Clove Hitch Climbing Anchor

King Tut wrote:

Its not my fave unless the belayer is very familiar with how to manage it and has all he needs to lower when needed. I prefer not to have all that extra kit. :)

You should already have all the kit for lowering, it doesn’t require any extra gear. For belaying from the top with a grigri, you just need a redirect off the anchor (Quickdraw) and with Guide mode you need at most a couple slings and maybe a Quickdraw which you’d probably already have. Just my 2 cents. 

cmqr9001 Black wrote:

You should already have all the kit for lowering, it doesn’t require any extra gear. For belaying from the top with a grigri, you just need a redirect off the anchor (Quickdraw) and with Guide mode you need at most a couple slings and maybe a Quickdraw which you’d probably already have. Just my 2 cents. 

Ya, the extra locker or two is a deal breaker for me. I am old school and don't like taking too much extra that is unneeded. I just use a gri-gri or simple tuber depending on total weight considerations.

King Tut wrote:

You don't seem to understand a quad. As the angle to the right or left increases the amount of load sharing matters fuck all in a quad and if one anchor fails the quad has significant extension. This is very different from a sliding X as I posted as far as load sharing goes although it has less extension (hard to really say matters one way or the other, they both suck, imo, except for maybe hauling from).

Actually, test data indicates that a quad distributes the load between pieces more than the sliding x due to less friction and the absence of binding on the carabiner. And about the angles thing, the "mini quad" pictured earlier has this issue but a normal quad tied in a cordalette doesn't have this issue. 

Wait a minute, you're old school but you have a Gri-Gri?

This conversation is confusing.   As far as I can tell, the only reason to use the climbing rope as the anchor is for convenience, and simplicity.   There's no advantage related to redundancy, or load distribution, or any other safety factor.  Is this correct?

Russ Keane wrote:

Wait a minute, you're old school but you have a Gri-Gri?

This conversation is confusing.   As far as I can tell, the only reason to use the climbing rope as the anchor is for convenience, and simplicity.   There's no advantage related to redundancy, or load distribution, or any other safety factor.  Is this correct?

Not quite. Building the anchor with the rope also reduces the impact force in a high energy fall. But other than that, it's just for efficiency and minimalism 

Russ Keane wrote:

Wait a minute, you're old school but you have a Gri-Gri?

This conversation is confusing.   As far as I can tell, the only reason to use the climbing rope as the anchor is for convenience, and simplicity.   There's no advantage related to redundancy, or load distribution, or any other safety factor.  Is this correct?

What you are confusing is that a GG is an ideal tool for most cragging, belaying the leader for serious biz or for handling a second that might flail in addition to other utility. This has been established over the last ~25 years since its arrival on the scene. We will leave it behind for its weight penalty on light and fast missions.

The rope is also the ideal tool for connecting to anchors which is precisely what the testing by DMM documents and why they state as much in their vid.

Others here may want to claim without any real experience that connecting with a Dynema sling is perfectly fine, well, the DMM video shows that is folly in severe falls. Forces on everything are much, much higher and that is to be avoided.

Its not about "old school". Its about recognizing ideal tools vs. experimental fashions or needlessly using Guide Tools (designed for hapless clients) when you should be substituting your parties' competence.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

Can you quote a single post in the previous 7 pages where somebody has said that it was a good idea to connect to an anchor with a dyneema sling?

(As an aside, I'd love to hear how you connect to anchors when rappelling, because it's probably not with the rope...)

I curry a secnd rope for this porpoise. Though sometimes I can just walk down the piles of bodies of people using death slings to connect to anchors.  Too each their own.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

(As an aside, I'd love to hear how you connect to anchors when rappelling, because it's probably not with the rope...)

What kind of bullshit is this? Every sling anchor out there other than around tress should be replaced and I am one of the people that does it being sponsored by the ASCA.

Sparing bark on a tree is the only ideal application for slings for an anchor when rappelling or for temporary expediency. Other than that no one sensible would suggest slings are better than direct connection to anchor bolts and their hangers via SS Quick Links and SS rings or chains what have you rather than weathered tat.

As well, it is specious to suggest that the forces when rappelling are remotely to similar belaying a falling leader that could fall onto the anchor.

