11yr old climber falls at Smith Rocks

bryans wrote:

I've been climbing since 1999 and I feel there's always been this hysterical "but you can't toprope through the chains!!!!!" vibe but really this is just a simple problem to solve: swap chains out more often at popular areas. Just accept it as a sunk cost, like gas to get to the crag or the food you eat while there. People pay money to ASCA and other advocacy groups, and pay for parking and day use fees; surely these fees could be re-purposed to include buying chains along with rebar and wood for trails, or toilet maintenance, or every other amenity at established crags like Smith. Plenty of crags have online sites where people can report problems with bolts, or worn chains, so it's not like we don't have the technology or ability to identify and replace worn chains

Again, as I posted on the second page, you can pre-rig through the chains AND top rope on your own gear:

I'm not arguing about what is the best practice or that people should not practice and train before the real thing. Clearly training before going out on real rock is the right way....but the human condition is real.
No matter what, people are still gonna show up and do dangerous uninformed shit, unfortunately, and this is nothing new.
At least when there is fixed gear it can minimize potential accidents like this poor kid had. The argument around if TRing on fixed gear is okay or not is kinda moot IMO. Just a convenience at some crags we steward.
Mussy's and other fixed anchors are all over and it makes transition to rappel or lower off easier and less dangerous IMO. Would those with an alternative stance not utilize the luxury of it was known to be available to them?
Again, I'm not advocating for ignorance, but ignorance still shows up at the crag from the gym. Our local policy to TR on Mussy's I don't think makes people more dangerous, but it does offer a way for the uninformed/ignorant to not fuck themselves up as easy when they forgo proper training/instruction (which will continue no matter anyones attitude around it).

I'll say it again in case some people missed it.... I think people should learn the proper way to make and clean various anchors, but its not a mutually exclusive situation, both can exist. I just think one offers advantages that make for a safer climbing environment....but maybe that's the Dad in me.

Stay safe out there and feel free to TR on my fixed gear anchors...or don't because reasons.
Climb on friends!

bryans wrote:

I've been climbing since 1999 and I feel there's always been this hysterical "but you can't toprope through the chains!!!!!" vibe but really this is just a simple problem to solve: swap chains out more often at popular areas. Just accept it as a sunk cost, like gas to get to the crag or the food you eat while there. People pay money to ASCA and other advocacy groups, and pay for parking and day use fees; surely these fees could be re-purposed to include buying chains along with rebar and wood for trails, or toilet maintenance, or every other amenity at established crags like Smith. Plenty of crags have online sites where people can report problems with bolts, or worn chains, so it's not like we don't have the technology or ability to identify and replace worn chains.

Swapping out chains is not a logistical problem, it's a climbing culture issue where people who've been climbing for a bit feel absolutely compelled to educate/shame newer climbers who they see toproping through chains. It's horrible to read about all these lowering and rappelling accidents that would be literally 100% avoided if "we" were just "allowed" to toprope through chains so that newer climbers could avoid what seems to be the most dangerous component of climbing, the part where you are done climbing and just trying to get back to the ground. 

the problem is that incompetent climbers bring this practice to other areas and use this technique in inappropriate situations.  one of many examples i can remember; i was climbing at eldo and look over and see a young couple top roping a route using a crappy tree with some tat and 2 hollow aluminum rings.  i traversed a ledge to check out the anchor and i could clearly see that one of the hollow rings had a big hole in it and was chewing up their rope.  not to mention that hollow aluminum rings aren't that great brand new, and even less-good when a TR is chewing through them.

at some point you have to expect people to be competent, otherwise you are setting them up for disaster.

amarius wrote:

Good on them - mussy hooks are for lowering, not top-roping. 

i agree. another problem with mussy hooks is that the hook has a tapered profile.  a rope running over it is usually going to start twisting due to the rolling radius difference.  when you have 2 mussies side by side this amplifies the problem by increasing the rolling radius difference.  what can happen is the rope can start kinking badly, and as the climber approaches the anchor you can have a kink wanting to go through the gate.  this happened to a friend of mine (using standard draws, not even mussy hooks) who set up a TR that had a bit of traverse from the last directional to the anchor.  ultimately, at some point during a bunch of folks TR'ing the route a kink unclipped the rope from one of the draws.

