Tips for moving fast on multi pitch climbs

Darren Mabewrote:

In your best Inigo Montoya voice, call down to your follower "I do not suppose you could speed things up!?"

This tip basically supersedes all other tips in this thread. ^^^  :)

all seriousness, on rope stacking, I seem to absolutely suck at lap coiling... so I've taken to simply hanging a QD on anchor and hitting a quick overhand on a bight every 30-50ft of rope (depending on terrain - shorter loops if there's stuff below, longer if it's clean), aiming for 4 big loops of rope hanging from the QD. Assuming block leading, it's easy for my belayer to pop them off and out, keeps brake weight mitigated, and seems to result in less fustercluck for me. Remember that you need to continually hang each new loop *under* the previous one for block leading, otherwise they'll be in the wrong order for the follower to belay the next pitch. Also can just use any old random biner that happens to be on the anchor (say, the top of the alpine draw that I always use to tether in with) but a QD is nice to keep it hanging a foot lower than everything else, in my experience. Less faff = moving more efficiently.

Jeff Jwrote:

 Almost any anchor situation can be rigged with a cordalette.

But most don't need to be

Mikey Schaeferwrote:

Gotta disagree with this statement for some situations.  There might be a slight time savings at the belay but that is only part of the climb. I've personally found leading in blocks to be way more efficient in the long run.  

The benefits of leading in blocks becomes more important the harder the climbing becomes and less important the easier the climbing is. 

I wouldn't disagree, but couldn't you say the same of linking/stretching pitches and simul-climbing? In all 3 scenarios you're trading logistical efficiency for fewer breaks/a more sustained route. I think there's a time and a place for all 4 (block leads, swinging leads, linking pitches, and simul-ing).

PWZwrote:

But most don't need to be

Examples?  Keep in mind I'm referring to gear anchors.

Jeff Jwrote:

Completely disagree.  Alpine draws are essential in trad climbing.  This should read "leave the SPORT draws at home".  I cringe whenever I see sport weenies use their sport draws on gear and watch them twist and turn a decent placement into a death trap.

Cordalettes are invaluable.  They're small, light, and extremely versatile if you know how to use them.  Almost any anchor situation can be rigged with a cordalette.

You can go with slings over the shoulder with one biner (or twist racked) instead of alpine draws. Like most things in this thread there's pros and cons of everything. Over the shoulder there's no fussing with extending or shortening, but you need a one arm stance to get it off.

I bring 2 lightweight dogbone draws on many climbs (not my beefier sport draws). There's often a bolt where they're perfect or it's just the right extension for a cam in a solid placement or a threaded nut.

You can rig an anchor with a cordalette, the rope, or slings, personal preference really. I agree they're versatile; e.g. going around a big tree, making a bail anchor or self rescue setup. I like tech cord cordelletes so they're not bulky.

MattH  wrote:

I wouldn't disagree, but couldn't you say the same of linking/stretching pitches and simul-climbing? In all 3 scenarios you're trading logistical efficiency for fewer breaks/a more sustained route. I think there's a time and a place for all 4 (block leads, swinging leads, linking pitches, and simul-ing).

Agreed. For climbing not near your limit swinging leads seems like the most efficient method if you are pitching it out (i.e. not simul). It often happens with me where the follower arrives with almost all of the gear (the leader hands them the biner with the rest of the nuts and maybe 1-2 cams), keeping them on belay, and they just keep going becoming the new leader. But of course you don't want to climb two pitches in a row if it's near your limit.

Jeff Jwrote:

Examples?  Keep in mind I'm referring to gear anchors.

Are you saying gear anchors need cordalettes? Not sure I'm understanding what you are saying.

Jeff Jwrote:

Examples?  Keep in mind I'm referring to gear anchors.

• PWZ is correct, the vid below showcases what the most efficient desired anchor could/should be. Feel free to add in safety margin if the belay/route/etc requires it, otherwise keep it as simple (i.e., efficient) as safely possible. Two nested cams, no cordalette, no sling, no fuss
• https://www.instagram.com/reel/CiUxhR7Nari/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
  
  for the block leading argument, if it’s so easy that it’s easy to swing leads and for follower to climb two pitches basically back to back, one might think it’s easy enough to simul and now we’re back to square one. 

Christian Heschwrote:

• if it’s so easy that it’s easy to swing leads and for follower to climb two pitches basically back to back, one might think it’s easy enough to simul and now we’re back to square one. 

I see a huge difference between pitches I'm willing to swing leads on vs. simul climbing. Simulclimbing is way more risky and I only do it on routes where there's an extremely low chance the second would fall.

In the context of this thread, isn’t that what we’re talking about, pitches that are so easy that it *doesn’t* gas your 2nd to follow, re-rack in 30s, and continue climbing the next pitch? If it’s that mellow of terrain, I’d lean towards simuling. If it’s harder, can’t see it being more efficient than block leading. YMMV.

   If it takes longer than that for the switchover, then we’re not on the subject of this thread anymore, I don’t think…

I think that this thread is tips for all types /difficulties of climbs and for different climbs and climbers different strategies work best. There’s also risk vs efficiency considerations. I started simulclimbing about 20 years ago and back then it was still considered specialized and risky and a lot of people wouldn’t do it.  Now it seems more generally accepted and it seems some people aren’t aware how much more risk in introduces (I’ve seen them in the wild). I know someone who years ago was leading on simul who got yanked off by a falling second and sucked into the last piece and smashed their face. A PCD can reduce that risk but it’s still way riskier than pitching it out or F and F IMO.

