The Devils Lake top rope cluster Fu&k thread... (2nd Edition)

Brent Monfortwrote:

Is this a local guide service?  Looks to be similar anchor material and technique. 

These specific anchors aren't really the point, they are just handy examples.  We've already gone partway down that rabbit hole, let's not go further.

Is the red/orange rope the climbing rope? Rough on the tree. Doubled sling: plenty strong enough. Locking carabiner, not so tri-loaded, angle is ok. Live, large, well located tree. All in all a decent anchor. Food for thought and discussion?

Simple, easy to check, unlike a cluster, by definition.

Basket hitch of 1 " tube is good (probably north of 50 kn), another option of a girth hitch would grip tree (giving up some of that strength) and be less likely to slide down breaking the branch that holds it high on the tree. edit - wrap twice pull one probably better than girth hitch, but take time to tie the follow thru knot.

One locking biner, minimum met (7 KN if cross loaded somehow), some rare instance the rope might unscrew the gate? Add another biner with gate opposed good idea for a slingshot belay.

Tree well over 6 inches diameter, good, can't see anything in the picture that would cause the rope to be cut or abraded dangerously, probably not great for the tree if used more than few times.

Placed high on the tree, pro- might be able to see the anchor from the ground to keep track of it, con- could slide down if branch broke causing some extra force and a chance the climber could hit something during the short fall, but still it is a top rope anchor with lots of rope out to absorb energy.

James Schroederwrote:

Chiaroscuro - Me: "Hopefully, you're not trying to set this up for Brinton's; if so, you should be further to skier's right. If you've got the material, ditch the quad on the skier's right leg, and join those pieces to the anchor in a more static way - perhaps a bowline-on-a-bight or bunny-eared figure eight would be an elegant  

That one was mine, I’ll happily own up to it. It was actually for The Rack. (So, you’re right. If this was for Brinton’s you’d be in for a BIIIIIIG swing!) You’re right on elegance, but your proposed change wouldn’t make it any safer, just prettier (and for me, this is the quickest setup).

As for the general criticism (not from you, James) of the two-leg anchor where one leg goes to 2 equalized pieces, this is my go-to if I have two pieces and a bomber natural because then the natural takes 50% and each piece takes 25%. The tree is more than double the strength of each cam (I think), so this distributes the (relatively small) forces better. I agree that if it were smaller cord three legs is called for, but these are all on 9-10mm static over non-sharp edges. So with that big a line, I’m comfortable with two legs to the MP. 

Lets bolt the top of each climb with one of these bad boys and we'll never have to worry about building anchors ever again! 

Dave K wrote:

That's hilarious because it looks so wrong but really there's nothing wrong.

I'd climb on it.

Umm, it isn’t redundant. So, strike one? It is a single piece of webbing resting on a 2in-long broken off limb 6ft up a tree with a single biner. Also, rope running ALL through sap (and that tree was REAL sappy. Good way to destroy your rope fast.) 

I was one of the people who took that photo that Jill posted and inspected the “anchor” closely in person. Would not climb. 

Doug Hemkenwrote:

If this is the new AMGA standard, then I now understand why I saw so many anchors with this geometry.  They are being built from all materials, not just static line. Sorry the only examples I took photos of are static line - the neatness of execution with the static line makes it easiest to see the geometry..

I take it from Ted's description that the AMGA standard routine is: (1) place two pieces (preferably equalized? as in these examples), (2) fix one leg, (3) weight the leg (by hanging a rope on it?), (4) place the final piece and fix the second leg (preferably equally tensioned with the first?). Do I have that right?

I have repeatedly seen near-misses with two legged anchors, especially at the Lake, especially because of the sharp edges in the quartzite. If (3) is part of the new standard then I'll also tell you that I have seen repeated near-misses by hanging a rope from one leg of a partially constructed anchor, despite someone being right there working to complete their anchor.

In my opinion, this geometry is not a good fit with the kinds of mistakes I know people make with their anchors around here.  It should be the exception, not the rule.

On review I'll give the Berkeley anchor a C+, because both legs have two pieces of gear and they are equally tensioned.

You would tie a masterpoint, throw on the biners, clip and toss the rope, then take the remaining line and tie it off so that it is equalized, yes.  The advantage of this is there’s no hanging over the edge to equalize; you’re equalizing tension by attaching the second arm to the already weighted anchor.  Both are pre-equalized so there’s no extension in the event of failure.

Jill Griffiswrote:

The photo is too small to tell, but the biner kind of looks like a stainless steel biner. If it is a steel biner, the close gate strength is probably north of 30kN, and open gate strength would be around 15kN.

Lindsey Mathewsonwrote:

That one was mine, I’ll happily own up to it. It was actually for The Rack. (So, you’re right. If this was for Brinton’s you’d be in for a BIIIIIIG swing!) You’re right on elegance, but your proposed change wouldn’t make it any safer, just prettier (and for me, this is the quickest setup).

As for the general criticism (not from you, James) of the two-leg anchor where one leg goes to 2 equalized pieces, this is my go-to if I have two pieces and a bomber natural because then the natural takes 50% and each piece takes 25%. The tree is more than double the strength of each cam (I think), so this distributes the (relatively small) forces better. I agree that if it were smaller cord three legs is called for, but these are all on 9-10mm static over non-sharp edges. So with that big a line, I’m comfortable with two legs to the MP. 

