New AAC Article on Anchors

Bill Lawry wrote:

Back to the article (maybe?) ...

I agree with healyje's comment upstream about it being nice collection of techniques that have been used as belays/anchors (my words).  I also agree that the emphasis on evolving to something "modern" with little regard to stance and being dismissive of "earlier" techniques is ... well ... off route (again, my words).

But what do people think about moving away from the traditional acronyms such as SRENE to just "Strong, Secure and Simple"?  ... for beginners? (slap me if this was already discussed here)

Having an instinctive distrust of people who don´t actually understand things and need acronyms to remember simple concepts I use NERDS: NoExtension, ReDundant. Simple.  

I'll admit - I've used those acronyms over the years as an aid to beginners ... SERENE ... EARNEST.  But this thread has left me wondering whether the acronyms primarily amount to:

1. just a crutch for those who really don't understand anchors as well as other technical aspects of leading;
2. or rather just insurance for the mentor's sake in case the beginner really screws up on their own some time.

Regarding 1, NERDS resonates, Jim.

Regarding 2, akin to the admonishment 'always have two pieces between you and the deck.'

Bill Lawry wrote:

I'll admit - I've used those acronyms over the years as an aid to beginners ... SERENE ... EARNEST.  But this thread has left me wondering whether the acronyms primarily amount to:

1. just a crutch for those who really don't understand anchors as well as other technical aspects of leading;
2. or rather just insurance for the mentor's sake in case the beginner really screws up on their own some time.

Regarding 1, NERDS resonates, Jim.

Regarding 2, akin to the admonishment 'always have two pieces between you and the deck.'

How about "two bomber pieces between you and the deck"? I can't think how it could be made simpler than that for beginners, and my real takeaway on this whole thread is the "bomber" part. 

I would submit this could be applied even to a top rope: piece one being the anchor the rope runs through and piece two being a bomber belayer.

:-) OLH

Old lady H wrote:

 "two bomber pieces between you and the deck"? I can't think how it could be made simpler than that for beginners, and my real takeaway on this whole thread is the "bomber" part. 

\:-) OLH

"between you and the deck" sounds good in theory.  But, it misses a whole lot of climbing, especially lead climbing, but TR as well.  The deck is often not the biggest concern.  There are many other opportunities to get seriously hurt where the deck is not involved. 

A phrase I learned many years ago (not sure who coined it, I heard it from Tony B first):  Always keep at least two pieces between you and the hospital.  A valuable phrase indeed, but, not sure it would be the best phrase for anchor building.

Greg D wrote:

Always keep at least two pieces between you and the hospital.

I can't count the number of times I have violated this rule (and its' variations). And I otherwise would have had to skip many great climbs out there ... indeed classics.

Good guidance for beginners? Yes. Then again, this is not the beginners forum ... though I may sound that way from time to time. :-)

Bill Lawry wrote:

I can't count the number of times I have violated this rule 

Well, its not a rule.  Its just sound advice, a guideline.  And, yes, I have been in many situations where I have violated this too.   Its just not possible all the time on every route.

So, for beginners, toss out SRENE, SERENE, EARNEST, NERDS, etc.?  Use the AAC's SSS (Strong, Secure, Simple) in their place?

Greg D wrote:

Did someone say that?

Greg, that was not directed at you.  It was intended as a general question for anyone to offer an opinion. Sorry for the confusion.

To be clear about my question, here is a quote from the AAC aritcle to which my question applies:

When anchoring becomes more complicated, a more sophisticated approach positions the anchor builder to answer three basic questions:

Is the anchor strong enough?
Is the anchor secure enough?
Is the anchor as simple as it can be?

This is a broader, more inclusive way to think about anchors than the SERENE-style mnemonic. Call it the Triple S approach. Triple S anchors do not strive to equalize or to eliminate extensions; they strive to distribute load intelligently, minimize extensions, and avoid edge-case failure scenarios. Triple S anchors do not attempt to aggregate strength; they rely on unquestionably strong component parts and anticipate a human factor in that calculation. Triple S anchors do not muddle into unnecessary complexity; they solve the anchoring problem as efficiently as possible.

So, for beginners, toss out SRENE, SERENE, EARNEST, NERDS, etc.?  Use the AAC's SSS (Strong, Secure, Simple) in their place?  Edit to add: Is the concept behind SSS really a game-changing one?

