest MP Bully!

Eric Moss wrote:Again, haters don't have to read this stuff. I don't understand why you keep coming back. Thanks for some of you telling me rock climbing isn't for me. That's really helpful and friendly and not at all elitist assholery. Keep it coming!

Easy there fella. I told you I wasn't trolling you. I'm fully in favor of encouraging people to climb. It just seems that you REALLY worried and REALLY skeptical of the strength and quality of climbing gear. If you are that worried about everything failing through numerous ways then it doesn't sound like climbing would be fun. And that's the whole point of it; Fun.

Climbing gear can handle an enormous amount of weight and pressure. A single level of redundancy is all that is needed 99.99999999999% of the time. Get a Metolius PAS as your anchor/rappel setup. It's already designed with 22kn of strength and has multiple places for you to extend your rappel, all while clipped in to an anchor with full strength. Rappelling, while the most common way that people are injured in climbing, is the least force that you will apply to your gear.

The accidents happen from improper use of the gear. Get it set up with correctly, triple check that everything is set up and then shove off. You'll be good.

BigFeet wrote:You guys are looking at this all wrong. Let the guy do his thing. He is posting threads that keep us returning to read, if not making you post a comment yourself. Everybody wants a high MP score, right? If anything, the untangling of thought and purpose in what is being presented should get you to think. I mean, really, who has not dissected these posts for their own reasons - be it to mock, ridicule, or entertain? Enjoy the fun, ladies and gentlemen! Keep the good stuff coming, Eric, you are getting a rise out of us.

It's only in this moment I realize I get a totally not meaningless "score" associated with my account. I'm assuming I can trade in my points for beanies and beta at some point in the future?

Ryan Hamilton wrote: Easy there fella. I told you I wasn't trolling you. I'm fully in favor of encouraging people to climb. It just seems that you REALLY worried and REALLY skeptical of the strength and quality of climbing gear. If you are that worried about everything failing through numerous ways then it doesn't sound like climbing would be fun. And that's the whole point of it; Fun. Climbing gear can handle an enormous amount of weight and pressure. A single level of redundancy is all that is needed 99.99999999999% of the time. Get a Metolius PAS as your anchor/rappel setup. It's already designed with 22kn of strength and has multiple places for you to extend your rappel, all while clipped in to an anchor with full strength. Rappelling, while the most common way that people are injured in climbing, is the least force that you will apply to your gear. The accidents happen from improper use of the gear. Get it set up with correctly, triple check that everything is set up and then shove off. You'll be good.

Okay. The PAS is a nice idea, actually. Can you tell me why so much climbing literature recommends a redundant rappel extension?

Eric Moss wrote: Okay. The PAS is a nice idea, actually. Can you tell me why so much climbing literature recommends a redundant rappel extension?

Old literature recommends a lot of outdated safety systems because ropes used to be hemp and quality control wasn't that great on equipment. Ropes and gear can pretty much always be trusted now.

The extension allows a couple of things. First it puts the rappel device higher up so that you can control the rope a little better, not a big deal to begin with, but it's a tad smoother.

The other reason is so that you can attach a prussik to your leg loop and keep it from running into the belay device which may would likely jam things up and cause some issues.

I have only backed up my rappels once, and some feel that's really dangerous and some feel like you shouldn't ever need to back it up because rappeling is pretty safe. Unless you have a heavy pack on or you have to mess with stuck/tangled ropes on the way down, and this will eventually happen, rappeling without backing things up is pretty easy to control and manage.

The reason I really like the PAS is because there are no weakening knots (from tying a sling into the same type system), it's clean, gives you multiple points to clip so that you can get just the right height. But mostly because I can clip into the anchor with a locking carabiner, put myself on rappel and make sure that everything is setup correctly. I can weight the rope then, when I'm sure all is done properly I can disconnect the anchor and I'm on my way without any issues.

Ryan Hamilton wrote: The extension allows a couple of things. First it puts the rappel device higher up so that you can control the rope a little better, not a big deal to begin with, but it's a tad smoother. The other reason is so that you can attach a prussik to your leg loop and keep it from running into the belay device which may would likely jam things up and cause some issues. I have only backed up my rappels once, and some feel that's really dangerous and some feel like you shouldn't ever need to back it up because rappeling is pretty safe. Unless you have a heavy pack on or you have to mess with stuck/tangled ropes on the way down, and this will eventually happen, rappeling without backing things up is pretty easy to control and manage. The reason I really like the PAS is because there are no weakening knots (from tying a sling into the same type system), it's clean, gives you multiple points to clip so that you can get just the right height. But mostly because I can clip into the anchor with a locking carabiner, put myself on rappel and make sure that everything is setup correctly. I can weight the rope then, when I'm sure all is done properly I can disconnect the anchor and I'm on my way without any issues.

Okay, but why does the literature recommend a redundant belay extension?

Let's assume that chance of equipment failure is one in a million. Then, your setup (without redundancy) is one million times more likely to completely fail than mine is, because the chance of two independent equipment failures is one in a trillion.

Eric Moss wrote: Okay, but why does the literature recommend a redundant belay extension? Let's assume that chance of equipment failure is one in a million. Then, your setup (without redundancy) is one million times more likely to completely fail than mine is, because the chance of two independent equipment failures is one in a trillion.

The redundant belay extension sounds confusing. A belay extension is moving the rappel device from your belay loop on your harness to a sling/PAS/etc. Redundant extension doesn't make sense. If the literature is talking about redundant backup then it's probably just talking about have a backup, which is making the SYSTEM redundant. Which means if your rappel device fails in some way you have the backup there to keep you on the rope. I can't think of any other reason to do anything else. This is all coming from a fully admitted very safe climber. I don't mess around with unsafe systems.

