Mountain Project Logo

Using rope-loop to belay on multi-pitch

Patrik · · Third rock from Sun · Joined Jun 2010 · Points: 30
rgold wrote:

Clipping both the rope loop and the harness belay loop is likely to put the harness back in the system, and since the only point is getting the harness (and the belayer’s back and kidneys) out of the system, there is no point in clipping both, and the answer to the original question is, leave the belay loop out.

Whenever I don't setup an ATC guide for belaying up the second, I "always" use the method described in this thread. I also always clip the belay biner to both the tie-in loop and the belay loop. In my experience it is fairly easy to adjust my body position so I can avoid any loading of my harness if so desired. If I want to use my fat bottom as an extra piece of the anchor system, I can adjust how much load goes into my harness by shifting my body position.

The three main advantages that I have found of this technique are:

1) If the anchor is "too" low to conveniently setup the ATC guide (or if there is any other constraints restricting the use of the ATC guide), this is the best (in my mind) method to get the load of a falling second directly into the anchor without loading me. 

2) It encourages facing out from the cliff, so it is easy to keep an eye on the follower coming up. 

3) On non-bolted belays, I rarely build an anchor having a single master point (most often I use two), so my tie-in loop is basically the master point when bringing up the second. 

From the excellent (top) picture by Jeremy B at the bottom of the first page of this thread and the left pic (from the British site) in rgold's post above, there is no ring loading when used correctly bringing up a second. 

I have no idea why anyone would use the tie-in loop for belaying a leader though (and that's where ring loading would occur).

Pete Spri · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 347
rgold wrote:

Ring loading and capsizing are not a problem, which means they don't have to be avoided.  As for usage, I use it most of the time, viewing direct and redirected anchor belays as responses to a small number of scenarios calling for something else.  And it has nothing to do with "obsession," thank you very much.  I've got plenty of experience with all the modalities, and think that---for trad climbs that haven't been diluted with bolted anchors (I know, a vanishing species)---the belay off the rope loop fits most stuations better than the other methods---.

What you mean to say is that assuming that you always tie a back up knot and never forget or for-go it, that it is unlikely that the knot would capsize.  Your system is still far more error prone than simple belay loop belaying.

If I am belaying and not doing it directly with my device off the anchor, then I am opting to use my body and stance [and harness] in the system for the purpose of benefitting from the stance, something that belaying off the rope tie in does not afford without compromising the set up.  

You are bashing bolted anchors ["diluted"], yet are advocating a system that translates forces to them in a very similar way as any plaquette/autoblocking system.

I'm not following your train of thought here.

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526
Pete Spri wrote:

What you mean to say is that assuming that you always tie a back up knot and never forget or for-go it, that it is unlikely that the knot would capsize.  Your system is still far more error prone than simple belay loop belaying.

If I am belaying and not doing it directly with my device off the anchor, then I am opting to use my body and stance [and harness] in the system for the purpose of benefitting from the stance, something that belaying off the rope tie in does not afford without compromising the set up.  

You are bashing bolted anchors ["diluted"], yet are advocating a system that translates forces to them in a very similar way as any plaquette/autoblocking system.

I'm not following your train of thought here.

You're right, I'm assuming a  level of attentiveness sufficient to tie a back-up knot, in a situation where you have the knot in your hand right in front of you every time you clip the belay device to it.   If you are using bowlines, the backup knot is utterly ingrained, but perhaps not so for figure eights.  Those who can't reliably attend to such details in circumstances that virtually force you to check the knot every time you use the system  should definitely stick with methods they believe to be more foolproof.

If I want to benefit from the stance, which means the anchors are very bad, then I'll use bracing and an ordinary harness belay.  Since I came up through the ranks of braced hip belaying, I know quite a bit about how to set up and use braced belays that put little or no load on a belay anchor.  But nowadays that's one of those very special scenarios you referred to.

My gratuitous aside about bolted anchors is not because they aren't strong and so fully worthy of having the load transferred directly to them. You misread the intention of "diluted" if you thought it applied to the strength of the anchors---I was thinking about the ineffable integrity of the climb as a trad climb.   Bolted anchors are typically carefully located so as to be convenient for direct belaying, whereas trad anchors may not be.  So I'm more likely to hang a plaquette on a bolted station, but much more likely to use the rope loop belay on a trad anchor whose location may not be ideal for the plaquette.

But I'm not a big fan of guide mode belays, even when the anchor is well-situated.  I think they are usually a pain in the ass for the follower and occasionally dangerously so, and they require far more effort from the belayer than a harness-level belay.  The one thing I appreciate about direct guide-mode belays is the opportunity to devote more attention to stacking the rope as it is taken in, so I'm inclined to use a guide plate on the anchor at stances that have a high rope-management requirement.

