Why use webbing?

I'm still learning more and more. Last year, all of my family's outdoor climbing was at the RRG or Estes Valley, all on sport routes. This year we'll be doing some top roping in areas that I have to build some anchors, so I'll need to buy some gear. My question is this: why should I buy/use webbing for building top anchors vs. static line? It seems to me that the knots used for webbing (water knots) are less reliable than good old double fishermen in static line, and from what I can tell, webbing abrades faster when running over rocks/edges.

I'm sure that there are advantages to webbing that I'm missing or else webbing wouldn't be so popular. Can anyone share some with me?

Thanks much.

I use it because it is lighter and easier to hike in. I always tie a double fisherman's into the webbing versus the water knot anyways. Weight is the main thing though.

Webbing is lighter, cheaper, and packs smaller. It's also more difficult to deal with as knots are harder to tie/untie, equalization is always more of a pain (for me at least) and it is more prone to abrasion.

Static is heavier, pricier, and take up more space in the old rucksack. But it's still my go-to because it is easier to manage and totally bomber.

That being said, I can't really think of a instance where I would use a double fisherman for my anchor static. If you're new to building anchors I would definitely pick up a copy of John Long's Anchor book. I think it's $10 well spent.

Edit: Also meant to add that water knots are fine for webbing if you leave plenty of tail.

water knots are just fine for webbing

yeah, there's nothing wrong with using a water knot with webbing, just be sure to leave enough tail

A water knot in webbing with at least 6" of tail is as indestructible of a knot that you can get. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. As far as abrasion goes, if your rigging is moving laterally across the rock you have not set it up right; but even still will hold up longer in those conditions to cord, which all it has to happen to be unsafe is develop a core shot.

Mike Lane wrote:A water knot in webbing with at least 6" of tail is as indestructible of a knot that you can get.

I agree.

Also, webbing is easier to inspect than rope, there's no sheath hiding the important part. We use lots of webbing in the Needles to sling spires when there's nothing else.

I like the dynamic aspect of webbing too. I've never slipped at belay and shock loaded the anchor (I use a daisy chain), but if it did happen I'd be glad to have webbing rather than static line wrapped around that spire.

" like the dynamic aspect of webbing too. I've never slipped at belay and shock loaded the anchor (I use a daisy chain), but if it did happen I'd be glad to have webbing rather than static line wrapped around that spire."

Yikes!. Webbing less static than "static" rope?? I doubt it highly. I took a huge fall on a static rope, with some conditions that made it a little dynamic, and was totally fine. If it had been webbing, I bet I would have snapped in half. Just being attached to a 2 foot sling connected directly to an anchor and shock loading it can be very severe. Webbing, in a practical sense, is completely static, So called "static rope" not so much so. By the way, I think there was an article recently that explained why it was a bad idea to use your daisy chain to anchor. You should take a look for it.

The regular climbing areas when I started were Carderock, Md, and Great Falls, Va, both top rope areas. Plenty of people used webbing but many also preferred static line due it's greater durability. We would typically put 2-4 five foot sections of 1" tube webbing over the static to protect running over edges and routinely check the static line. Most of the anchors used were stout trees 15 - 40 feet from the edge of the rocks, typically used a double bowline at the tree. I would encourage you seek instruction if you're not familiar setting this type of anchor or in tying a double bowline, it's not a knot you want to get wrong!

Since moving to CO that static line just sits in a closet, the few times I've top roped a climb here webbing/cord has been sufficient and, as others have stated, a lot lighter.

Since when is webbing dynamic..

Webbing is way more dynamic than static rope.
xmission.com/~tmoyer/testin…

"Just being attached to a 2 foot sling connected directly to an anchor and shock loading it can be very severe."

A 2 foot fall on ANY anchor really hurts. You might as well be attached to a steel cable. It'd hurt just as bad if you tied a 2 foot section of dynamic climbing rope as your anchor and fell on it.
dmmclimbing.com/video.asp?id=5

Hypothetically; if a rope has 8% elasticity, if the line is only 2 feet; you are getting less than 2 inches of stretch, if you had 12 feet in the system you'd get almost a foot of stretch. Obviously your line shouldn't be this static but this is just to illustrate a point. This is why falling from the first pro is always the most painful, the more line in the system(not slack obviously) the safer and softer the fall.

Webbing is very dynamic. Have you ever been on or set up a slack line that didn't stretch more than 20%?

All that being said; cheaper, lighter, smaller. Leave plenty of tail and you can easily back up a water knot and still be able to untie it.

I haven't said anything about which you should use for an anchor, I'm only debating those comments claiming that webbing isn't dynamic.

(Edited to make it easier for incompetent trolls to comprehend.)

Tyson Taylor wrote:I'd like to see some actual studies done, but I'd bet webbing is way more dynamic than static rope. "Just being attached to a 2 foot sling connected directly to an anchor and shock loading it can be very severe." A 2 foot fall on any anchor really hurts. You might as well be attached to a steel cable. It'd hurt just as bad if you tied a 2 foot section of dynamic climbing rope as your anchor and fell on it. Say a rope has 8% elasticity, if the line is only 2 feet; you are getting less than 2 inches of stretch, assuming that the very end of your rope has much elasticity left in it at all. This is why falling from the first pro is always the most painful, the more line in the system the safer and softer the fall. Webbing is very dynamic, think about your slack-line. If you really pull em tight(use a pulley multiplier), you can pull 30-40% of stretch out of em during set up and they still don't feel very rigid. All that being said; cheaper, lighter, smaller. Leave plenty of tail and you can easily back up a water knot and still be able to untie it.

