yosemite finish on a figure 8 knot?

Kyle Tarry wrote: So, the DMM guy was asked about this specific load case, but he only answered about what was ok for the belay loop, and just neglected to mention that it's likely to tear the harness apart?  C'mon, that's bordering on conspiracy theory.  Unless you think DMM is out to kill its customers, isn't it more likely that he failed to specifically mention it because it's not a risk?

Sure, because the BD guy is better aligned with your way, so his opinion means more to you.

You can call it w/e you want bud, there is this thing called my life and the life of my partner that I value more than any DMM guy that wasn't perfectly clear. Its not a conspiracy theory, its a question of simple accuracy in speech (that humans are not good at) and the possibility he missed something BD guy didn't (or vice versa for that matter).

If you want to make your living in climbing going with the (One Company) guy because he says its ok, I will go with the (Any Company) Guy who says that same actual something is actually a problem and then adjust my practice based on my own 40 years of climbing based judgment on top of it until I am happy. YMMV.

Simple and reasonable redundancy when it can easily be done is the real take home message. Clip into both loops to belay the leader is sound policy, imo.

cassondra long wrote:

 I guess it is common practice to tie this knot (sometimes known as figure 8 follow-thru with Yosemite finish) in a way that is not optimal, as shown in the video. I would have liked to see the video also showing a pull test on Holden's version. That would have been useful to me... Fire away...

Figure 8 is always very sensitive to proper "dressing" of the knot that the video reveals. If the strands are not laid properly it can "roll" as shown. 

Use a barrel knot finish instead at risk of not being one of the cool kids, imo. The barrel knot alone is virtually safe enough so now you have redundancy, 2 knots is hard to go wrong.

Only, Locals wrote:

How is the bed lounging with 32 cats treating you, btw?

One of the kittens got a Fox Tail in his eye...major epic and drama.

  

Nothing a couple of hundred dollars at the vet couldn't fix.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

One of the kittens got a Fox Tail in his eye...major epic and drama.

  

Nothing a couple of hundred dollars at the vet couldn't fix.

Exciting times at the Tuttle house!

Kyle Tarry wrote:

The comment is smack dab in the middle of the linked article, and it's directly referencing a picture showing the EXACT type of loading scenario that is claimed to be high risk by Black Diamond.  I'm not sure why you are having trouble finding it, but I have inserted a screen shot below with the relevant portions circled, to make sure there is no ambiguity.  If you do a simple ctrl-F text search for "Simon Marsh" or any of the text in my direct quote it will bring you straight there.

Why so it is. I looked at the remarks after the article---in the comment section---and didn't find anything there.

While the "side load" and "belay loop" terminology is a little confusing, when you look at the picture and the associated description, it is very clear that he is talking about the exact same scenario as the BD guy, and as such, if it was a risk you'd think he would have mentioned it.

.

Note that Marsh confirms my observations about the belay being more comfortable and easily handled with the rope loop method.  This being my only real point, I at least consider there is nothing more to say.

I was taught to clip into the rope loop for anchor and belay. Mainly because when I started climbing there was no belay loop in harnesses of the time. Clipping into the rope loop keeps you "out of the system". Everyone I taught, I taught that method.

I don't understand when I go to the gym to climb all I do is clip a biner into the belay loop... are ropes on routes outside not setup that way?

rgold wrote: Why so it is. I looked at the remarks after the article---in the comment section---and didn't find anything there.

Note that Marsh confirms my observations about the belay being more comfortable and easily handled with the rope loop method.  This being my only real point, I at least consider there is nothing more to say.

And yet, if John Wilder had tried to catch his factor 2 falls on a capsizing knot tie in loop, he may have quite a different tale to tell.

Take home message, clip the belay loop and the tie in loop if you want redundancy.  And if you really don't want to take weight on your harness, belay off the anchor.  Those are your safest solutions.

It is a trivial matter to tie a non-capsizing knot.

But the knot is not in a possible capsize position for a factor 2 fall, so John's catches would have been exactly as safe as they were, just more comfortable, if he had been using the rope loop method.  This means that Peter's comment is irrelevant, capsizing knot or not. :)

Take home messages are, like many things, in the eye of the beholder.

Kyle Tarry wrote: Edit: Forget it.  I was trying to have an adult conversation but that's impossible here.  Sadly, one keyboard warrior makes it impossible for the rest of the adults to talk.

Respectfully, this is one anecdote from one person (yes, a subject matter expert of sorts, but still) without much evidence behind it.  If this is a legitimate concern, then why:

• Is this recommendation not contained in any instructions/literature from BD or other harness brands?

I highly doubt it.

• Have we never heard of a harness failing when used in the "standard" way (without the rope loop clipped)?

No.

• Do people successfully catch factor 2 falls without the rope loop clipped without harness failure?

Yes.  A factor 2 fall probably generates no more than 2500lbs of force in the absolute worst case scenario.  Harnesses are much stronger than that.  

I'm not suggesting that also clipping the rope loop is a bad idea (it certainly seems like it won't hurt anything).  I'm just suggesting that even intelligent subject matter experts sometimes have kooky ideas about how things "should" be done and that a little skepticism may be warranted.

It isn't a bad idea

Yeah, there are some kooky ideas out there.

As a (related) aside, it's interesting to look at harness construction to see what the possible failure modes might be of a harness subjected to this type of loading.  The lower tie in point is probably low risk since it's not really a sewn loop anyway (just a little keeper strap, the main "loop" is formed by the actual leg loops and your body).  The upper loop is tougher to decipher because it's hidden in the webbing, but I believe that on most harnesses it is actually a continuous piece (with perhaps some sewn joints, and with a buckle) that wraps around the climber's body, so again it's hard to envision how it would have a higher chance of failure in that particular load case.  Even if all of the bar tacks securing the small tie in "loop" in place to the padded belt were to fail, I don't see any risk of harm resulting (the harness may be effectively ruined, though).  I could be wrong about this though because I haven't cut into a harness to see how it's built (and harnesses may vary in construction too).

Anyway, this is surely not a bad thing to do, but I am not seeing how the purported scenario presents any significant risk.  I'd be interested to hear your feedback!

Harnesses are designed so that there is abrasian resistant material added at the tie-in points to protect the harness from rope abrasion.  That "keeper strap" is just there to keep the rope centered over this abrasian resistant material.  If it wasn't there harnesses would wear out much faster.  

Chris Owen wrote: I was taught to clip into the rope loop for anchor and belay. Mainly because when I started climbing there was no belay loop in harnesses of the time. Clipping into the rope loop keeps you "out of the system". Everyone I taught, I taught that method.

How does clipping into the rope loop keep you "out of the system"?  Isn't the rope loop clipped into your harness?  And when would this matter?