Multipitch Anchors on Mod. Terrain w/ one Leader

Derek DeBruin wrote: You forgot the "or simuling" part, which is already a significant increase in security over soloing.

Nope, I didn't forget it, I was commenting specifically on your mention of soloing. But in terms of the "back-up" (being connected to the rope which is connected to your leaders anchor and would eventually catch you), it is decidedly less secure than simuling, at least simuling with good practices.

Derek DeBruin wrote: That was not the recommendation. The recommendation was that the leader should clip the follower into the appropriate piece since they are the one qualified to make that decision in this case.

Sure, and I disagree with the recommendation. I think that trusting your life to a single piece of gear is always a risk and it's up to the individual whose life is on the line to make that choice based on their risk tolerance. I think an experienced climber is welcome to assess the situation and make that decision for themselves; I would not (and do not recommend that others) make that decision for a partner. It's ok to disagree and recommend different things.

Derek DeBruin wrote: You'll note the number of things that could be occurring during this process, which could take quite a bit longer than 20 seconds:

Those things are going to take time either way. The time savings is, when the second is on belay, are they pulling three pieces (or 2 or 4 or whatever the anchor is) of gear, or only one? Pulling 2 extra pieces of gear and racking them shouldn't take more than a few seconds to a minute at most.

Derek DeBruin wrote: Also, keep in mind this isn't necessarily recommended every time, but is a viable strategy when the risk is already sufficiently managed. Consider this: when leading, how many ropes do you use? If you are at all reflective of the dominant majority of climbers in the continental U.S., the answer is one. Where is the redundancy? Why do we trust only one rope but not one piece of gear when it's backed up by that same rope?

I trust a single rope, and single harness, etc. because the failure rate of ropes is basically zero short of rare cutting events and the rate of gear pulling from rock is much higher. Also, I do not think you understand what "backed up" means. The only way that one piece of gear is backed up by the rope, is that assuming it is tied to the leader who is tied to a solid anchor, it will catch you after you've fallen the full remaining rope length. I do not consider that a back-up in terms of the single piece of gear anchor - I wouldn't want to take that fall. Either that single piece is sufficient or it's not, "backed up by the rope" doesn't come into the equation for me.

Derek DeBruin wrote:In this context, suppose the follower is standing on large flat ledge (similar to or better than some of the ones people willingly sleep on while climbing El Cap, for example). I would argue the follower's security is largely dependent on their ability to stand upright, which they've likely been doing for years, if not decades. In other words, if they don't regularly fall over violently while standing upright and then somehow dramatically ragdoll for long distances, they are probably pretty safe. The anchor protects against remote possibilities like rock fall. For the few minutes they might only be anchored to one piece, that piece serves the same purpose, while potentially offering dramatic time savings (especially with a novice follower). The number of pieces probably doesn't matter either--if the follower is only attached to one point (single piece, masterpoint, etc.), any rockfall that cuts their PAS and/or clove hitch is still useless, regardless of how many pieces to which it was previously affixed.

I don't think anyone here (including me) has said that it's never ok to depend on a single piece as an anchor. There are many factors to consider - how likely are you to fall off the stance or ledge, how solid is the rock, how good is that single piece, where do you draw your own personal line in terms of risk tolerance vs. time savings. I have frequently unclipped all but a single piece as a second while preparing to follow. I have frequently called "off-belay" after clipping myself onto a single solid piece as a leader. But in the context of the OP's question, I don't happen to recommend this tactic for an inexperienced beginner climber. And most importantly, if you're on a single piece, you're on a single piece. You are not in any way backed up by the gear that is placed along the route.

MuddyPaws wrote: Really???

I'm not sure I understand: do you mean to say that rockfall is not a remote possibility (granted on some routes it may even be expected)? Or do you mean to imply it protects against more than rock fall? Of course the anchor is also supposed to protect against a belay system failure should the leader fall (at least in theory).

In the context of this conversation, the anchor to which the follower is attached solely serves to keep them from falling off the mountain until the leader puts them on belay. If they are standing on a ledge, that risk is already probably pretty small barring an outside influence, such as rockfall, icefall, avalanche, earthquake, etc..

Rock hits you in the head and knocks you out, anchor keeps you from falling off your ledge after you're unconscious...

Em Cos wrote: Every climber can make their own decision whether they are cool with being clipped to only one piece, and there are lots of factors that would go into deciding that. But the context of this discussion is that one of the parties is inexperienced enough that they are not comfortable leading any of the pitches which range from 5.2 - 5.5. Given that information, I'm not sure I would recommend that person clip into just one piece for the sake of saving about 20 seconds. Of course there may be exceptions, but I feel like anyone who has enough experience to evaluate those pieces of gear and make a sound judgment on whether they are safe enough clipped to just one of them, probably would have the experience to lead 5.2.