Lindsey,

No need to "...own up to it." - I think it's a fine setup, and I'd happily climb on it or guide on it. (I've been away too long, but now I see that it's the top of The Rack - my bad!). To get a tiny bit nitpicky, the change I suggested would do more than just make it prettier. The proposed change would eliminate links in the chain, improving efficiency and (very marginally) improving safety by removing failure points in the system. Ultimately, neither of those is a huge deal, and as I said, I'd climb on that thing all day. Great work.

M Appelquist wrote:

The picture shows webbing held up by a largish branch, alive. 

Ope, you are correct. So my tertiary concern wasn’t an issue. Still not redundant. Still would not climb.

Lindsey Mathewsonwrote:

Ope, you are correct. So my tertiary concern wasn’t an issue. Still not redundant. Still would not climb.

Have you ever heard of good condition 1" webbing failing? I haven't. Sure, I like redundancy, but if I hopped on a TR and saw this as the anchor, I wouldn't be scared for my life.

Lindsey Mathewsonwrote:

Umm, it isn’t redundant. So, strike one? It is a single piece of webbing resting on a 2in-long broken off limb 6ft up a tree with a single biner. Also, rope running ALL through sap (and that tree was REAL sappy. Good way to destroy your rope fast.) 

I was one of the people who took that photo that Jill posted and inspected the “anchor” closely in person. Would not climb. 

Rope, harness, belay biner and belayer not redundant either.

I hate sap tho. (I have met some French climbers who were using rosin instead of chalk for grip)

Dylan Pikewrote:

Have you ever heard of good condition 1" webbing failing? I haven't. Sure, I like redundancy, but if I hopped on a TR and saw this as the anchor, I wouldn't be scared for my life.

Ask the guy that fell off Gills back in June....

Double Jwrote:

Ask the guy that fell off Gills back in June....

link?

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/119088502/accident-at-dl-yesterday

But I think we all agree that webbing can be cut across a rock edge, but is a tad less likely around a tree. 

Fact of the matter is people should use rock gear whenever possible to lessen impact on certain things, in my opinion.  And make those anchors redundant.  Especially on popular climbs.

Double Jwrote:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/119088502/accident-at-dl-yesterday

“It is true that a single piece of webbing failed.  They had a boulder wrap and a sling extension to their top rope - no redundancy, no multiple anchors.    
It is my GUESS that the webbing was prematurely worn or rubbing under load while being used.“

Sounds like if DL is such the knife storm of sharp edges that 3 static rope legs are needed for a top rope anchor, chain or cable might be better anchor materials.

Dave Olsenwrote:

Rope, harness, belay biner and belayer not redundant either.

Rope: Non-redundant but way over-engineered for top rope loads. The one caveat: rubbing on sharp edges. This can be at least somewhat mitigated by making the masterpoint lie below the lip of the climb.

Harness, belay biner: These are easy to inspect continuously and fix or discard as needed.

Belayer: In this care, the belayers were the adults responsible for the child climber, so this point is moot. If reversed, a backup or assisted device would provide redundancy.

So in this case, the anchor is the one critical part of the system that is non-redundant and not within inspection distance of the supervising adults. If this was a top belay, those concerns would be diminished.

Dave K wrote:

Single locked biner, like the one the belayer is using on the other end? Sure I always put a second one on, but it's really not necessary.

Is the one the belayer is using on the other end easy to screw shut anytime it appears to be coming open?

Maybe the question here is why would you not throw a second biner on when you have a child climbing this line?

Gokul Gwrote:

Rope: Non-redundant but way over-engineered for top rope loads. The one caveat: rubbing on sharp edges. This can be at least somewhat mitigated by making the masterpoint lie below the lip of the climb.

Harness, belay biner: These are easy to inspect continuously and fix or discard as needed.

Belayer: In this care, the belayers were the adults responsible for the child climber, so this point is moot. If reversed, a backup or assisted device would provide redundancy.

So in this case, the anchor is the one critical part of the system that is non-redundant and not within inspection distance of the supervising adults. If this was a top belay, those concerns would be diminished.

Rope: That webbing, when doubled twice is way stronger than the rope. As is the biner.  If DL climbing requires THREE STATIC ROPE legs for a cut resistant anchor, perhaps double climbing ropes might be a good idea too. It must be like climbing a cliff of obsidian there.  Can the belayer inspect the whole rope in use?

Harness and Belay: Even the most experienced climbers have f'dt up clips, tie ins and have had old belay loops fail.

Belayer: So just because someone is an adult, redundancy isn't important for the belayer? I have let a lot of youngsters belay me and have had situations where I  had two adults holding on to the rope/s.

The fact the anchor is out of reach/sight of the belayer and climber is a good point, but the anchor shown is not outside the bounds of acceptable safe recreational climbing. If you are talking about institutional climbing then protocols will likely be different. Like you indicate the fact that children are climbing, in my mind, moves the needle that direction.

I like to overbuild anchors just for the fun of it if time isn't a safety issue (and when is time a safety issue when setting up a top rope? ), so for me this discussion is recreational.