Greg D wrote:

"between you and the deck" sounds good in theory.  But, it misses a whole lot of climbing, especially lead climbing, but TR as well.  The deck is often not the biggest concern.  There are many other opportunities to get seriously hurt where the deck is not involved. 

A phrase I learned many years ago (not sure who coined it, I heard it from Tony B first):  Always keep at least two pieces between you and the hospital.  A valuable phrase indeed, but, not sure it would be the best phrase for anchor building.

Ah! I'd go for that, but I have to say when I'm belaying, anything my climber can whack into is "ground fall" to me. Comes from being a mom, I guess, with my son on the sharp end. Now, everyone gets that belay, as unobtrusively as possible.

Anchor building, if blown, could be the morgue for everyone in range of whatever is coming down, that's firmly in mind now. I'll be practicing, for sure, but not "for real" for a long while. Fortunately, I've got a couple guys who are placing gear, to fixed anchors, and one, at least, is putting me on everything as a follower (single pitch). 

Thanks! OLH

Bill Lawry wrote:

I can't count the number of times I have violated this rule (and its' variations). And I otherwise would have had to skip many great climbs out there ... indeed classics.

Good guidance for beginners? Yes. Then again, this is not the beginners forum ... though I may sound that way from time to time. :-)

Every thread has people who can learn, if they are willing.

I've been the resident noob on here for some time, and much of what bits and pieces have helped me have been in outright thread drifts, lol! Rarely, basic info from the beginners forum. 

I like the non acronym approach, but my brain isn't very linear, unlike a great many climbers. I need to rely on a really broad understanding of basic functions, then understand that there can be a great many applications.

At the moment, for example, I only truly know one friction hitch. But I get the concept, how to apply it, some of the "gotchas" and I am confident I can apply what I know. And, be aware that my experience and knowledge should always be expanding.

OLH

Old lady H wrote:

Ah! I'd go for that, but I have to say when I'm belaying, anything my climber can whack into is "ground fall" to me. Comes from being a mom, I guess, Thanks! OLH

No offense, but, you are trying to redefine ground fall for some strange reason. 

I'm glad you are a mom. But, it really doesn't matter what your relationship is to your partner.  Belaying is no different as a mom, a dad, a son, a friend, an Obama or a Trump.  .

If it is any consolation, OLH, I tend to think of "decking" (the verb) as hitting the ground, a ledge, a dihedral (pendi fall), a tree, etc..

Bill, you are nominated best supporting actor.  

I also appreciate OLH's undercurrent of family.  Echos some sentiments that drift in and out of conversations at home.  :-)

Yes, totally pertinent to anchors.  We need new acronyms. FERENE, FERDS, FERNEST.

Personally, I belay family, friends and strangers just the same.

Degaine wrote:

Can we stop talking about equalization and talk about how great this video is   They are so much more advanced across the pond there. 

Bowline on a bite forms a "quite small" two-strand loop that is eventually lockered to both the lower anchor piece and to the ATC Guide (two lockers in same "quite small" loop). 

Other end is cloved to locker on upper anchor piece for anchor redundancy. The tail up there is clipped back into the locker and used to secure the ropes - maybe after having pulled up the remaining slack?

But what does any of this have to do with Greg D's mom?

Greg D wrote:

No offense, but, you are trying to redefine ground fall for some strange reason. 

I'm glad you are a mom. But, it really doesn't matter what your relationship is to your partner.  Belaying is no different as a mom, a dad, a son, a friend, an Obama or a Trump.  .

Hey, ya turkey, ya edited out "now everyone gets that belay"!

Best, H.

Bill Lawry wrote:

  Edit to add: Is the concept behind SSS really a game-changing one?

SSS is the way we "used" to think. At least that's the way I learned 45 years ago. Not that acronym, but the concept.

And then there were a number of anchor books published and lots of discussion on the interwebs focusing on anchors and dynamic equalization. Lots of people either misunderstood or misapplied the published information.  They got distracted with SRENE, ERENST, NERDSS and what have you. They then used these "rules" to beat one another over the head in arguments on the forums and in the real world.

I admit that, for a short while, I bought into it too. Though there were some who always preached strong, secure, simple.

Is it really game changing? I think it's just reverting back.

Yeah, I think that's why he went through the history of anchors in the video before laying it out.  It is in many ways a dialing back of the recent cult-fascination with sliding systems and a reversion to simpler systems (figure 8 anchor is a classic) and a focus on strong placements.