Climbing Anchors - By John Long and Bob Gaines. Outdated?

kenr wrote:

The main way that it's "outdated" is that the questions it addresses are not of interest to ever-larger percentage of climbers.

Nowadays the three things most parties are focused on are:
1. speed
2. convenience / simplicity
3. saving time

How on earth did you arrive at that highly questionable conclusion?

kenr wrote:

Reads like someone watching too many videos

A rewriting that makes a bit more sense based upon my interactions:
1. Efficiency (in both time and use of materials)
2. Safety (in both time and 99% of the situations)
3. Ease of application (in both creation and ability to check for errors) 

The main way that it's "outdated" is that the questions it addresses are not of interest to ever-larger percentage of climbers.

Nowadays the three things most parties are focused on are:
1. speed
2. convenience / simplicity
3. saving time

----------

Climbing Anchors was build on the premise of "Simplicity and Safety." I thought we hammered that point home hard as we could. But apparently not enough.

In my opinion and experience, much more important than overbuilding an anchor so it can withstand shock-loading by a steam roller is to insure that the anchor is never open to a direct hit. That means extreme vigilance is needed to make sure you get a "Jesus Nut" or point of pro soon as you can off the belay, to avoid ever bombing directly onto it.

That idea that you can load up an anchor with ten pieces "just to be sure" is IMO to misunderstand how the system is meant to work. It's always the top piece in the chain that absorbs the biggest impact. If the top piece is or might become your belay anchor, you've rigged the system improperly. If there is the remote possibility of a Factor 2 fall, and the belay anchors are suspect, bail. If you can't, know you're in an emergency situation and start praying. Here, if you can manage to get one solid piece for the anchor and nothing else, it's better to use THAT solid piece for the Jesus Nut, lower down and construct an anchor off whatever you can manage. In this way the top piece, which is the best piece in the whole chain, absorbs the shock, dampened by the elasticity in the lead line. 

But this scenario is rarely encounter, at least off crap anchors. During FAs, you simply put a bolt in.    

coppolillo wrote:

As for "AMGA guides" and the quad---it's just another anchoring system. It's not favored any more than any other---please, there is no "AMGA way"! The quad is great in certain situations. Chauvin and I have a one-page spread on it coming out in the next Climbing...check it out (and buy multiple copies of our book, please)....and John----PM me your address and I'll send you a copy! Love your feedback!

RC

Not favored over other ways?  Well certainly folks could get the opposite impression when AMGA folks feature it in the mag(s) and tout its benefits in training sessions (In the last 18 mo. I've seen 3 AMGA trainers instructing its use in instructional settings). To be fair, at least one of them did point out that among its benefits was the ability to have several clients clip easily to a master point (this being sometimes difficult with, say, a cordelette if the "eye" is small). I suspect this benefit is of less value for the average weekend cragger.

On the flip side, we almost never see AMGA instruction on anchoring with the rope e.g. "the Atomic Clip".  Again the reason is simple: guides do all the leading, and anchoring with the rope is no bueno.  But I think the weekend cragger should be familiar with this option, and IME many absolutely are not. 

I'm wondering if some of the critics on here even read the book. John--what you've been saying is exactly what I took out of it. That's from the older edition. I'm assuming a lot of distracting fluff didn't get added in between.

Freedom of the Hills or whatever, I come back to and every time I pick up something I missed the first time around.  When I pick up Climbing Anchors and flip to a random page, I never discover some new trick to try out.  That, too, is a testament to the book.  Concise, easy to understand and (at worst) close enough to "best practices" that it's going to keep you safe.

John Long wrote:

Here, if you can manage to get one solid piece for the anchor and nothing else...

Funny, I remember pre-cam times when we'd sometimes arrive at a 'belay' with only one nut. We generally tried to really make that one count but, overall, we were heavy into stancing,  never really trusted or relied much on, and seldom even weighted anchors at all unless they were hanging ones and we couldn't avoid it.

