Seems to me so long as you inspect your belay loop and keep track of your gear (of which your harness is a pretty important part) you should heed the advice of the "experts." That being said - if you find it hard to trust the loop meant for belaying, doesn't that, in some ways, mean you shouldn't trust any of your gear?

I have the greatest respect for manufacturers like BD, Petzl, and Metolious. So what the heck am I doing commenting on this thread?

Whenever I've used a belay loop, I've always felt considerable risk of triaxialy loading biner. I never feel this way when I run my pear-shaped locker through the tie in points of my harness - whether it be that I show the small end or the wide end to the belay device.

When using the belay loop, I find it flopping around and I have no confidence how it's going to orient itself when it gets loaded. I'd love to see someone demonstrate smooth, dependable operation when running through a belay loop.

Additionally, I find that my belay devices (e.g. ATC XP, and Guide, Trango) tend to hang up unpredictably when I'm trying to feed rope to a leader. If your leader is making a desperate clip, I think smooth operation of your system is something to factor into your decision.

At the end of the day, the method you work most dependably with would seem to be the way to go.

BCA is another company I have great respect for, and in the world of avalanche beacons, they continue to explore the human factor in a rescue. Having realized that in this age of beacons with functionality that would make the owner of an I-phone blush, they have shifted their attention to the weakest link in the rescue operation - shoveling techniques.

My point here is that a holistic systems approach is in order, and not merely considerations whether the belay loop is the strongest point in your harness (it attaches to your tie in points, remember). A non-systems approach is irrelevant to my way of thinking.

The last thing I want to do is to convince someone to abandon a system that works for them. At the same time, I think we all need to reevaluate what we're doing from time to time.

If someone can demonstrate use of the belay loop while keeping the biner/belay device oriented consistently and predictably when loaded, and without hang-ups when feeding the rope to your leader, I'm all ears.

Now, for rapping, Will Gadd makes a powerful argument on the above reference BD page for using the belay loop (heat buildup, visibilty, etc.) and I'm all for it. Maybe I'll start calling it a rapell loop (grin).

Cheers,
Thom

I saw a sweet big wall harness (BD I think) that actually had 2 belay loops. I'm cool with the one I've got. Sure beats the diaper sling I used to rock when I was a kid.

Galibier_Numero_Un Wrote:

"Whenever I've used a belay loop, I've always felt considerable risk of triaxialy loading biner. I never feel this way when I run my pear-shaped locker through the tie in points of my harness - whether it be that I show the small end or the wide end to the belay device"

Hey Galibier, #1

You can not triaxialy load your belay caribiner in your belay loop by itself, it would be damn near impossible. Unless you have another anchor rope or piece of material in the caribiner and connected to something.

You can however cross load this carabiner on the gate or spine, but that is about it.

Crossloading & triaxial loading is important but it wouldn't be a concern if the belayer paid attention and properly kept the orientation of their equipment and used the equipment within the guidelines of the manufacturer.

Other than the Skinner accident, has any one heard of any failures either through the recommended use of the belay loop or through clipping through the leg loops/swami belt?

Ken Cangi wrote

"You make it sound as though cross-loading isn't as consequential."

easy there big fella write back at ya, I know the seriousness of a cross loaded carabiner, I was trying to educate numero_1 as to the difference and defenitions of cross loading versus triaxialy loading.
no where do I down play the consequences of a cross loaded carabiner.

FYI: a cross loaded carabiner is reduced to approximately 1/3 of the breaking strength of a correctly oriented carabiner. This number varies by manufacturer but most carabiners are stamped with there rated strength on the spine in different configurations.

Redundancy is great, but if you need to back up your belay loop, then why don't you back up your rope, your harness, your atc, Where does it end?

Just to chime in about the saftely of the belay loop and what happened to skinner. His belay loop was exposed to somewhat abnormal wear. ( depending on style ) He kept both of his daisys girthed to his belay loop enabling it from being able to spin and wear evenly.
With extensive wear in the same position it eventually gave way.
If you are a bit sketched about redundency then rig up an extra belay loop out of webbing for a back up.
skiclimber makes a somewhat valid point of if you cannot trust a belay loop which is made for belaying and rappelling and holding that weight then why should we trust a rope, gear ect.
Will we all be climbing with two 70 meter ropes used as half ropes in the near future for extreme saftey :)
Probably not. I think skinners death had a positive impact by reminding us that gear is not gonna last forever and to inspect it upon each use. Do that and replace it before its too late and you got plenty of climbs left.

I agree kevin.
It seems as if we are really searching for a loop hole to the belay loop :)
I think its bomber if you take care of your stuff. Check it frequently and tie a damn extra loop if your sketched.
I am pretty sure BD has that new big wall harness ( sick )
Double belay loops one for each daisy. Or in this threads topic.
Double your saftey.
I like saftey!!!!

