Another “Check My Anchor” Post

jg fox wrote:

BHK is BFK but safe to google and type on my work computer.  

So do the extra wraps of the knot itself make it stronger in comparison to the double?  Not questioning your credentials but when did you pick up on the short comings of the double figure eight? 

Yes, I would agree that the OP's method gets the job done, but the BFK is one knot that gives two independent loops to clip at the master point. (make sure to pull the tie loop back over the knot, and/or clip a carabiner through it).

Instead of tying two separate eights to get two loops why not dress the process down to something that takes less steps, but gives redundancy. The BFK is my go to if the master point has to hang over an edge because the bulkiness of it helps keep everything hanging from it farther away from contact with the wall.

Credit given for having o&o carabiners and for backing up the bowlines. This is overlooked a lot with new climbers. Practice everything you do just as you would on a real rock while climbing - back up knots, locking your lockers, etcetera.

Also, with top rope anchors, such as this, being on top away from the wall, it is better to make sure it is bomb proof. Don't short change your build because it will most likely be out of sight and not tended to for a length of time - things go wrong when least expected.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: And this my friends, is why you never rely on one sling, ever. If you introduce simple redundancy in every connection that is practical to do so, you will live longer.

I don't care how you tie one sling, it is still one.

credit: Mikey Schaefer

I don't agree. If I take a double-length sling, clip it to two bolts, and tie a F8 to make a master point, in my mind the very fact of how I've tied it makes it, in effect, TWO slings. I see one sling being used like that all the time. Completely redundant, no?

Or maybe we're saying the same thing in two different ways?

Andrew Hess wrote:

I don't agree. If I take a double-length sling, clip it to two bolts, and tie a F8 to make a master point, in my mind the very fact of how I've tied it makes it, in effect, TWO slings. I see one sling being used like that all the time. Completely redundant, no?

Or maybe we're saying the same thing in two different ways?

So, it remains a mystery precisely how this sling failed but defect in the sling material remains a possibility.

One sling, no matter how tied out of defective material, is putting your neck on the line to that one thing (that batch of sling material).

I am a believer that other than those cases where you have no choice (ie belay device, locking carabiner for your belay device, main rope etc) that you never risk your life to any one thing when you can reasonably back it up. Add a second sling, tie into the anchor at two points, don't use one locker for a TR etc. Two regular biners with gates opposed superior to one locker etc etc etc.

Take as many single things that could cause disaster out of the equation is my policy.

Redundant is two different slings from two different makers (ideally), imo. Not one sling tied to make it seem like its two slings. Just like this case here that failed.

Even better is what Mikey eventually did, tie into no slings and go into the bolts directly with the rope.

You may not be a believer, but when you have seen what Mikey saw and what others with experience have seen you may become one.

Chris Urtz wrote: I think I see what I am doing wrong. Is this set up correct? The load line is on the bottom of the pic.

There are three strands going up. Assuming the middle one is the loose strand and the outer ones are the sides of the loop going around the... stool..., this is correct.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

There are three strands going up. Assuming the middle one is the loose strand and the outer ones are the sides of the loop going around the... stool..., this is correct.

I believe the two on the right going up are around the tree. The far left is the loose end. Coming down is to the master point.

Edit to add:
Also, if the end comes to the outside of the main loop it gives a better attribute of not slipping than if pulled to the inside when an outward pull happens to the main loop. It all depends on how the bunny comes out of the hole, and which way around the tree he goes. The bunny part helps me remember. 

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

So, it remains a mystery precisely how this sling failed but defect in the sling material remains a possibility.

One sling, no matter how tied out of defective material, is putting your neck on the line to that one thing (that batch of sling material).

I am a believer that other than those cases where you have no choice (belay device, locking carabiner for your belay device, main rope etc) that you never risk your life to any one thing when you can reasonably back it up. Add a second sling, tie into the anchor at two points, don't use one locker for a TR etc. Two regular biners with gates opposed superior to one locker etc etc etc.

Take as many single things that could cause disaster out of the equation is my policy.

Redundant is two different slings from two different makers (ideally), imo. Not one sling tied to make it seem like its two slings. Just like this case here that failed.

Even better is what Mikey eventually did, tie into no slings and go into the bolts directly with the rope.

You may not be a believer, but when you have seen what Mikey saw and what others with experience have seen you may become one.

So do you always climb on 2 ropes? By your logic, tying into an anchor with the rope isn't redundant either. That entire rope was made from a single batch, no?

Use a BFK. It's also easier to untie after it's been weighted.

Andrew Krajnik wrote:

So do you always climb on 2 ropes? By your logic, tying into an anchor with the rope isn't redundant either. That entire rope was made from a single batch, no?

re-read my post, it emphasizes where practical.

Single lines are only practical for most of my climbing, hence one rope. Their redundancy is of a different type due to their construction (core plus sheath) and their greater strength etc.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

There are three strands going up. Assuming the middle one is the loose strand and the outer ones are the sides of the loop going around the... stool..., this is correct.

