Yer gonna die myths

I should have mentioned that when close to the anchor, maybe less than 15-20 feet out, that is a distinct possibility. Feels frightening, as if Yoda himself is beckoning you to the grave, but rarely dangerous. My partner is 50 pounds lighter than myself and under my best effort I can't make myself slip more than a foot or two once you're out of that "super close to the anchor" zone. 

I take it all back, yer gunna die and reincarnate as Yoda. 

Edit for post limit @ David K

I knew it would be unpopular.    I stand by it, simul-rapping is no more dangerous than any other form of rappelling when done correctly. Any aspect of climbing done incorrectly(or unsafely, rather), is obviously dangerous.

Been simul-rapping for 10 years and wish I started 5 years before that. The only way you could die is if your partner panic-drops you, which again would be akin to just letting your gri-gri rip while TRing somebody OR rapping off the ends of the rope if you haven't knotted them. I don't believe anchor failure deaths should apply as anchor failures have, can and will continue to occur on rare occasions across all aspects of climbing. An anchor that fails under the combined weight of two climbers is destined to also fail under the weight of a single climber, as the difference between 150 pounds and 300 pounds should not effect the static load bearing of a fixed anchor which isn't already unsafe. If i'm hit by a falling boulder and killed while simul-rapping, sure I died simul-rapping, but I didn't die from simul-rapping.

If you reason through the process of simul-rapping and do some real-world tests, you'll realize what a load of baloney the conventional wisdom is. You mention "unweighting at the anchor" and I'm not even sure what that means. If you arrive at your next rap station and patiently stand there waiting for your partner, nothing changes in the system, and I encourage you to try this while a safe distance above the ground. Put you and your partner on simul-rap. Have them climb 6 feet. Now, jump as hard as you possibly can with the intention of dropping them as far as possible. I'll buy you a six-pack if they fall more than 2 feet. Tethering is equally pointless and does not prevent anything at all. 

Eric Marxwrote:

This will likely be unpopular but simul-rapping.

It's two people who have each other on top rope, you don't need to tether together, the amount of weight on the rappel point is so heavy(and the rope so stretchy) that you can't zip your partner down even by standing on a ledge and jumping as hard as you could. There are two ways to die simul-rapping, rapping off the end of the rope(which is just as likely while single-rapping) or otherwise opening your gri-gri and doing a screaming fast rappel(or drop of your partner) until you hit a ledge or the ground.

Would you fully open your gri gri and drop your partner toproping? No? Then you should not in any sense be afraid of simul-rapping. 

Tie yer knots, yer not gonna die.

Most stuff in this thread is stuff that gets talked about as if it's deadly, but doesn't have any bodies to show it's actually deadly.

There are plenty of documented simul-rapping accidents that resulted in death and serious injury. Including ones with knots.

David Kwrote:

Most stuff in this thread is stuff that gets talked about as if it's deadly, but doesn't have any bodies to show it's actually deadly.

There are plenty of documented simul-rapping accidents that resulted in death and serious injury. Including ones with knots.

With knots? We talking anchor failure or what here? I'm trying to imagine a scenario where people would die simul rapping but not rapping normally if they tie knots in the end of their rope... I'm having a hard time coming up with anything. Do you have any examples of this?

Ricky Harlinewrote:

With knots? We talking anchor failure or what here? I'm trying to imagine a scenario where people would die simul rapping but not rapping normally if they tie knots in the end of their rope... I'm having a hard time coming up with anything. Do you have any examples of this?

If you're an AAC member you can look it up here. This used to be public and searchable but it looks like they've locked it down.

The typical case is one partner reaches the anchor and unweights, resulting in the other person falling to or past the anchor. Even if they don't fall past the length of the rope due to knots at the ends, ropes are long enough that if you fall a significant portion of the rope length, you can still die or get severely injured.

EDIT: Of course, tying knots does prevent a lot of accidents: with a quick search I did see that a lot of accidents (more than half of the ones I saw) would have been prevented by tying knots. A good many more would have been prevented by the climbers tethering to each other. But, once you get to the point where I'd consider simul-rapping to be as safe as the alternatives, it's not really much faster than the alternatives. I'm not saying you should never simul-rap: there are contexts where the risk of being on the wall longer is greater than the risk of simul-rapping.  But I also don't think it's a good idea to downplay the fact that there are real risks.

