Lets constructively discuss Newbie Trad videos.

The rope also runs over a block which appears to cause some rope drag when he clips his next piece.

Might not matter as much on a long alpine draw, but he back-clipped the first draw.  If possible, should have used a cam on the second piece because it will work better as a directional than the nut that popped.  Couldn’t see what else was available when it popped but he should have fired something in immediately.  Belayer needs to leave the camera alone and pay attention to the exposed climber.

So, the leader lifted the rope with his knee to keep from stepping over it and potentially flipping himself if he fell (rope would otherwise be behind his leg). This is generally a good idea. But, he manages to effectively kick out his nut and risks a very dangerous fall.

1. This is a case where he should have "whaled" on the nut to really seat it. Its all that is really protecting him from serious biz.

2. And he should have stepped over it regardless of the danger of flipping on the rope. The belayer then has to keep him really loose, so that it doesn't come tight behind his leg in a fall. Falling straight down a little farther onto a good nut is better than flipping OR kicking it out. With the rope loose he should ride right over it. Unfortunately this falls into the realm of the "theoretical" as it really is a dangerous situation regardless. 

3. The edge issue was introduced when the nut lifted out too...all in all looking pretty sketchy and glad no one was hurt.

4. Those long pants legs are sketchy AF....roll them up so you can see your feet FFS.

All in all a tough situation for leader and belayer to manage safely on a traverse like this then climbing above. But he should have really, really set that nut. He barely tugged on it. Let the second worry about getting it out that's what nut tools are for.

BTW, they also took a whip (no video) higher up (30+ footer) and sprained an ankle. They looked like the kind of weekend warriors that scare me when I run into them...pushing limits and marginally fit.

This is also a case of, imo, given the skill and apparent fitness of the leader, that he was pushing it to climb with a pack...he was looking sketchy on the friction traverse. I'd rather risk being a little cold or thirsty and the walk off be longer to collect the pack later than take that fall and the pack was making everything worse, imo.

Here's another vid of the same climb. 

At about the 1:00 mark you can see the crack the previous leader was dealing with....Its actually really good for getting solid pro if you take the time to place it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHyDBRz_e0Y&t=370s

On trick you can use after you get that great nut placement seen in this vid...is place a small cam right above it too, this not only backs up the nut, but you can place the cam in such a way as to keep the nut in the crack too by kinda blocking it in.

The rest of this vid is pretty sketchy too. He admits it was his first lead. :)

King Tut wrote:

2. And he should have stepped over it regardless of the danger of flipping on the rope. The belayer then has to keep him really loose, so that it doesn't come tight behind his leg in a fall. Falling straight down a little farther onto a good nut is better than flipping OR kicking it out. With the rope loose he should ride right over it. Unfortunately this falls into the realm of the "theoretical" as it really is a dangerous situation.

This is a really good point and not something that would have occurred to me.  Also applicable to sport climbing, as this is how most people who bother to bring a stick clip still manage to get injured.

This is also a case of, imo, given the skill and apparent fitness of the leader, that he was pushing it to climb with a pack...he was looking sketchy on the friction traverse. I'd rather risk being a little cold or thirsty and the walk off be longer to collect the pack later than take that fall and the pack was making everything worse, imo.

No comment. ;)

King Tut wrote:

Here's another vid of the same climb. 

At about the 1:00 mark you can see the crack the previous leader was dealing with....Its actually really good for getting solid pro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHyDBRz_e0Y&t=370s

On trick you can use after you get that great nut placement seen in this vid...is place a small cam right above it too, this not only backs up the nut, but you can place the cam in such a way as to keep the nut in the crack too by kinda blocking it in.

The rest of this vid is pretty sketchy too. He admits it was his first lead. :)

What do you think of the anchor at ~8:00?  I’m having trouble seeing details due to video resolution, but looks kinda like a death triangle - for some reason sling(s) are routed between protection pieces and then back to masterpoint.  I would expect to see either just slings between individual pieces and materpoint, or similar if using a cordellette.  

