Daisy on your belay loop?

My hubby and I were discussing today if one should girth their daisy onto the belay loop or go through the leg and harness tie ins. He argued that for sport climbing (ie cleaning anchors) the belay loop is fine because it's just static weight. This gives me the heebie jeebies, though. I just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

It should give you the heebie jeebies.

But your husband is right. In a sport-climbing static-hanging situation, it is fine. But it is not a good practice to get into if you ever plan on multipitch trad. Also, hopefully you never use just one "daisy" to the anchor when you are setting up a top rope or rappelling, etc. Redundancy is crucial for a long life.

Seconding what John G. states with respect to incorporating redundancy, but I would still offer to get the PAS from Metolius. Peter's post has some good points of view:

mountainproject.com/v/climb…

Although the belay loop is full-strength, it is designed for use with biners. If you look at the Petzl catalog, the safest thing is to tie in through both waist and legs and clip biners only through belay loop, as to avoid "tri-loading". Like tieing in, I girth-hitch waist and legs with my daisy and save my belay loop for biner use only.
It makes me cringe when I see a biner through waist and legs for belaying when a belay loop is available. Absolute 'no-no' according to Petzl, who makes both great harnesses and great biners.

Why would attaching anything to the belay loop give you the "heebie jeebies"? It is the strongest part of the harness and generally stronger than any carabiner and virtually indestructible(unlike a carabiner). And you don't use two belay carabiners which is one of the highest load points nor do you use two carabiners at the attachment point to the rope when leading- so why have redundancy with your anchor connection? Do you wear two harnesses, clip two bolts side by side, or build three-piece anchors for each protection point? Your body will break before a belay loop will. And why not use the rope and only the rope for attaching to the anchor? It's way stronger than a daisy and more dynamic...been climbing for 22 years full-time without a daisy and will continue to do so.

Well, because I've always used my daisy/leash for multipitch climbing and have been told to always go through my leg loop and harness tie in points. When you use the rope to tie in, you are through your leg loop and waist tie in right? Wouldn't you not feel comfortable just tying in off your belay loop?

I wouldn't feel comfortable with your setup in that I don't see it as being redundant when belaying a leader working a free multi-pitch route -- Unless what you are doing is recommended by your manufacturer(s); the belay loop can hold a lead fall and keep you tied to the anchor, I see 2 loads going to the belay loop. AND, your daisy is rated and being used in the end to end configuration properly.

This goes back to what John G. mentioned about being redundant. He uses a runner/cord (correct??) & I use the PAS, which I think both of us tie these in to waist & leg as with the rope.

Would you be in jeopardy? I think this goes to a question I had asked in the anchor post, how many factor 2 falls has anyone really experienced? And, along with that, is rockfall a concern on the route which could hit & damage your tie-ins? You will not have time to make any adjustments when the leader comes off of the route.

What are you & your partner's level of acceptance of risk? If you don't feel comfortable using the daisy, get the PAS or use a rated runner/sling/cord. In either material used, I would girth my redundant through the waist & leg when free climbing a multi-pitch.

Tieing off to a belay loop (or girth hitching your daisy there) adds an extra and unnecessary element into the chain of the system. The fewer elements in the chain, the fewer things can go wrong/break. Example: to extend a sling to be twice as long, you would girth hitch the two and eliminate that biner between them.
Doubling up on elements (like masterpoint biners reversed and opposed, redundancy in your anchor, etc.) adds items for safety/redundancy.

Eli wrote, "nor do you use two carabiners at the attachment point to the rope when leading".
I would never lead with a biner between my rope and harness! Extra element (and probably the weakest one).

In my opinion, eliminate elements in the chain and save your belay loop for belaying/rappelling.

I totally agree with Eli, and would also like to point out that girth hitching your PAS/Daisy through your harness/leg loops is actually a bad idea as you are increasing the wear on the harness. If every time you weigh the PAS/Daisy you are constricting the girth through those 2 points over time you will see a considerable wear on your leg loops, AND the PAS/daisy. Also as these are generally left in place you will often not even notice the wear. The only reason we do not tie into the belay loop is because then our knot ends up dangling around our knees.

Kevin, I don't see the wear, but I've got a harness that allows for girthing as I have stated. I would rather replace the wear than risk redundancy on a free climb. As I weight my PAS frequently, a good point though to check/replace it for wear.

Yeah Mark, I use a double length runner that I tie off setting loops in and put through my harness just as I do when I tie in my rope. I also leave it there always unless I am aiding.