Everything in this post is wrong.

I'm having a hard time finding specs for both ( not the best internet searcher) So far, the only figure I found was 5% for 1" webbing, but that was at failure. I am sure the force at that point would be catastrophic for the human body. If anyone else can find the specs for each, I would really like to see them.

I like webbing for some top rope applications. As mentioned, webbing is cheap! Also i use only webbing for slinging trees (using multiple wraps) because I love trees and using static line is destructive for the rope and the tree. Of course the waterknot is legit, climbers have sworn by it for years, these days you won't see many belay plates, swami belts, or rigid friends but we all still use the waterknot.
As for equalizing top rope anchors, I am all for static rope cuz we all know how much of a pain it can be to try to equalize webbing. Plus the all webbing anchor is generally a sure sign of a newbie or an old person (and nobody wants to be called that)!

I'm thinking, just from experience, that there's a difference in the static nature of webbing depending on whether it's flat or tubular (no I'm not like a surfer...doood:-)

I'm shocked at the amount of bad, incorrect, and simply made up information in this thread.

How about this...

Conclusions
For the most part, readers can draw their own conclusions from the test data, or better yet, repeat these or other tests on their own equipment. For our group, we found nothing that scares us away from either of the brands of rope we currently have in service. The primary difference we will focus on in our training is the difference in elasticity. The test results for webbing make very clear what we have known for a long time. For rock anchors, if there is any possibility that an anchor could shift when it is loaded, webbing should not be used. If it is used on rock, edges should be well padded.

Read the rest here... xmission.com/~tmoyer/testin…

Just because you're getting away with it doesn't mean it's safe.

If you don't KNOW the correct answer keep your mouth shut and stop offering bad advice. In this case your bad advice could get someone killed!

More here...
mountainproject.com/v/gener…

supertopo.com/climbers-foru…

googlie

its all preference of the one setting the anchor. i personally likle the smaller 9/16 tubular webbing, and carry a 50' piece which works for most of the routes i set up. but i also carry a section of crdalette that works well too in alot of setups. most the toproping i do anymore is solo climbing, and i prefer to just use my rope. works on multipitch climbs and solo toprope just the same. i just make sure the set up doesnt have the rope extending over edges, in that case i would use slings to extend over the edges.
oh, and waterknots as bomber as they come.

Well there's also cordellette. I have a few sizes and for a nice TR sesh I have 20ish foot of 8mm cord that I use. Plently thick.

DannyUncanny wrote: Everything in this post is wrong.

not *everything*. webbing is cheaper, lighter, smaller than dynamic rope. :-)

Yarp wrote:I'm shocked at the amount of bad, incorrect, and simply made up information in this thread. How about this... Conclusions For the most part, readers can draw their own conclusions from the test data, or better yet, repeat these or other tests on their own equipment. For our group, we found nothing that scares us away from either of the brands of rope we currently have in service. The primary difference we will focus on in our training is the difference in elasticity. The test results for webbing make very clear what we have known for a long time. For rock anchors, if there is any possibility that an anchor could shift when it is loaded, webbing should not be used. If it is used on rock, edges should be well padded. Read the rest here... xmission.com/~tmoyer/testin… Just because you're getting away with it doesn't mean it's safe. If you don't KNOW the correct answer keep your mouth shut and stop offering bad advice. In this case your bad advice could get someone killed! More here... mountainproject.com/v/gener… supertopo.com/climbers-foru… googlie

I am mystified by the arrogance in your post, especially considering how loosely related your conclusions are to the topic at hand.

First, let's briefly summarize the results of the study you posted:
-1" tubular webbing is less than half the weight per unit length of the next lightest rope tested.
-1" tubular webbing is slightly more static than 8mm accessory cord and slightly more dynamic than most static lines (but significantly more dynamic than the ABC/Sterling rope.)
-On a static cut test, webbing performed about the same as 8mm cord and 7/16" goldline. Static lines performed better.
-Webbing performs much worse than static lines in dynamic abrasion tests.

Now for a bit of analysis:
Probably the most important thing to recognize is that this study is testing rescue ropes, not rock climbing anchor materials. Is it surprising that 7/16" rescue rope designed specifically for high abrasion resistance outperforms webbing in abrasion resistance? No, not at all. But how many climbers are going to carry 7/16" rescue rope for constructing anchors, especially considering that the highest performing rope weighs more than 2.5 times per unit length what webbing does and takes up much more space?

What does the study tell us? Nothing we didn't already know. Webbing should never be moving over a rough surface. Webbing isn't rope. Sharp edges should be padded. Since the original topic was regarding top-rope anchors, there's absolutely no reason why those conditions can't be met. Webbing is perfectly safe if it's used appropriately. It's also lighter, cheaper, easier to carry, and (in my opinion) easier to work with than static line.

One last point. It seems there is some risk people may attempt to generalize results from tests on 7/16" static rope to smaller diameter cordage. Note that the above study found that 8mm accessory cord did no better than webbing for static cut resistance. I suspect it would do better against abrasion, but that wasn't tested. Until actual results are presented, don't assume that using cord over webbing is anything other than personal preference.

Jim A wrote: I am mystified by the arrogance in your post

It's Yarp, why would you be?