slim wrote:

the problem is that incompetent climbers bring this practice to other areas and use this technique in inappropriate situations.  one of many examples i can remember; i was climbing at eldo and look over and see a young couple top roping a route using a crappy tree with some tat and 2 hollow aluminum rings.  i traversed a ledge to check out the anchor and i could clearly see that one of the hollow rings had a big hole in it and was chewing up their rope.  not to mention that hollow aluminum rings aren't that great brand new, and even less-good when a TR is chewing through them.

at some point you have to expect people to be competent, otherwise you are setting them up for disaster.

The fact though, is incompetence shows up despite what you think or want to happen... how do you mitigate that? That is the problem no?

And again, I'm not advocating for people to not learn how to do things correctly, which I think I clearly laid out.
I 100% think people should learn how to build and clean all kinds of anchors.
I see your response was to Bryans...edited for me not seeing who you wrote to. My B.

rock climbing wrote:

You are wrong. They are top rope hook  not lowering hook.

No, they are a "top anchor hook" as your pic indicates. There is nothing in that title that suggests how it should be used.

rock climbing wrote:

I have friends that would not top rope through mussy hooks even after I told them it is ok.

Bolts are fixed hardware everything attached to the bolts are temporary and replaceable. 

Top roping on fixed gear has always been a no-no. Unless you yourself will purchase and install new hardware please don’t tell others to go ahead and TR on any fixed hardware.

rock climbing wrote:

Unfortunately you are incorrect. It says Top anchor, not Top roping anchor. All single pitch anchors are top anchors, this is just one of many options.

The standard ethic is to TR on you own gear then lower off on the fixed gear. As much as I condone people to gang bang the fixed gear I put in, it is not the norm at all.

Climbing Weasel wrote:

If I’m climbing with other people, who are extremely new to climbing, would it be ok to thread the rope one link above any cold shits/mussys and use the easy clean system you make use of here? Also- I’ve typically done that with just one steel locker- would you recommend two instead?

In my experience you can run into trouble pulling a rope through anything other than the last link hanging a chain. The rope is more likely to get pinched and jammed in there by the other link, especially with “heavy” mussys or DIY cut rope ends after trimming off a fussy tie in section of rope. Best to use lockers and whatever is on the end as shown, and send a experienced climber up to do the final cleaning in my view.

Personally I’m comfortable with one locker, maybe even just a draw into the bolt hanger when threaded through closed links, as long as the other bolt/chain is also connected to the system.

Dont know what to do if you run into cold shits. I’d see a doctor. 

@ Climbing Weasel:

Also very important to be mindful of the orientation. If you go up one link the orientation changes 90 degrees. If you lower/top rope through this it will twist, pigtail, and kink the ever loving crap out of your rope. It will be a mess and will need fixing afterwards if you want to climb on that rope again.

I agree with Andy, the last link is the best option for a clean lower, but don’t make it 10x worse by choosing the wrong orientation. 

rock climbing wrote:

Sure back in the day when dirt bag climbers bolted routers every 20 ft. But now when we have mussy hooks made out of hardened steel 4 times thicker than an carabiner is a different story. Those things are really strong even if they are worn more than half through. 

Yes, those things are beefy!
'HowNotTo' posted video testing worn mussies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orowP9pWyvs 

They mentioned this route - 5 Gallon Buckets at Smith Rock

Here is what mussies looked like when they got replaced:

PS - somebody buy Matthew Clawson a beer for his troubles

This is example of the common condition of a lots of anchors in Owens. These picture taken a couple days ago.
Support your local developers/stewards.

Mr Rogers wrote:

This is example of the common condition of a lots of anchors in Owens. These picture taken a couple days ago.
Support your local developers/stewards.

Unless those grooves end up sharp, they’re still fine. For years. 

Mr Rogers wrote:

Unfortunately you are incorrect. It says Top anchor, not Top roping anchor. All single pitch anchors are top anchors, this is just one of many options.