David Kwrote:

If you're an AAC member you can look it up here. This used to be public and searchable but it looks like they've locked it down.

The typical case is one partner reaches the anchor and unweights, resulting in the other person falling to or past the anchor. Even if they don't fall past the length of the rope due to knots at the ends, ropes are long enough that if you fall a significant portion of the rope length, you can still die or get severely injured.

EDIT: Of course, tying knots does prevent a lot of accidents: with a quick search I did see that a lot of accidents (more than half of the ones I saw) would have been prevented by tying knots. A good many more would have been prevented by the climbers tethering to each other. But, once you get to the point where I'd consider simul-rapping to be as safe as the alternatives, it's not really much faster than the alternatives. I'm not saying you should never simul-rap: there are contexts where the risk of being on the wall longer is greater than the risk of simul-rapping.  But I also don't think it's a good idea to downplay the fact that there are real risks.

But how? Is the partner just riping open the grigri and letting their partner deck? It's not like you can take a device off when it's still weighted by your partner. 

I've lowered a partner a few feet (and been lowered a few feet) while simulrapping and it's usually just an oops moment. If you are with someone who just panic rips open the grigri, I probably wouldn't want to climb with them anyway.

Simulrapping is nice because it makes rappelling with a grigri easier and makes the rope less likely to snag while pulling it. 

Bailey Moorewrote:

I am curious as to what could cause a microtrax to fail when TRS. However even Petzl now suggests that a micro traxion could be used as a primary TRS device. I guess I really just want to see Ryan @ HowNot2 break one on his drop tower.

Significant slack in the rope, climbing above the anchor, or trailing the ascender/pcp on a long lanyard rather than direct to the harness. I don’t think this is a “YGD myth” as much as it is most people just don’t want to encourage anyone who doesn’t have a decent grasp of fall forces to TRS.

Here’s a test of what a FF1 (which is only a possibility if someone is doing stupid shit on TRS) on a microtrax does to a 10.2 dynamic (with the caveat that thinner ropes will be less durable, and factor 1 on a static would ruin your day no matter how you’re  connected): https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/109501618/quick-and-dirty-microtraxion-drop-test 

I use a micro and nano trax for TRS, and I’m not concerned about the device aspect at all — the risks I’m concerned about are my rope being abraded and rockfall.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

But how? Is the partner just riping open the grigri and letting their partner deck? It's not like you can take a device off when it's still weighted by your partner. 

Not everyone is using a GriGri.

David Kwrote:

Not everyone is using a GriGri.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

If you are with someone who just panic rips open the grigri, I probably wouldn't want to climb with them anyway.

If you're dropped to your death in a simul-rapping accident, it's totally reasonable to stop climbing with them.  But it's also too late.

I've been climbing 20+ years and I've never used a grigri...and have no plans to start.  FFT

“I trust a cam I’ve placed over a bolt someone else has placed.”

Don’t get me wrong, it’s good to have confidence in your placements and inspect your bolts, but It’s just that you hear about and see “good” placements ripping far more than you ever hear about bolt failure. Myself, I have ripped a few pieces and never broken a bolt. It’s anecdotal, but the plural of anecdote is data.

David Kwrote:

Not everyone is using a GriGri.

But that's all they let me use during the lead test :-(

David Kwrote:

I've taken a quite a few beginners up Horseman, and the first piece I've found that you can reasonably place, is a nut which is not multidirectional--there isn't anything else available at that point. That's fine because a) the climbing at the bottom is very easy even for this being a 5.5, and b) there's a multidirectional piece a few feet later.

But, over a year or so of climbing this a few times and placing that piece, SO MANY PEOPLE have stepped in to "educate" me about how it's important that my first piece be multidirectional. One guy went so far as to YANK THE ROPE to try to zipper out the piece to demonstrate the danger. It took him four yanks, at increasing angles, to get the piece to zipper.

So at this point, I just "solo" that section to avoid hearing people's nonsense, and it works. I mean, I get that this can't really be called soloing because it's stupid easy and I'm all of 10 feet off the ground, but is it really safer for me to not put a piece in, than to put one in with zipper potential?

Another funny thing about that is that the first piece (also the crux piece) on Laurel a few climbs over is a micro cam that's not multidirectional: if you give it a downward tug, it works, but the slot is narrow so a sideways tug can twist it out. But despite climbing this probably more times than Horseman, I've never heard anyone mention that the piece isn't multidirectional, because it's a cam.