Em Cos has a point. It certainly depends on the belay environment and the second. The procedure I described, which is used by a large number of experienced climbers---I certainly didn't invent it---may not be right, not so much for less experienced climbers per se as for climbers incapable of maintaining appropriate levels of attention.

The second is not really backed up by the system, which means the party isn't backed up. A fall by the second, especially with lots of slack and the leader only attached to one piece, is likely to be catastrophic for the party. That said, their are tons of situations involving excellent gear and suitable ledges where the system does not require any special climbing competence. It also works well with bolted anchors. What is needed, as I said, is attentiveness, and I know folks who are beginners who I'd trust completely in this regard and others who are very experienced who I wouldn't trust at all.

The one thing I'd contest in Em's comment is the bit about saving 20 seconds. When it is possible to implement the system, savings are measured in minutes, not seconds.

That's fair. And certainly if cleaning three pieces vs cleaning one takes extra minutes for your second rather than extra seconds, that more significant time savings is going to be a factor in your decision as well. I just don't think I've ever climbed with someone who would take full minutes to clean 2 extra pieces of gear, unless they are stuck. But to each his own. For a competent party, without time pressure, either system is just fine.

Haven't read whole thread but I'll throw in my $.02 gleamed from 12 years of guiding and 22 years climbing in the Whites on Cathedral/Whitehorse/Cannon/Huntington/Katahdin.

9/10 times I can build a solid 3 piece equalized anchor with one shoulder length and one double length. I will go out of my way to not break out the 1-2 cordelettes I carry for a few reasons:

1) It's faster not to build it with a cordelette

2) It's faster for my second(s) to clean and easier to pack up

"Add a half hour per pitch" You need to look at your efficiency at transitions (and maybe anchor building). Maybe spend a day or three with a rock/alpine certified guide with this as a focus. Anchor setup/breakdown should be about 5 minutes total.

Em Cos wrote:That's fair. And certainly if cleaning three pieces vs cleaning one takes extra minutes for your second rather than extra seconds, that more significant time savings is going to be a factor in your decision as well. I just don't think I've ever climbed with someone who would take full minutes to clean 2 extra pieces of gear, unless they are stuck. But to each his own. For a competent party, without time pressure, either system is just fine.

2 pieces plus a noob re-coiling a cordellete.
could take hours

I totally second the suggestion of a double length sling, maybe in combination with a single length sling. That is very easy to break down, which is the biggest drawback of a cordelette, especially if it's left up to a new climber. It is also less bulky than a cordelette. Use the double length sling to equalize the pieces; if the pieces are far enough apart that the sling either won't reach or the angles are too large, use a draw or single length sling to extend one or more of them so the attachment points to each piece are closer together.

On easy terrain, I would strongly consider using a two piece anchor, equalized with a double length sling. Of course, that is only if the placements are solid; what solid means is left up to your judgement. That set up will save a lot of time compared to three pieces with a cordelette. If you want to use three pieces, try to place two of them close together then clip the top piece to the biner on the lower piece, or extend one with a draw to make the attachment biners at about the same position, then clip them together as 'one piece' (one bight of sling running to both pieces) and equalize it with a third piece elsewhere with a sling. The two clipped together will probably not be well equalized, but you get the redundancy of another piece.

Em Cos wrote:...if cleaning three pieces vs cleaning one takes extra minutes for your second rather than extra seconds, that more significant time savings is going to be a factor in your decision as well. I just don't think I've ever climbed with someone who would take full minutes to clean 2 extra pieces of gear, unless they are stuck....For a competent party, without time pressure, either system is just fine.

If there is no time pressure, then extra safety wins. But efficiency can be valuable when the party thinks there is no time pressure but then something happens, like getting off-route, that unexpectedly adds time pressure. And time-consuming behaviors can become habitual, impeding the party when it matters more how efficiently they move.

Moreover, the time computation isn't just about cleaning the pieces. It involves all the things, otherwise postponed until the leader calls "on belay," that need to be done before the second can climb. This can include, for example, undoing and storing the belay device and then waiting while the leader pulls up the rope, undoing and storing the cordelette, putting away stuff like a camera if one has been used, taking off and storing a belay layer, doing up and putting on the pack, and putting on and/or tightening shoes.