Yes dude, lots of people go through a "sliding X phase" and a "cordellette phase" or even a "quad phase" and think they have re-invented the wheel. Doesn't mean for a second that they have discovered a thing other than some dubious convenience for climbing with clients or equivalent barely competent second.

And any "competent" climber that is tying into an anchor with a PAS to belay anyone that is also not tied into another point on the anchor with the rope is not competent.

Tut, how do you attach your harness to bolts/chains when you are doing a series of multiple rappels?

Z Winters wrote:

Tut, how do you attach your harness to bolts/chains when you are doing a series of multiple rappels?

Duct tape, wtf do you think?

w/e you use it ain't used for belaying someone. That is what we are talking about.

If it is a serious question, that is another topic and redundancy is still key.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Hey Ryan, you live in Redmond, right?

So do you know any of the Boys at Metolius?

Maybe know my old friend John Coke who was sales manager at Metolius BITD when I was still in the industry?

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Negative ghostrider

Ok.

Read this and see if it helps at all:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/114061992/anchors-on-the-nose?page=3#ForumMessage-114069507

There's some good discussion about using slings/PAS to belay from and what a number of guys with experience think about it.

If you didn't learn anything from that, I just can't help you. But its odd to me you do nearly exactly what I recommend yet somehow keep trolling the thread lol. But I like that you choose to use a dynamic PAS (Connect Adjust) which has got to be about about as rare as hen's teeth on a free climb....and satisfies the need for dynamic connection.

If you don't know the guys at Metolius then it is not your concern.

I never knew a crashing train could take so long to come to a halt.

I am angered for no identifiable reason

Interesting to look at after watching DMM videos mentioned...

https://www.petzl.com/US/en/Sport/Fall-comparison-with-rigid-human-mass?ActivityName=Rock-climbing

Evan Kirk wrote:

Interesting to look at after watching DMM videos mentioned...

https://www.petzl.com/US/en/Sport/Fall-comparison-with-rigid-human-mass?ActivityName=Rock-climbing

"....It is difficult to control all of the factors that dissipate fall energy. However, it is easy to influence the potential for belayer displacement. Belayer displacement helps dissipate a significant part of the energy and thus limits the forces at work. On the ground, it is essential to allow displacement to occur for a dynamic belay. At the belay station, it is wise to use a long tether, when the situation allows it, to allow displacement to occur."

Its all part of the equation, in other threads we have talked about belaying well below the anchor on multipitch to increase the amount of rope out and displacement when a fall is possible directly onto the anchor or a high FF event on the pitch. Here, dynamic connections (ie the rope) effectively increase "belayer displacement" to absorb energy. Whether some contend it is negligible or not it is something to be used to increase the margin of safety in the system, imo. Particularly on traditional routes that can have old anchors or gear only anchors that may be less directionally stable.

We may need Jim Titt to chime in again about the "pulley effect" on the top piece and where that fits in this equation. Its my understanding that displacement increases the load on the top piece (neglected in Petzl's assessment of forces) and this could have its own negative consequences.

King Tut wrote:

We may need Jim Titt to chime in again about the "pulley effect" on the top piece and where that fits in this equation. Its my understanding that displacement increases the load on the top piece (neglected in Petzl's assessment of forces) and this could have its own negative consequences.

Not so sure about this one. In theory, you're going to get different friction on the top piece when the rope is moving than when it is static so that could potentially be less friction which increases the pulley effect. However, I suspect the energy dissipated through work (lifting the belayer) would outweigh any additional force on the top piece to result in a net decrease of force.

Any physicists around here want to chime in on this? Or Jim?

Good info from petzl. Tut what was neglected about the top anchor load in petzls studies?

Edit: never mind. FYI they do include top anchor forces in all the related studies. Check those out too for info on top piece forces. 

https://www.petzl.com/US/en/Sport/Forces-at-work-in-a-real-fall

etc

In particular checkout

https://www.petzl.com/US/en/Sport/Influence-of-the-belay-device

which has some particularly relevant info.  

https://dmmclimbing.com/Knowledge/August-2014/Maximising-the-potential-of-marginal-protection