Interesting. I don't have that worry, as I climb about 90% of the time with the same climbing partner. Most other people I climb with are also somewhat regular, so typically that discussion has happened once, so I don't get no yanking non-sense. When the climbing is easy, I'm OK with a high first piece, and I know my belayer enough, she won't be standing yards away from the wall (unless she has no choice, but then I know that when I leave the ground too).

Dave Kosmal wrote:

Much of climbing safety is about making many separate judgement calls about many low-probability risks. It's a paradox. It often makes sense to ignore any particular low-probability risk, but it does not make sense to ignore all of them.

This is a good point. To wit, I have seen metal on metal unclip on a mid 13 sport route, it was a link-up so m-o-m made sense to mitigate drag, and went sideways which was probably part of the problem. My friend was in 5.12 terrain but fortunately rock solid while I looked for where I might run down the hill if he did whip. Would have been ugly.

I've also seen gate-flutter on "Stems and Seeds" at Donner Summit. It's a 10d in an awkward dihedral so it's possible the rope ran over itself, but we were both shocked and barely got away without injury, looking up at the RP still in the crack with 'biner intact. It was an old chouinard oval which had that reputation iirc.

Another "myth" is about bolts breaking. I helped on cleanup of a fatality at Goldilocks wall (again, Donner) when a leeper hanger broke and killed a young fellow. No helmet, which may have made a difference...but no one wore those on sport climbs ever bitd... very grim scene. 

James Arnoldwrote:

This is a good point. To wit, I have seen metal on metal unclip on a mid 13 sport route, it was a link-up so m-o-m made sense to mitigate drag, and went sideways which was probably part of the problem. My friend was in 5.12 terrain but fortunately rock solid while I looked for where I might run down the hill if he did whip. Would have been ugly.

This is more of a biner on biner twisting concern, you should just extend by clipping the dogbone into the rope side biner. This wouldn't have happened if it was a locker for example. So not really the metal on metal Boogeyman that is referenced.

I've also seen gate-flutter on "Stems and Seeds" at Donner Summit. It's a 10d in an awkward dihedral so it's possible the rope ran over itself, but we were both shocked and barely got away without injury, looking up at the RP still in the crack with 'biner intact. It was an old chouinard oval which had that reputation iirc.

Again it's possible but unlikely, more likely that the rope ran over it weird.

Another "myth" is about bolts breaking. I helped on cleanup of a fatality at Goldilocks wall (again, Donner) when a leeper hanger broke and killed a young fellow. No helmet, which may have made a difference...but no one wore those on sport climbs ever bitd... very grim scene. 

Leeper hangers are legit messed up. Bolts do break or pull out.

The post wasn't about bolts never breaking though, it was about people trusting their placement more than any bolt because they "placed it themselves". It's pretty darn hard to place a modern bolt that will fail from any normal climbing.

David Kwrote:

Not everyone is using a GriGri.

Are you using an ATC without an auto-block and if so why?

Lots of "yer gunna die" rhetoric and no substance as to why simul-rapping will actually kill you. 

Eric Marxwrote:

Are you using an ATC without an auto-block and if so why?

Lots of "yer gunna die" rhetoric and no substance as to why simul-rapping will actually kill you. 

For me, plain ATCs work fine and have for many years and even more catches and I prefer simplicity--but then I started when body belays were 'state of the art'.

I probably worried about every one of these myths (which maybe aren't really myths, just over-statements?) until I watched Mark Smiley's "50 sketchy anchors I trusted my life to" or whatever he calls his course on non-traditional anchors....The fact that he's still alive and hasn't killed any clients yet really helped me infuse a dose of realism to the theoretical. I'd really recommend it for fellow worriers, if not for the specific techniques then just to see how much you can deviate from "the right way" to do things without killing yourself or someone else.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

But that's all they let me use during the lead test :-(

The adults are talking about outdoor climbing son.  Go back into the gym where it's safe.

Alan Rubinwrote:

For me, plain ATCs work fine and have for many years and even more catches and I prefer simplicity--but then I started when body belays were 'state of the art'.

I don't have a horse in this race, but the initial discussion is about simul-rappelling as a YDG myth (or not). If you're rappelling on a atc without any auto-blocking backup, it seems to me that discussing inherent risks of simul-rappelling is a bit of a moot point, as obviously (needless?) risk tolerance isn't at issue.