The point is that little things add up, and if all the little things the leader and second have to do have to be done sequentially rather than simultaneously, a lot of time can be lost. Add inefficient gear changeovers with the second doing things like taking apart quickdraws and handing the leader each piece in turn (or even worse, a fistful of separate pieces) from a collection of random locations on the harness and on shoulder slings, things that tie up two people with one task and leaving an additional wait for re-stacking the ropes, and pretty soon you have those half-hour totals for each pitch's tasks.

As for the wait while the cordelette is wrapped up and stowed, a wait I've noted with some experienced OCD climbers as well, that all goes away if the cordelette is simply quadrupled and carried over the shoulder.

I often find myself in such situations. And I do agree that 2 cordalettes or similar is one of the best approaches. "Using the rope" as I normally prefer has disadvantages here.

However in practice I don't carry cordalettes on my rack so inevitably I swap ends or quickly rebuild the anchor. Adds about a minute to the belay change over, but hardly a big deal. Its not as though I am climbing 10+ pitches and time is a pressure. (When I am doing that I'll be swinging leads with a partner of similar competency.)

rgold wrote:2. A way to save quite a bit of time on pitches in which at least one of the belay anchors is deemed solid by itself is to equip the leader and second with a PAS's of some sort (donning asbesto suit now).....

You had to go there didn't you! :-p

FrankPS wrote:How much time would you really be saving by removing two pieces from a three-piece anchor? Not much. I'll stay clipped into the complete anchor, thank you!

Plenty of time.

If I am seconding and there is a stance I'll normally have every piece but one removed, I'll be ready to climb the moment I hear (and confirm) on belay.

If I am leading and there is a stance then I will call safe after clipping my first solid piece. That will give additional time to my second to put their shoes have a drink and be ready to climb the second I say on belay.

Of course if there is no stance and/or the gear is not all bomber then I might alter my approach but in general I trust bomber gear and I like to be efficient.

Oh yeah linking pitches. It normally speeds things up immensely. I lead two 60m pitches in a row last weekend. No rope pulling, straight on belay and pitches done very quickly.

I've been climbing in this situation for several years now (lead majority of pitches ). While still fairly uncommon, I've moved over to using two belay slings for this situation. It's, in my opinion, the best blend of simple slings and a cordalette. They rack as quickly as a sling over the shoulder and are carried with the needed UL locker already attached. Because the Master point is sewn there's no futzing with tying and untying it at each stance.
It really is a better mousetrap for this sort of thing.
I use the lighter non-adjustable Edelrid Belay sling made from 12mm Tech Web.

https://vimeo.com/47001108

I'm a huge fan of the mammut quad for building anchors, highly recommend for efficiency

John Wilder wrote:Assuming you're tied in, you're backed up to every piece of gear the rope is clipped to. Again, context is everything and an understanding of the consequences of a fall and the likelihood of such a fall are decisions that each person needs to make.

Not necessarily. Depends, on what the leader does at the top. If he uses a cordellette, then you could what slack is left in the rope, which could be quite a ways. say it is a 100 foot pitch, well you could fall 100 feet.

FrankPS wrote:How much time would you really be saving by removing two pieces from a three-piece anchor? Not much. I'll stay clipped into the complete anchor, thank you!

Depending on the anchor you could save a bit. Say its 2 nuts and a cam. Cams are quick and easy to pull out, but nuts in an anchor could take a little persuasion. You also save the time to undo the knot and rebundle the cordellette. Could save up to 5 minutes/belay.

patto wrote: Oh yeah linking pitches. It normally speeds things up immensely. I lead two 60m pitches in a row last weekend. No rope pulling, straight on belay and pitches done very quickly.

Often a very good idea, but not always so great for beginners. It can make communication quite hard and if the crux is low, then there is a lot of rope stretch.

Running from afternoon thunderstorms in the alpine of Colorado scares me more that taking a few short cuts at the belay. Darker clouds zipping past you and a few rain drops can be a real motivator.