Now? It's a lot of splitting hairs and, as you imply, misprioritization when it come to risk perception and management. 

Simply stick with any of the common forms of anchoring and do as John advises relative to solid pro and assessing what you have going on at an anchor - do that and anchors should be the very least of your concerns...

Healyje wrote:

Funny, I remember pre-cam times when we'd sometimes arrive at a 'belay' with only one nut. We generally tried to really make that one count but, overall, we were heavy into stancing and never really trusted or relied much on, or weighted, anchors at all unless they were hanging ones and we couldn't avoid it.

Now? It's a lot of splitting hairs and, as you imply, misprioritization when it come to risk perception and management. 

Simply stick with any of the common forms of anchoring and do as John advises relative to solid pro and assessing what you have going on at an anchor. Do that and anchors should be the very least of your concerns...

But, but, but...... we all know you can't possibly be safe without a wankolette, a shelf, a masterpoint, and a redirect. Belaying off your harness is just plain crazy.

""That idea that you can load up an anchor with ten pieces "just to be sure" is IMO to misunderstand how the system is meant to work. It's always the top piece in the chain that absorbs the biggest impact. If the top piece is or might become your belay anchor, you've rigged the system improperly. If there is the remote possibility of a Factor 2 fall, and the belay anchors are suspect, bail. If you can't, know you're in an emergency situation and start praying. Here, if you can manage to get one solid piece for the anchor and nothing else, it's better to use THAT solid piece for the Jesus Nut, lower down and construct an anchor off whatever you can manage. In this way the top piece, which is the best piece in the whole chain, absorbs the shock, dampened by the elasticity in the lead line.""  

This is word.

John.... good to see you posting. 

Rob D. wrote:

I think what the book does better than any online resource is give people the idea that you need to use your best judgement.  Online it's often "this is the way to do it, DON'T do it another way."  The book gives many possible solutions to the same problem, lists the pros and cons of each, and rarely does a hard and fast "NO" unless it's clearly something that's unsafe or there are other considerably better options.  It's hard to teach rational thinking through a forum where so many people believe in a very black and white ye/no ideology. s

Agree with this applying to the backup autoblock on the leg loop.  I'm glad I was taught that way / both ways because I was able to choose the one that is better for me, instead of not being aware of the alternate way. Leg loop backup works better for me because I have very short arms and am lightweight; and an extended rappel means I can barely move (I must forcefully feed the rope in the first half of the rappel, and when it's far from my arms that isn't easy). If I wasn't taught the autoblock could also be on the leg loop, I would never have a backup, since I don't extend my rappel. I never have an issue with the atc and autoblock touching.

Well, right...because you're alive. :p  That's another case of a low likelihood, high consequence potential failure.  You'll probably never encounter that situation, but if you do, you're f'd.

John Long wrote:

Another factor is simplicity. My thinking is that unless a new tool simplifies a standard procedure, it's a move backward. 

I was just up in Yosemite filming (amongst other things) Ron Fundaburke (who heads up the educational program for the AAC and the AMGA) on a big new route on Middle Cathedral. It was amazing how simple and bombproof Ron kept all of his systems. No needless widgets or slings or cluttered arrays. 

The only need to push the safety system into complex arrangements is when the placements are piss poor and ornate rigging systems are desired. Otherwise, keep it simple. It's easier to manage and monitor. 

Amen.  I am constantly amazed at how many folks aren't satisfied with majoring in the minors, but would rather go the extra distance and be guaranteed first ballot hall of fame in the minors.   uggggh.  ironically it is usually a bunch of beginners talking about light and fast, when they are about as light and fast as inna gadda da vida.....

slim wrote:

I am constantly amazed at how many folks aren't satisfied with majoring in the minors, but would rather go the extra distance and be a guaranteed first ballot hall of famer in the minors.   uggggh.  

Huh??