By the way, the rope-loop system interposes a length of dynamic rope---the belayer's tie in---between the device and the anchor, and so is still quite different in tems of loadng than placing a device directly on the anchor.

Healyje · · PDX · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 422

Could just be me, but having read through the thread I still don't see a single rationale that merits bothering with it.

Pete Spri · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 347
rgold wrote:

You're right, I'm assuming a  level of attentiveness sufficient to tie a back-up knot, in a situation where you have the knot in your hand right in front of you every time you clip the belay device to it.   If you are using bowlines, the backup knot is utterly ingrained, but perhaps not so for figure eights.  Those who can't reliably attend to such details in circumstances that virtually force you to check the knot every time you use the system  should definitely stick with methods they believe to be more foolproof.

If I want to benefit from the stance, which means the anchors are very bad, then I'll use bracing and an ordinary harness belay.  Since I came up through the ranks of braced hip belaying, I know quite a bit about how to set up and use braced belays that put little or no load on a belay anchor.  But nowadays that's one of those very special scenarios you referred to.

My gratuitous aside about bolted anchors is not because they aren't strong and so fully worthy of having the load transferred directly to them. You misread the intention of "diluted" if you thought it applied to the strength of the anchors---I was thinking about the ineffable integrity of the climb as a trad climb.   Bolted anchors are typically carefully located so as to be convenient for direct belaying, whereas trad anchors may not be.  So I'm more likely to hang a plaquette on a bolted station, but much more likely to use the rope loop belay on a trad anchor whose location may not be ideal for the plaquette.

But I'm not a big fan of guide mode belays, even when the anchor is well-situated.  I think they are usually a pain in the ass for the follower and occasionally dangerously so, and they require far more effort from the belayer than a harness-level belay.  The one thing I appreciate about direct guide-mode belays is the opportunity to devote more attention to stacking the rope as it is taken in, so I'm inclined to use a guide plate on the anchor at stances that have a high rope-management requirement.

By the way, the rope-loop system interposes a length of dynamic rope---the belayer's tie in---between the device and the anchor, and so is still quite different in tems of loadng than placing a device directly on the anchor.

This helps clarify, thanks.

I think for me I'd rather do an eight with a yosemite finish for a number of reasons and experiences that lead me to believe it is the most simplified and foolproof knot out there.  You are right that this method, the tie in loop will be "in your face" for inspection all the time, so it would be hard to not recognize an error.

I still dont see an advantage to this versus belaying off the anchor [which is also simple to do when using the climbing rope to get your dynamic rope loading].  Both of them are either loading the master point, or heavily loading a few pieces, so you are dealing with the same issue.  

I'll have to pay attention to bolted belays versus true trad building and using plaquettes.  I guess I havent paid as much attention to that correllation.  I use a gigi when I use one and it runs pretty smooth on a true rounded bar stock biner.

The only advantage that I could see gaining from this is that it would give you a stance type belay over an edge/obstruction while avoiding loading yourself if your second is doing a lot of hanging.  

Ken Graf · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2016 · Points: 0

Thanks everyone, will stick with the harness loop and redirect   

David K · · The Road, Sometimes Chattan… · Joined Jan 2017 · Points: 423
rgold wrote:

Gosh, I'm not sure what to say beyond the description already given...do these pictures from the UK Climbing site referenced by the OP help?

Note that the climber, who is evidently demonstrating all these things indoors, has thought better about what the pictures show and has added the backup barrel hitch in these photos.

Yeah, a picture is worth a thousand words!

I see now how this configuration transfers the force to the anchor rather than the belayer, but in the configuration to the right, the force is transferred to the anchor too. Yes, it does go through the harness, but as long as the climber, belayer, and anchor are in a relatively straight line, the belayer isn't going to be dragged in any direction. Similarly, if the climber, belayer, and anchor AREN'T in a straight line, both belaying off the belay loop and off the rope loop will transfer force to the belayer. It doesn't seem like the purpose of belaying off the rope loop is to transfer force to the anchor. Transferring force to the anchor is dependent on keeping the climber, belayer, and anchor in a straight line, not on whether you've used the belay loop or rope loop.

HOWEVER, the tiny text below the right picture points out something I didn't consider--belaying off the belay loop in this configuration ring-loads the tie-in points. AFAIK those aren't tested for this kind of force, so it seems desirable to avoid that. So that's one advantage to belaying off the rope loop.

Andrew Rice · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Jan 2016 · Points: 11
rgold wrote:

Gosh, I'm not sure what to say beyond the description already given...do these pictures from the UK Climbing site referenced by the OP help?