rgold wrote: If there is no time pressure, then extra safety wins. But efficiency can be valuable when the party thinks there is no time pressure but then something happens, like getting off-route, that unexpectedly adds time pressure. And time-consuming behaviors can become habitual, impeding the party when it matters more how efficiently they move. Moreover, the time computation isn't just about cleaning the pieces. It involves all the things, otherwise postponed until the leader calls "on belay," that need to be done before the second can climb. This can include, for example, undoing and storing the belay device and then waiting while the leader pulls up the rope, undoing and storing the cordelette, putting away stuff like a camera if one has been used, taking off and storing a belay layer, doing up and putting on the pack, and putting on and/or tightening shoes. The point is that little things add up, and if all the little things the leader and second have to do have to be done sequentially rather than simultaneously, a lot of time can be lost. Add inefficient gear changeovers with the second doing things like taking apart quickdraws and handing the leader each piece in turn (or even worse, a fistful of separate pieces) from a collection of random locations on the harness and on shoulder slings, things that tie up two people with one task and leaving an additional wait for re-stacking the ropes, and pretty soon you have those half-hour totals for each pitch's tasks. As for the wait while the cordelette is wrapped up and stowed, a wait I've noted with some experienced OCD climbers as well, that all goes away if the cordelette is simply quadrupled and carried over the shoulder.

I'm confused by this argument - you say that cleaning the entire anchor after being put on belay vs. cleaning just one remaining piece at that time saves minutes, not seconds - and if that has been your experience, I agree it may change the time savings/safety tradeoff more significantly. But then you say that the reason it takes minutes not seconds is because it's not just cleaning the gear - it's also storing the belay device, changing layers, putting on shoes, putting away a camera, etc... what prevents your second from doing these things before being put on belay with the complete anchor still built? If we're valuing efficiency, I would recommend that your second should do things like not change their shoes between every pitch and not futz around with cameras before recommending they pull most of their anchor before being on belay; those seem like safer and easier places to gain time savings during transitions.

Em Cos wrote: I'm confused by this argument - you say that cleaning the entire anchor after being put on belay vs. cleaning just one remaining piece at that time saves minutes, not seconds - and if that has been your experience, I agree it may change the time savings/safety tradeoff more significantly. But then you say that the reason it takes minutes not seconds is because it's not just cleaning the gear - it's also storing the belay device, changing layers, putting on shoes, putting away a camera, etc... what prevents your second from doing these things before being put on belay with the complete anchor still built? If we're valuing efficiency, I would recommend that your second should do things like not change their shoes between every pitch and not futz around with cameras before recommending they pull most of their anchor before being on belay; those seem like safer and easier places to gain time savings during transitions.

These are certainly valid concerns, but the system proposed allows for efficiency depending on the precise order of operations.

If the leader goes off belay after clipping to one solid piece, this allows the follower to perform tasks other than belaying (food, water, layers, pack, etc.)

If it takes the leader a greater amount of time to build the anchor and pull up the rope than any of these other tasks, the second is ultimately waiting to climb. They may be able to complete all of the other necessary tasks, but would then still have to break down the anchor. Pulling a single piece is almost assuredly faster than removing multiple pieces and stowing the cord/sling/whatever.

As for simply not doing these other things, that's not always feasible (camera is certainly optional, but eating, drinking, belay jackets, etc. become less optional the longer you are on a route).

In this particular case with a beginner on what is assumed to be a relatively short route, there's no problem waiting for them to clean the anchor in its entirety. But there are many circumstances where this strategy is valid and probably worth the tradeoff.

I think it boils down to what people are willing to sacrifice in the name of efficiency. And I'm sure some would say they aren't sacrificing anything.

Different risk tolerance levels dictate what each person is willing to risk. And that is not just based on experience vs. inexperience, although that is certainly one of the factors.

Speed is safety, to a point. Some people's "efficiency" sounds more like speed climbing to me, but again, it's all subjective.

This has been an interesting discussion.

Oh, and if you have to take your shoes off at each belay, get more comfortable shoes. :)

Em Cos wrote: I'm confused by this argument - you say that cleaning the entire anchor after being put on belay vs. cleaning just one remaining piece at that time saves minutes, not seconds - and if that has been your experience, I agree it may change the time savings/safety tradeoff more significantly. But then you say that the reason it takes minutes not seconds is because it's not just cleaning the gear - it's also storing the belay device, changing layers, putting on shoes, putting away a camera, etc... what prevents your second from doing these things before being put on belay with the complete anchor still built?

Don't forget that in the system I've described (for better or worse) there are two people using just a single anchor, the other person being the leader. In the usual scenario, the only time the second has for all these things is the time it takes the leader to haul up the slack and go on belay, because up until the leader calls "off belay" the second has been belaying. With a long pitch and halfway competent leader, that could be a handful of seconds.

At heart here may be the difference between the alpine climbing perspective and the crag climbing perspective. Alpine climbers are used to moving together and/or unroped on technical ground and think a person standing on a ledge connected to a single good piece is very safe. Crag climbers may even be be concerned about a two-piece anchor, much less a one-piece anchor.