The standard ethic is to TR on you own gear then lower off on the fixed gear. As much as I condone people to gang bang the fixed gear I put in, it is not the norm at all.

Not sure who decides what is the "norm", but I've been told by multiple people who are actively putting in mussy hooks that they are fine with people TRing directly through the hooks.  Seems like probably the best way to do it--they're cheap and easy to replace, and it's not as if there's any overall savings in using each party's biners--and unless each party is bringing steel biners, it's just wasting aluminum.

I have a slight personal preference in TRing directly through the hooks as it seems more efficient and less likely to lead to any problems, but I'm also happy to follow whatever local "norm" there is, I'd just caution people against assuming there's a "norm" and trying to enforce that when there may not be any "norm" now and even if there is, it may be subject to change as giant new-style mussys become more standard.

pfwein Weinberg wrote:

Not sure who decides what is the "norm", but I've been told by multiple people who are actively putting in mussy hooks that they are fine with people TRing directly through the hooks.  Seems like probably the best way to do it--they're cheap and easy to replace, and it's not as if there's any overall savings in using each party's biners--and unless each party is bringing steel biners, it's just wasting aluminum.

I have a slight personal preference in TRing directly through the hooks as it seems more efficient and less likely to lead to any problems, but I'm also happy to follow whatever local "norm" there is, I'd just caution people against assuming there's a "norm" and trying to enforce that when there may not be any "norm" now and even if there is, it may be subject to change as giant new-style mussys become more standard.

There is no “norm” or any possibility for a “norm” because there is no central body deciding the “norms”.

Everyone please just TR in your own equipment. If it leads to a cleaning death it’s because you didn’t train or supervise the victim properly. 

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote:

Unless those grooves end up sharp, they’re still fine. For years. 

I'm not implying they are unsafe. These were replaced a couple few years ago, and will need replacement in a couple more. ORG has so many routes and is so popular keeping up with replacing worn suspect gear in such a massive climbing area benefits by support from viewers like you.

pfwein wrote:
.....

I dont disagree, I condone folks TRing on the fixed gear I put in, but I also know I'm going to inspect and replace them when they merit replacement. Not all crags have a very active community that keeps up with replacement/inspection.
Thus the accepted ethic is to TR on your own gear to minimize wear and keep down on replacement intervals. Someone took their time and money to put it in, so unless you know otherwise its best to not cause more wear than necessary and only lowering off through the fixed gear when done with the route. 

Tradiban wrote:

There is no “norm” or any possibility for a “norm” because there is no central body deciding the “norms”.

Everyone please just TR in your own equipment. If it leads to a cleaning death it’s because you didn’t train or supervise the victim properly. 

I disagree. There absolutely is a norm from my experience. Most people who climb know to not TR on fixed gear despite there not being some central body overseeing it. I mean you know that and your weren't told by some governing body, so it must be the status quo for some reason....

Mr Rogers wrote: Thus the accepted ethic is to TR on your own gear to minimize wear and keep down on replacement intervals. Someone took their time and money to put it in, so unless you know otherwise its best to not cause more wear than necessary and only lowering off through the fixed gear when done with the route. 

Indeed. I imagine there's more than a few people out there who donate their time and money to hardware replacement that would be dismayed to find their efforts wasted by people too lazy to set up their own TR anchors. 

Tradiban wrote:

Your sample size is too small.

And your alternative stance somehow has a larger data set?

-------------------
Edit for limits.

Tradiban wrote:

Don’t need a sample size for something that doesn’t exist.

Point is that no one can make an assumption that’s its ok to TR on fixed hardware unless they are the ones installing/replacing it. 

The question then is:
Why don't you TR on fixed gear?

Must have gotten that ethos somewhere no?
Hot take - Perhaps its because communities share ideas/practices within themselves and thus a standard ethic is born? I know, crazy right.

Mr Rogers wrote:

And your alternative stance somehow has a larger data set?

Don’t need a sample size for something that doesn’t exist.

Point is that no one can make an assumption that’s its ok to TR on fixed hardware unless they are the ones installing/replacing it.