Well yeah BUT  

When you are taught to tie a bowline the "correct" way is with the tail coming out on the inside of the bend as it has been reported to be stronger this way however if the loop is ring loaded the knot will fail, if you tie a "left-handed" bowline with the tail on the outside of the loop it will not fail when ring loaded. Back when tying-on direct around the waist was standard procedure this is how it was taught as clipping direct into a belay sling meant the loop was ring-loaded and the back-up knot was no longer a back-up but but the primary knot.
Around a tree it probably doesn´t matter but it´s better to learn to always tie the bowline the safer way.

Jim Titt wrote:

Well yeah BUT  

When you are taught to tie a bowline the "correct" way is with the tail coming out on the inside of the bend as it has been reported to be stronger this way however if the loop is ring loaded the knot will fail, if you tie a "left-handed" bowline with the tail on the outside of the loop it will not fail when ring loaded. Back when tying-on direct around the waist was standard procedure this is how it was taught as clipping direct into a belay sling meant the loop was ring-loaded and the back-up knot was no longer a back-up but but the primary knot.
Around a tree it probably doesn´t matter but it´s better to learn to always tie the bowline the safer way.

Now I'm rethinking my bowline. Is there a video or image series that shows this particular way? Not sure I'm clear on it.

Jim Titt wrote:

Well yeah BUT  

When you are taught to tie a bowline the "correct" way is with the tail coming out on the inside of the bend as it has been reported to be stronger this way however if the loop is ring loaded the knot will fail, if you tie a "left-handed" bowline with the tail on the outside of the loop it will not fail when ring loaded. Back when tying-on direct around the waist was standard procedure this is how it was taught as clipping direct into a belay sling meant the loop was ring-loaded and the back-up knot was no longer a back-up but but the primary knot.
Around a tree it probably doesn´t matter but it´s better to learn to always tie the bowline the safer way.

Interesting. Do you know if this also applies to double bowlines? I can't think of a situation where I would ring-load a bowline but it's good to know.

Rob T wrote:

Now I'm rethinking my bowline. Is there a video or image series that shows this particular way? Not sure I'm clear on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_bowline

It´s got loads of different names, cowboy bowline is the American version. We would call it a French or left-handed bowline, they are all really sneering ways of saying you don´t know how to tie it properly!

David Kerkeslager wrote:

Interesting. Do you know if this also applies to double bowlines? I can't think of a situation where I would ring-load a bowline but it's good to know.

No idea, I´ve never actually tied a double bowli.ne in use, I use a re-threaded bowline as a tie-in and a single left-handed bowline for tying round trees and stuff like myself.

Jim Titt wrote:

No idea, I´ve never actually tied a double bowli.ne in use, I use a re-threaded bowline as a tie-in and a single left-handed bowline for tying round trees and stuff like myself.

I was trying to find a video of this which I saw a while ago, and found it. It turns out my memory was incorrect: they didn't ring load test the double bowline, but they did ring load test the regular bowline. It seems like adding a backup puts it on par with other tie-in knots for handling ring load.

.

...noting of course that these were single tests with a single rope, so the statistical significance of the results shouldn't be overhyped.

Are  proposing that everyone carry 2 different brands of slings for every anchor?  Do we need to mix carabiners brands?   What about 2 different belay devices?   Alternating brands of bolts, cams?  

Obviously do what makes you comfortable but that seems extreme, though I might be more paranoid if one of my slings broke.  That said, you didn't use the sling redundantly and left it outside.  Have you seen the results of strength loss in slings due to uv? blackdiamondequipment.com/e…

The lesson I take from this that any soft good left outside is very suspect.   If you are going to leave and reuse a soft good anchor do it with a burly item ( like you are doing with the rope).   

Interesting on the lack of redundancy of the bunny ears. Hadn't considered that.

If the golden strand were to get cut, wouldn't the short tails still need to pull through the Fig-8 knot before both loops would fail?

I'm thinking I may start flipping my bunny so the golden strand is oriented away from the rock

Mark O'Neal wrote: Interesting on the lack of redundancy of the bunny ears. Hadn't considered that.

If the golden strand were to get cut, wouldn't the short tails still need to pull through the Fig-8 knot before both loops would fail?

I'm thinking I may start flipping my bunny so the golden strand is oriented away from the rock

The bigger question may be why are we even worrying about ANY strand of the rope failing? Don't we all agree that the rope is one of the few things that is NOT redundant? And we're OK with that.

David Kerkeslager wrote: ...noting of course that these were single tests with a single rope, so the statistical significance of the results shouldn't be overhyped.

As an engineer I find statistical significance to be overhyped!

Gunkiemike wrote:

The bigger question may be why are we even worrying about ANY strand of the rope failing? Don't we all agree that the rope is one of the few things that is NOT redundant? And we're OK with that.

No, we are not ok with that if you have ever seen a rope core shot over an edge. But usually accept it we must.