Christian Heschwrote:

This tip basically supersedes all other tips in this thread. ^^^  :)

all seriousness, on rope stacking, I seem to absolutely suck at lap coiling... so I've taken to simply hanging a QD on anchor and hitting a quick overhand on a bight every 30-50ft of rope (depending on terrain - shorter loops if there's stuff below, longer if it's clean), aiming for 4 big loops of rope hanging from the QD. Assuming block leading, it's easy for my belayer to pop them off and out, keeps brake weight mitigated, and seems to result in less fustercluck for me. Remember that you need to continually hang each new loop *under* the previous one for block leading, otherwise they'll be in the wrong order for the follower to belay the next pitch. Also can just use any old random biner that happens to be on the anchor (say, the top of the alpine draw that I always use to tether in with) but a QD is nice to keep it hanging a foot lower than everything else, in my experience. Less faff = moving more efficiently.

Agreed on the hanging loop method!  (Even more important with half ropes.)  A single rope tangle will probably negate the combined effects of all the other little time-saving tips.  

I like to carry big lockers for this (the locker part is unimportant, I'm not aware of big non-locking carabiners).  A big locker allows for more short loops.  

For half or twin ropes, the knot loop will have two strands, but only clip one of them to conserve carabiner space. If using a single rope, slip knots rather than overhands can be used. 

When unclipped, a loop hangs down below the other loops, and as rope is paid out to the leader, the recently-unclipped loop can capture other loops.  The is not anywhere near as bad as what happens with a rope stack, because any captured loop can be identified and pulled free, but it is still a good idea, if possible, to find a position for the captured loops that allows them to hang off to the side of the belayer.  For example, if the anchor points are arrayed horizontally, hang the loops from one of the outside pieces, not from the power point.

As for removing the clipped loops in the required order, flipping the carabiner upside-down reverses the order of installation.

rgoldwrote:

Agreed on the hanging loop method!  (Even more important with half ropes.)  A single rope tangle will probably negate the combined effects of all the other little time-saving tips.  

I like to carry big lockers for this (the locker part is unimportant, I'm not aware of big non-locking carabiners).  A big locker allows for more short loops.  

For half or twin ropes, the knot loop will have two strands, but only clip one of them to conserve carabiner space. If using a single rope, slip knots rather than overhands can be used. 

When unclipped, a loop hangs down below the other loops, and as rope is paid out to the leader, the recently-unclipped loop can capture other loops.  The is not anywhere near as bad as what happens with a rope stack, because any captured loop can be identified and pulled free, but it is still a good idea, if possible, to find a position for the captured loops that allows them to hang off to the side of the belayer.  For example, if the anchor points are arrayed horizontally, hang the loops from one of the outside pieces, not from the power point.

As for removing the clipped loops in the required order, flipping the carabiner upside-down reverses the order of installation.

Emphasis in quote is mine.

Here's a nice non-locking large carabiner: https://grivel.com/products/carryabiner

They're nice for racking ice screws but I bet they'd work well for this too. I might try it tomorrow and see how it fares!

Christian Heschwrote:

• PWZ is correct, the vid below showcases what the most efficient desired anchor could/should be. Feel free to add in safety margin if the belay/route/etc requires it, otherwise keep it as simple (i.e., efficient) as safely possible. Two nested cams, no cordalette, no sling, no fuss
• https://www.instagram.com/reel/CiUxhR7Nari/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

This is a good example of an ideal situation.  I've been climbing for over 20 years and I can attest to the fact that ideal situations don't often present themselves.  That said, I don't care how good the placements are or how large the pro used is - I would never hang my ass on only 2 pieces.  Call me a pussy/wimp/whatever, I just don't believe 2 pieces of pro is adequate for a solid anchor.  If that's all you can get, fine, but in this example, a third piece could be easily placed and integrated.

Conclusion - this example is bullshit.  

Max Mansonwrote:

Everytime you rest/chalk up/look up to routefind, think about if it is really necessary. 

I do - and between not being able to locate handholds and see movement sequences because they’re not marked in bright pink and being too fucking weak to move any faster without getting pumped out of my mind - yeah - lots of chalk and kneebars as the clock ticks by. 

In the end, I care more about enjoying the ground-up OS trad game and sending than how fast my 1000th lap on some butt easy trade route is.

TLDR - this entire thread - everyone moves faster on easier terrain they might have wired - who cares - so go get better at rock climbing if you want to be faster on harder routes.

Jeff Jwrote:

If that's all you can get, fine, but in this example, a third piece could be easily placed and integrated

Sure, but would it be faster? 

Jeff Jwrote:

This is a good example of an ideal situation.  I've been climbing for over 20 years and I can attest to the fact that ideal situations don't often present themselves.  That said, I don't care how good the placements are or how large the pro used is - I would never hang my ass on only 2 pieces.  Call me a pussy/wimp/whatever, I just don't believe 2 pieces of pro is adequate for a solid anchor.  If that's all you can get, fine, but in this example, a third piece could be easily placed and integrated.

Conclusion - this example is bullshit.  

Do you ever hang your ass off of “only” 2 bolts? 

PWZwrote:

Sure, but would it be faster? 

Oh jesus plugging one more piece would add SO MUCH time to a pitch.  You're right.

Jeff Jwrote:

Heh heh...I knew some moron would make this comment.  People of low intellect are so predictable.

We're talking about how to save time building anchors using CLEAN PROTECTION.  Cams.  Nuts.  Tricams.  Whatever you got.  

I didn't think it needed to be said but apparently it did.  

I'm sure even you can understand how bolts are irrelevant in this discussion because they're mere presence saves time.  

It’s best not to throw out an insult when you don’t get the point of the question.

Jeff Jwrote:

People of low intellect are so predictable

People who say stuff like this are the worst (and usually morons)