Kevin brings up an interesting idea about wear. But the thing about tying in like you do with the rope is that it is redundant. Plus, those loops are way more bomber than the belay loop in my opinion. I would much rather accept the wear on the leg and waist loop attachments than on the single belay loop. I have always hated the idea that there is only one belay loop and that after all of the redundancy it comes down to that single sewn piece of webbing on rappels.

The idea that the only reason people don't tie into the belay loop is because of a hanging knot is humorous.

Ultimately, we all have our own levels of risk acceptance. More power to you Kevin and Eli. I just have a hard time recommending that to new climbers.

I really dig that new big wall safety harness by metolius (not that I use it, but the two sewn belay loops make me happy.)

John J. Glime wrote:I really dig that new big wall safety harness by metolius (not that I use it, but the two sewn belay loops make me happy.)

It's a big bastard for sure but super comfy, extra padding, extra loops, & I think it serves beer (or a fine scotch) while at the anchor at the end of the day.

Actually the belay loop is much stronger than either of the "bomber" attachment points you both are refering to. Redundancy is only as good as the climber. Accidentally only threading one of those two points seems much more likely for a beginning climber than knowing it is attached to the strongest point on your harness.

Also, I would bet the new Metolious Big wall harness has 2 belay loops not for redundancy, but so you can clip each daisy into a seperate loop. Also would be usefull when soloing for rope mamagement.

For what I use - Metolius Safe-Tech, the rating is pretty much the same all around. So I don't see a problem with the way I tie in my redundant. But this is specific to what I do & use.

I guess this discussion goes to what is going to put a person in jeopardy given the level of risk they are willing & knowingly assuming and the equipment they want to use. I solo sometimes, but most other times I want to be redundant at my anchor and be able to hold a factor 2.

I think a good deal of this safety discussion is route, climbing style, & manufacturer's intended use as to specific redundancy methods.

I'm not at all perfect. I did once forget to double back in Eldo climbing on lead on some hard routes, but didn't fall (emphasis on double checking is appreciated by those that climb with me; even though my harness is made for this, I really f*cked up, when I got done at the end of the day and took my harness off, I almost threw up when I saw what I did).

But, in other regards, I believe my method of redundancy is the best I can do; hopefully my anchor holds (another issue I'm still concerned about.)

Belay loops are rated at 15 kN. Each leg loop holds about half that. On the other hand, in many harnesses the belay loop connects the leg loop attachment to the waist belt. Hence, from a reliability standpoint, tying the rope to waist and leg loops directly is a little better. Since it is also more convenient, for me it's a no-brainer. I'll freely admit that it's a bit more error prone for inexperienced users.

From what I have read, wear on the harness is not enough reason not to tie in to waist and leg loops. Then again, new harnesses like the Petzl Aspir have a single attachment point, which makes this discussion moot. Of course, you don't want to connect the rope to the harness through a biner, but I really don't think Eli meant that.

So much for the climbing rope. A sling or daisy used for (multi-pitch) rappels, or to redundantly tie in to the anchor of a sport route while preparing for lower-off, can be safely attached to the belay loop without causing concern or clutter. The belay loop of a harness in good conditions is very strong. If it were to suddenly fail in mid rappel, one could be seriously hosed, but my impression is that of the many accidents during rappels, very few, if any, were caused by failure of the belay loop.

Now I'll step down from the soap box and go check my harness's conditions...

Just to be clear about this post, we have two situations Aimee presented.

The initial concern was a body weight only at a sport anchor, which I don't see any problem with her method description as long as there was some redundancy. I prefer the PAS, but I don't see the PAS as an essential nor how the redundancy is tied to the harness, as long as a load bearing point is used with redundancy. I like the PAS for ease of use & convenience in cleaning an anchor & rapping. I perform the tie-in similar to what Eli describes but with the PAS, so I'm not totally independently redundant, but I can clip each bolt with a separate loop on the off-chance a chincy bolt blows; if I'm more concerned about being totally redundant, I'll clip another sling in from my harness; but either way, I know what I'm looking for regarding the quality of the anchor. If I think the anchor is shit, I'll also leave the draw or use a bail biner on the next lower bolt (chances are though that if the anchor is shit, the fixed pro on the entire route is also. Maybe topping out & looking for a safer way down is a better option).

Some re-tie the rope to the harness perform a "take and lower." As long as the partners know what is needed from each other, that is what is important. I prefer to use off-belay and clean & rap, in this method, my belayer knows 100% that I don't need them any longer once I give the command and don't object to their response. It would be helpful to talk about this exchange and what is expected before you leave the ground.