Skinners belay loop failed and it is the only known case of this. It is a sad lesson to learn and Todd is greatly missed. I don't blame the harness manufacturer or the loop for the failure. From the information gathered it seems the harness was long overdue and it seems decisions were made that could have been prevented.

Sal brings up a great point as well, He kept both of his daisys girthed to his loop most of the time in the same spot. Cyclic loading in this configuration would most likely of contributed to the failure in addition to the weak and worn condition of the loop. Cyclic loading has a very slow sawing effect. This is especially evident in Top Rope anchors. Most people don't take in to account the effects of cyclic loading when in these scenarios, but we should all be aware of it, especially while top roping over edges. I am not sure, but the failed dyneema runner that was girthed in Shermans anchor might of been from cyclic loading.

I think Skinners accident is a separate issue than this threads debate, but I also think this thread exists because of Skinners accident.

I guess I am missing the point of this thread. Do we need redundancy in everything? Who said that redundancy is the end all, final word for climbing gear? I use the belay loop for belaying because that's what it was designed for. I'm ok with it.

It seems to me that the Skinner accident was more due to excessive wear than to an issue of redundancy. When your belay loop shows signs of wear, replace the harness because it has worn out.

In Europe, they see fit to lower off one anchor bolt from sport climbs. And they basically invented sport climbing over there. Now that I think about it, they allow you to do many things over there that liability precludes us from in the US. When did we as climbers become so over-cautious? I know many of you tradsters from yesteryear actually tied in with a few loops of webbing and a water knot. Did you worry about triaxial loading and cross loading of your steel biners?

A chain is as strong as its weakest link. In a factor-2 fall, ropes are not supposed to apply more than 12 kN to the climber's body. Therefore, having components in the belay chain that withstand much more than 12 kN is not very useful. That's why belay loops must hold (at least) 15 kN.

Harness manufacturers usually exceed the minimum 15 kN requirement by a significant amount. At that point, even though the belay loop is an extra link in the chain, and therefore makes it weaker, the probability that it will break is very small--as long as the loop is in good conditions.

The breaking strength is only one aspect of a harness component. Resistance to wear is another. Belay loops do not withstand friction with nylon as well as the tie-in points, which are designed specifically for that. Therefore one should not tie into the belay loop. It only serves to accelerate wear of the harness.

Furthermore, putting the belay loop to its intended use reduces clutter.

The cross-loading issue is not so easy to analyze. I don't have great faith in the biner's ability to re-orient itself, especially if to do so, the sleeve has to slide past a taut rope that presses against it.

Neither way of tying in is perfect; as it has been pointed out already, one should be vigilant. I like the DMM Belay Master. I may get one.

So, up until a year or so ago, I didn't fancy or use the belay loop. I've been using it the past year, but *more frequently* seem to cross load my belay biner at any given moment, than I would have with clipping in directly to the swami and leg loops.

I'm always having to straighten it out. Has anyone else (besides Tim) noticed the same?

I'm tempted to go back to my old ways, and remove one additional link from the system, despite the fact I recognize the benefits of the belay loop.

When I first learned to climb, I was taught to thread the locking biner through the harness tie in points directly. When I started climbing at the gym in Tucson, they prefered that I use the belay loop, so I have used it ever since.

If the difference between the belay loop and the direct harness tie in causes death, then there is something wrong in the protection system. If a biner breaks because it is triaxally loaded due to not using the belay loop, then that is a defective biner. Unless of coarse, it's a factor 2 fall on a static line!

I think the most important thing is to inspect your gear and use the method that you are the most comfortable with, as that will probably lessen your chances of making a mistake.

They key is attentive belaying! no matter what method you use, just pay attention to everything in the system at all times, there is no substitute to attentive belaying!

Maybe a rubber band or piece of string could be used to keep the thin end of the biner on the webbing loop if it is truly a problem for anyone. With one hand on the climbing rope and one on the brake end, then this is really not an issue as you can just hold the biner upright by pulling up on the climbing end.

Now my question is: Why is it okay to triaxially load a piece of webbing or rope, but not a metal biner? The biner technically has a higher strength rating, true? And how bad could the triaxial load actually be if your harness tie in points are close together and mostly overlapping?

A note on terminology. This is my understanding:

In solid mechanics, triaxial loading occurs when stresses are applied along all three coordinate axes.

A properly employed biner is not biaxially loaded, because the stress is only along one axis.

A case of triaxial loading would be something like this. A biner connects two slings attached to two anchors and forming a wide angle. A rope pulls the biner down in the direction perpendicular to the line connecting the anchors. The biner is over an edge. If you take the x axis to be along the biner's spine, the y axis to be along the biner's transversal direction, and the z axis to be orthogonal to the plane of the biner, you have stresses in all three directions.