Hamish Malin wrote:

What do you think of the anchor at ~8:00?  I’m having trouble seeing details due to video resolution, but looks kinda like a death triangle - for some reason sling(s) are routed between protection pieces and then back to masterpoint.  I would expect to see either just slings between individual pieces and materpoint, or similar if using a cordellette.  

 How bout the potential for that follower to take a big swing at 8:30? I wonder if there was any gear above that ledge before the leader traversed right to the anchor?

Hamish Malin wrote:

What do you think of the anchor at ~8:00?  I’m having trouble seeing details due to video resolution, but looks kinda like a death triangle - for some reason sling(s) are routed between protection pieces and then back to masterpoint.  I would expect to see either just slings between individual pieces and materpoint, or similar if using a cordellette.  

At 7:45 you can see it is 2 big slings clipping together 3 pieces in a triangle, yes.

Is it some AMGA SERENE wet dream?

No.

Doesn't matter if the (redundant) placements are Strong. 

What is more worrisome to me is that he connects himself to it with his PAS rather than the rope to at least two places. In that he has set up a "DMM nightmare" situation with an all static anchor. It won't break, but he might if (imagine if you will) the leader falls, lifts him (normal) but then the piece the leader fell onto pops....dropping the belayer back onto the anchor in a FF2. This is a perfect storm of course. But its one reason why I like tying the anchor together with the dynamic rope:

https://www.climbing.com/skills/learn-this-build-a-climbing-rope-anchor/

"Get strong placements and tie yourself to them (with the rope)" is all that matters in the end for anchor building, for my climbing. I emphasize this when teaching as newbies commonly are focusing on the multiple SERENE components, but don't yet know how to simply get strong placements.

If you know how to get strong placements all that other bullshit (other considerations) is way secondary. 

Try to minimize extension (but not a deal breaker).

Try to load share (but not a deal breaker).

Equalization is a myth. See load sharing.

Redundancy will save your ass. No redundancy IS a deal breaker.

Strong placements cover all of the above.

Bill Kirby wrote:

 How bout the potential for that follower to take a big swing at 8:30? I wonder if there was any gear above that ledge before the leader traversed right to the anchor?

It looks like they were climbing in a group of 3 and the second climber cleaned the gear and left the third climber with nothing.  

I would respectfully suggest that the rope vs. sling/cordellete debate remain outside this thread, lest it cease to be constructive.  I don’t disagree the worst case, FF2 risk scenario you’ve laid out, but would still contend that if not switching leads AND not wanting to tie/untie then not building the anchor with the rope might be justified.  The belayer off to one side could put a local piece in to mitigate the risk of him getting pulled into/below the anchor should the follower fall.  See, even I can’t help myself ;).

Still looks like how some of those slings are run would create unnecessary horizontal loads between pieces, rather than just running slings vertically to the masterpoint.

Hamish Malin wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that the rope vs. sling/cordellete debate remain outside this thread, lest it cease to be constructive.  I don’t disagree the worst case, FF2 risk scenario you’ve laid out, but would still contend that if not switching leads AND not wanting to tie/untie then not building the anchor with the rope might be justified.  The belayer off to one side could put a local piece in to mitigate the risk of him getting pulled into/below the anchor should the follower fall.  See, even I can’t help myself ;).

Still looks like how some of those slings are run would create unnecessary horizontal loads between pieces, rather than just running slings vertically to the masterpoint.

Don't get me wrong, the sling set up there is no one's ideal....but as long as every placement is strong none of the other issues will ever be tested. He at least should be tied in with the rope to what he has, rather than a PAS, imo.

With experience, re-stitching the anchor for one person to continue to lead is done safely in a minute with never any safety compromise. With newbies I use it as an opportunity to get them to actually look at the anchor and **understand** it...which I find cordallettes et al can obscure. 

But in capable hands its totally fine and has its utility.