There was then a second concern by Aimee which addressed multi-pitch anchor tie-ins to the harness during a free climb which some of us disagree what is adequate with equipment used wherein a factor 2 fall force could be an issue. Similar discussion was also offered in Peter's post. Since no-one has yet offered an instance of what actually has happened during a factor 2 or presented data supporting, we are using opinions based on our interpretations of what the manf. recommendations are to try and prevent detachment from the anchor.

My main concerns are not to rely on a non-rated daisy, or use a rated daisy improperly, at the anchor position if redundancy anchor tie-in is desired by the team (my comments from Peter's post), and reliance on the belay loop for catching a factor 2 and keeping the belayer tied to the anchor as there are forces in 2 directions. I am concerned in that I would like to separate these forces from one loop so as to have the belay loop to the climber and the harness to the anchor somewhat independent for the belayer to rely on for their tie-ins.

brenta wrote: but my impression is that of the many accidents during rappels, very few, if any, were caused by failure of the belay loop.

I absolutely agree. It isn't a rational fear I have. I just know that on sketchy exposed rappels that I often find myself looking at that single belay loop and thinking unpleasant thoughts. Then I quickly put it out of my mind.

I also agree that the two belay loops on the new metolius harness are not meant as a backup. I just meant that it makes me feel happy to see them. I can say that if I rapped with that harness I would clip my locker through both of them and feel better. (But yes, this is a silly fear I have and completely unfounded.) But I also am pretty darn sure that they are not there to attach each daisy to the harness! Someone email Metolius and find out. When I am at work on a wall, the extra belay loop provides a convenient extra clip in point for attaching my self to the anchor, belaying, etc. But I guess I could be wrong...

After getting home from work I was curious to check this "wear" problem that Kevin mentions. I do not see wear, let alone "considerate wear." Then I compared the robustness of those two loops and the stitching to my belay loop. If my life depended on it and I had to choose one over the other, I would definitely choose the two loops. The belay loop adds an extra link in the chain anyway that can possibly fail. Anyway, none of this is scientific. I am only looking at it through my fears.

Mark Nelson wrote: Similar discussion was also offered in Peter's post. Since no-one has yet offered an instance of what actually has happened during a factor 2 or presented data

The best study I've read so far is, unfortunately, in Italian. Here's a link to the 37-page PDF file, and here is a summary, with no pretence of doing justice to the actual text, which was prepared by a working group of the Central Committee on Gear and Technique of the Italian Alpine Club.

First of all, the authors of this study have performed hundreds of tests, measuring forces as a function of time at various points of the belay chain, filmed the experiments and reviewed them in slow motion, and developed a simulation model that matched the experimental data reasonably well.

The study considers dynamic belays, that is, when the rope slips through the brake (i.e., belay device) instead of being fixed at one end.

One of the most interesting claims they make is that in the case of dynamic belay, the familiar notion of fall factor is not so relevant, because the potential energy lost by the falling climber is not mostly converted into elastic energy stored in the rope, but is primarily dissipated in the brake. Said otherwise, the force applied to the anchor depends in practice on the braking force.

While, in first approximation, the actual height of the fall is irrelevant in static belays, the total energy to be dissipated is what really matters in dynamic belays. That is, the height of the fall is the crucial parameter.

The study goes on to analyze different brakes and belay setups. Even if you cannot read Italian, you can scroll down to Page 11 and see the graphs that show force on the top anchor, on the belay anchor, and on the braking hand, as well as rope slippage as functions of time.

The experiments reveal that there isn't an awful lot of reduction in the strain applied to the anchors when the brake is moved from the belay anchor to the belayer harness. Along the same lines, the height to which the belayer is lifted (when belaying from the harness) is shown to have little impact on the maximum strain applied to the anchors.

Justifications for these claims are not to be found in this very succinct summary, but the full study does a much better job.

Thanks Brent! Should be good to review when I get some time.

Is there any way to cross reference your last message to the anchor post for further discussion?

Russ Walling wrote: Where did you get this number? Sources please.

Black Diamond (see page 4) and Petzl websites give the same number. The following is just speculation on my part: It may be that this is what the CE norms for PPEs prescribe. In any case, it should be adequate, given the forces involved in catching a fall.

Russ: mine is Metolius Safe Tech - rated 3600lbs front points and haul loop each rated similar, they consider this their full rating (16kN). I guess each manf. would have their own in-house method to meet or exceed certification.

15kN corresponds to UIAA posting (strength test of a sit harness) corresponding to EN 12277 & UIAA 105, the following is a visual but not a complete description of certification testing:

uiaa.ch/web.test/visual/Saf…