Ryan Hamilton wrote: The redundant belay extension sounds confusing. A belay extension is moving the rappel device from your belay loop on your harness to a sling/PAS/etc. Redundant extension doesn't make sense. If the literature is talking about redundant backup then it's probably just talking about have a backup, which is making the SYSTEM redundant. Which means if your rappel device fails in some way you have the backup there to keep you on the rope. I can't think of any other reason to do anything else. This is all coming from a fully admitted very safe climber. I don't mess around with unsafe systems.

It does make sense for developing safe practices. Does it make sense to tie stopper knots in the rope on a short rappel? No, but I do it every time to develop the habit.

I can't speak to the exact motivation of these authors, but redundancy wherever you can get it certainly makes sense to me. Usually, it's so easy to do anyway, so why not? That said, if I had a PAS, I'd use it.

I'm torn on the issue of whether the rappel backup knot can actually backup your belay attachment and I assume it might depend on the knot. I use a French prusik, which is certainly capable of backing up my hands, but I don't trust it to catch my body weight.

I hereby summon the powers bestowed upon me in an AMGA Rock Guide Class:

If your rappel is backed up, you have another attachment point to the rope = 2 points of attachment to the rope.

If your rappel is extended, you can use a back up (auto block) straight off your belay loop. You only need to attach it to a leg loop if your rappel device is connected directly to your belay loop. Space is needed between the belay device and the backup so that the belay device does not jam the auto block into the open position.

These methods are widely accepted as the best practice across the sport. Could you back it up more/ make things more redundant? Yes. However, at some point, adding more complications into the system will end up making things less safe.

Rock climbing is inherently dangerous. We can only strive to minimize risk, not eliminate it completely.

Have fun, stay safe.

Ryan Hamilton wrote:Redundant extension doesn't make sense. If the literature is talking about

The literature is taking about two connections between your rap device and harness.

ie: The double length sling girth hitched to you tie in points at one end, clipped to belay loop at other end, knotted in the middle to connect belay device and isolate the two ends.

vimeo.com/126265194

This is crazy. Try rapping 20 pitches into the black canyon and then climb out the same day if you're rigging all this shit. The guys that actually send are simulrapping with no backup.

Eric Moss wrote: So fun! Anyway, the AMGA is redundant by some definition, but not by mine. This is theirs: Their thinking is that the overhand knot will catch you if one end of the sling fails, but if the sling fails near the knot it might not. That's why my personal definition of redundancy is that, failure of one part in the worst way possible doesn't result in system failure. I don't think I know better than the AMGA. Their setup seems good enough.

I think you need to re-examine your personal definition of redundancy. There's a million different "what if" scenario's you can run through for any situation. You can't protect them all, and often, as has been said many times in pretty much all of your thread's: by trying to alleviate those "what if's" you make the system much more complex, and more susceptible to simple set-up issues - which is really one of the biggest dangers climber's face.

Ask yourself this: how do you imagine this failure mode occur's? If the sling breaks at the knot, how did it break? Was it rock fall? That could easily kill you outright, or chop even your backed up sling, or the rope. It's not worth worrying about the 1-in-a-million situation it only chops your one sling, and at the knot. Was it due to wear? Inspect your gear more frequently. Was it due to loading? How are you achieving such a high load on rappel to begin with? Be careful not to take a big fall on your rap device, I guess?

There are ways to mitigate the risk beyond having "more".

Eric, if you don't like the response you're getting here, perhaps you should try an engineering forum. The people I've come across that worry about this kind of thing tend to be much better engineers/scientists than they are rock climbers.

Brandon.Phillips wrote:https://vimeo.com/126265194

He's using a redundant rappel extension! Omg, what a noob! Doesn't he know that risk and adrenaline is what climbing is all about?

Brian L. wrote: I think you need to re-examine your personal definition of redundancy. There's a million different "what if" scenario's you can run through for any situation. You can't protect them all, and often, as has been said many times in pretty much all of your thread's: by trying to alleviate those "what if's" you make the system much more complex, and more susceptible to simple set-up issues - which is really one of the biggest dangers climber's face. Ask yourself this: how do you imagine this failure mode occur's? If the sling breaks at the knot, how did it break? Was it rock fall? That could easily kill you outright, or chop even your backed up sling, or the rope. It's not worth worrying about the 1-in-a-million situation it only chops your one sling, and at the knot. Was it due to wear? Inspect your gear more frequently. Was it due to loading? How are you achieving such a high load on rappel to begin with? Be careful not to take a big fall on your rap device, I guess? There are ways to mitigate the risk beyond having "more".

Really, my definition of redundancy is to elicit independencee of the failures, thus invoking a compounding of the unlikeliness of their failures in a probabilistic sense. In other words, when two events are independent, the probability of the occurrence of both events is the product of the two probabilities.

Eric Moss wrote: Really, my definition of redundancy is to elicit independencee of the failures, thus invoking a compounding of the unlikeliness of their failures in a probabilistic sense. In other words, when two events are independent, the probability of the occurrence of both events is the product of the two probabilities.

The fact that your definition states that the widely accepted best practices are no good should tell you something.

For instance, by your definition, the method shown in that video isn't redundant.

Brian L. wrote: The fact that your definition states that the widely accepted best practices are no good should tell you something. For instance, by your definition, the method shown in that video isn't redundant.

Wrong. I just wrote earlier that their method is redundant. See above post. I never said they're no good for anyone, just not good enough for me.

Edit: the video version, I like -super redundant.