Note that the climber, who is evidently demonstrating all these things indoors, has thought better about what the pictures show and has added the backup barrel hitch in these photos.

The line of pull is actually no different in either of these two photos. The only difference is that in the 1st photo there's a load on the climbing rope and on the 2nd it's clearly not. 

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

The "line of pull" is not the point, and the climbing rope is loaded in both situations.

Andrew Rice · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Jan 2016 · Points: 11
rgold wrote:

The "line of pull" is not the point, and the climbing rope is loaded in both situations.

Where's the brake hand, then? And why is there slack in the line cloved off to the anchor? 

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

It's a picture posed in a room, not an actual climbing situation.  You are supposed to be able to infer the loads from the depicted configurations.

Andrew Rice · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Jan 2016 · Points: 11
rgold wrote:

It's a picture posed in a room, not an actual climbing situation.  You are supposed to be able to infer the loads from the depicted configurations.

Exactly my point, then. When I INFER the load, there's no meaningful difference between the one with the rope loop and the one in my belay loop. In both cases the force is being transmitted through nylon, not through my body. And in both cases the nylon is loading parts of the harness. Not to flog a dead horse, cause I can imagine a few unique situations where, for example, I might want to use this technique with a slightly LONGER rope loop rather than my belay loop. But as presented here it seems like a solution in search of a problem, most of the time. 

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

If you don't think the harness is loaded in the right-hand picture then there is nothing more I can say.

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

There is no need to stand close to the anchor.  In fact, my most frequent use of the rope-loop belay is from a remote belay anchor with a substantially long tie-in running back from the belayer to the anchor.  This happens, for example when there is a big ledge and the only anchor possibilities are on the back wall.  The long tight anchor lets me set on the very edge with my legs hanging over and so be able to easily communicate with the second(s) as well as take in ropes without having to haul them over an edge.

David K · · The Road, Sometimes Chattan… · Joined Jan 2017 · Points: 423
rgold wrote:

If you don't think the harness is loaded in the right-hand picture then there is nothing more I can say.

I think what AndrewArroz is saying (correct me if I'm wrong Andrew) is that the harness is loaded in such a way that no force is transmitted to the belayer (the human body wearing the harness) in either the left or right picture.

David K · · The Road, Sometimes Chattan… · Joined Jan 2017 · Points: 423
John Wilder wrote:

He is saying that, but he's wrong. The belay loop, by design, once loaded will pull on the harness, and therefore the body. 

The rope loop, however, doesn't necessarily, depending on the setup. 

Looking at the pictures, where will it pull the harness?

My interpretation of those pictures is that it will pull in the opposite direction of the anchor, which the harness is attached to by the rope loop. Assuming the anchor doesn't move, the harness isn't going to move, because they're attached to each other. I hope for the sake of everyone involved the anchor doesn't move, because the entire point of an anchor is that it doesn't move. So sure, a fall will pull the harness, but it's not moving so no force is transmitted to the body.

Sure, the belay loop is designed to transmit force to the belayer, but that's not the only thing that happens ever. Other forces, like the anchor pulling in the opposite direction, can act on the system to prevent that.

Kevin Mokracek · · Burbank · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 342

Why can't people just use their harness the way it was intended instead of making crap more complicated?   Im sure BD, Petzl, Yates etc.. roll their collective eyes when they read posts like this.

Old lady H · · Boise, ID · Joined Aug 2015 · Points: 1,374
Kevin Mokracek wrote:

Why can't people just use their harness the way it was intended instead of making crap more complicated?   Im sure BD, Petzl, Yates etc.. roll their collective eyes when they read posts like this.

Different is not the same as more complicated.

Being able to think a situation through, and apply a solution, is not a bad skill. This thread has application to something outside of it's intent, for myself at least, and also has given people a lot to discuss and work out ideas.

OLH

Kevin Mokracek · · Burbank · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 342
Old lady H wrote:

Different is not the same as more complicated.

Being able to think a situation through, and apply a solution, is not a bad skill. This thread has application to something outside of it's intent, for myself at least, and also has given people a lot to discuss and work out ideas.

OLH

But in the end it will be discovered that you should just use your belay loop.

Old lady H · · Boise, ID · Joined Aug 2015 · Points: 1,374
Kevin Mokracek wrote:

But in the end it will be discovered that you should just use your belay loop.

And get squashed by my harness pulled one way, and the ground anchor tether coming tight, when some behemoth launches off the wall.

Also perhaps spun half sideways.

Remove the harness from the action, straighten the line? Sounds like a simple solution.

Ball lobbed to your court, sir. :-)

Respectfully, OLH

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Using rope-loop to belay on multi-pitch"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.