King Tut wrote:

Don't get me wrong, the sling set up there is no one's ideal....but as long as every placement is strong none of the other issues will ever be tested. He at least should be tied in with the rope to what he has, rather than a PAS, imo.

With experience, re-stitching the anchor for one person to continue to lead is done safely in a minute with never any safety compromise. With newbies I use it as an opportunity to get them to actually look at the anchor and **understand** it...which I find cordallettes et al can obscure. 

But in capable hands its totally fine and has its utility.

Got it, thanks for the clarification.  So for the bold portion, you’re recommending a figure-8 on a bight with the lead rope, clipped to masterpoint?  That sounds like an obvious improvement, and adds some modicum of dynamics to the system.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

We know

Glad you are following along. :P

Hamish Malin wrote:

Got it, thanks for the clarification.  So for the bold portion, you’re recommending a figure-8 on a bight with the lead rope, clipped to masterpoint?  That sounds like an obvious improvement, and adds some modicum of dynamics to the system.

Yes, or a Clove is what I would use to dial in the length for his stance. I (personally) would throw one more clove on one of the pieces too but that is partly because I don't roll with a jillion lockers. Covers a little more redundancy that way.

Ted Pinson wrote:

This is a really good point and not something that would have occurred to me.  Also applicable to sport climbing, as this is how most people who bother to bring a stick clip still manage to get injured.

No comment. ;)

yea, pretty much an anti-pack for the leader, regardless of the burden on the second...its just plain better in most situations, imo, unless uber easy (Snake Hike may qualify).

When I see out of shape guys leading with packs...I expect bad things to happen as they have already demonstrated bad judgment (and numerous bad things did happen in that vid eventually)...if the leader starts sketching with a pack on....bad judgment again confirmed. It ain't Mt. Everest, its a sunny day rock climbing in California. Go light on the route. You'll cut your time on the route in half.

At about 5 mins into that most recent video the guy mysteriously stops extending his placements, even the small cam stuck deep in the crack. Despite having about 4 long slings around his shoulders. 

King Tut wrote:

If you know how to get strong placements all that other bullshit (other considerations) is way secondary. 

Try to minimize extension (but not a deal breaker).

Try to load share (but not a deal breaker).

Equalization is a myth. See load sharing.

Redundancy will save your ass. No redundancy IS a deal breaker.

Strong placements cover all of the above.

Wait ... Tut is no redundancy a dealbreaker, or covered by strong placements? 

Think what you meant to say is strong placements + redundancy?

What I am trying to say is that Strong does trump all when used properly and things can be so strong as to have a large "margin of safety" (a form of redundancy).

BUT, redundancy covers other areas that strong can't fix things like having gates open or ropes coming un-clipped, or thinking something is clipped in/tied in when its not...a buckle not being fed properly...etc. etc ie Redundancy backs up Strong from judgment errors in the placements and can save your ass from other user errors/inadvertent oversights or blindspots....that all happen to even the best eventually.

So, Strong first, then Redundancy after that in order of priority is what I was trying to communicate and that Redundancy does cover your ass in ways even Strong can't fix, and vice versa.

After that extension, efficiency and equalization are lower priorities. Ideals, but if you got strong and redundant right nothing to lose sleep over. This is the reality of the wide variety of situations you will find yourself building anchors. Things just are not all head high and perfect for you to build from. How to safely build a non-textbook appearing anchor (that still has strong placements and is perfectly safe) is important too.

Hope that makes sense.

King Tut wrote:

After that extension, efficiency and equalization are lower priorities. Ideals, but if you got strong and redundant right nothing to lose sleep over.

Exactly. I'd also love to see the elimination of "equalization", replaced with "load sharing" or "distribution".

Here's one by (I think) a Josh guide styling his way up a moderate route to also include a vid of how its done.

Note: No tugging on cams. No long sling on cams when its a straight in crack. Its just more crap covering up foot jams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSb_PwbeSNo&t=413s

Double Cross has also been the site of numerous very serious accidents at the start it should be noted. One more reason to NOT tug on the first piece.