Why are mussy hooks not installed opposite/opposed?

Tal M wrote:

Do you know if this is true for non-CT hooks? I have a lot of steel wiregates I use for anchors in areas that see lower usage where minimizing visual impact is more important and I can’t think of why it would be notably different friction-wise than normal on an overhanging anchor where they’d be able to orient themselves naturally to the lowest friction orientation

My post was in reference to CT hooks, carabiners will likely see minimal additional wear if free to self orient in steep terrain, but may wear a bit more on the spine than if both facing the same direction.

abandon moderation wrote:

(...) Also Desert Rock Sports comment about guides teaching clients to TR through the mussy hooks makes me cringe.

Desert Rock Sports wrote:

(...) I know a few developers who equip the routes at crags they often guide with them for the convenience and they absolutely top rope through them. (...)

Can you re-read this? Did anywhere I mention what the guides teach or instruct the clients? What they tell the clients? Anything like that? No? Huh, thanks.

we all get your contention of "monkey see, monkey do" regarding how the guide decides to protect their clients but that's not the same as explicitly teaching a client "it's just fine to TR through mussies."

Around my home crags, I tr through the anchors all the time.
the amount of wear is so minimal if your rope is clean, less crap to get in the way, and I’ll gladly be the one going to replace it when (in many many years) it wears out, most of the time with my own hardware.

Case by case I guess. I don’t really do it at the super trafficked crags when I’m traveling, but it’s hard for me to see a sound reason not to around my hood.
the amount of new climbers struggling to switch out their quad with lockers and get the rope through the lower off hardware just seems like a bigger deal than swapping a few biners or musseys out every 5/10 years…

I'm a little confused and kinda want to talk about the actual accident instead of just dumbing down anchors for a second, did I miss some info?

Was he being top-roped through the mussys and fell from only a few feet up? Was he at the actual anchor like in your photo, and fell from the top while rapping? If he was in with his PAS like you are in the photo and weighted it, he would of undone the rope and seen it? 

Not to be insensitive, but I always try to treat myself like an idiot at the anchor. We all get comfy, I ALWAYS look and triple check everything (mostly cause I'm stoned), the way the rope is loaded would cause insant notice to anyone with their eyes open if they were at the anchor with it like that

This is actually in reference to the recent accident posted in the Injuries & Accidents page that occurred at the Emeralds. I was not there nor is that my arm in the photo of the anchor, but am friends with both climbers. The photo arose from her belayer who went back to take a look at the anchor as it is not 100% clear what happened. As I'm somewhat removed from the accident, I didn't want to go into too many details that would likely be speculative. 

The gist of the situation, as I know it, is that a leader had put up a quad/QD anchor through which the climber top roped. She was cleaning the quad/QD anchor and her belayer, who reported being in a position of leaning back resting on the tension awaiting further commands from the climber, felt the rope suddenly go slack and the climber fell. She is recovering well from her injuries although it will take some time.

To keep this thread on topic, I'll defer to the linked Injuries & Accidents thread for further discussion. Again, this is the thread: mountainproject.com/forum/t…

DrRockso RRG wrote:

This winter I witnessed someone twist a mussy to attempt to oppose them with following result: 

Three other reason not to oppose is it makes the mussy facing the rock especially difficult to clip on routes where the mussy is attached directly to the bolt via one quicklink.  Imagine the mussy on the lefthand bolt in the photo being reversed. 

Also notice the terribly inefficient setup of 3 quicklinks and 2 rap rings on the right hand anchor,  use a bit of chain people!

IMO: better yet, don’t use any chain. Vertical offset is great.

The hooks coming unclipped problem is really only an issue if one is TR-ing. Otherwise you have the whole chain of draws below you, backing up your anchor. If for some reason you are TR-ing and are concerned, you could clip the belay strand into the last draw, giving you backup until likely we’ll enough below the anchor to cause probs.

I'd love to see a manufacturer make a Grivel-style double-gate mussy or captive steel carabiner for lower-offs.

DrRockso RRG wrote:

This winter I witnessed someone twist a mussy to attempt to oppose them with following result: 

Three other reason not to oppose is it makes the mussy facing the rock especially difficult to clip on routes where the mussy is attached directly to the bolt via one quicklink.  Imagine the mussy on the lefthand bolt in the photo being reversed. 

Also notice the terribly inefficient setup of 3 quicklinks and 2 rap rings on the right hand anchor,  use a bit of chain people!

It’s messy not mossy …lol

Rain F wrote:

I'd love to see a manufacturer make a Grivel-style double-gate mussy or captive steel carabiner for lower-offs.

Someone here adds a second gate to his. He posted photos 

I keep seeing this issue of the back-clipped mussy hook unclips itself and the identically oriented second mussy hook also unclips itself resulting in this catastrophic failure mode.

As a community we have determined that opposite and opposed QuickDraws or, even better, a pre-equalized or self-equalizing anchor with opposite and opposed master point carabiners is the industry standard for top rope safety.

Yet somehow opposite and opposed Mussy Hooks have not become the norm.

I understand the shape of the nose on the mussy hook plays a big role here and my question is why has no one decided that the mussy hook’s shape is ultimately what needs to be refined here? Is the protruding hook offering something necessary? Would the gate of a mussy hook being pressed open by a rock it was facing cause the same catastrophic failure as the alternative where both mussy can unclip so easily if the rope lays back over the gate? In the event of a pushed open gate the rope still isn’t going to come out of the hook necessarily and would still have to escape the other hook simultaneously to cause the same catastrophic failure as before. 

Obviously there are mitigations that can be made. Obviously personal responsibility is so important.

We have to look at the reality. Folks that don’t know what they’re doing are going to go climbing.

More experienced climbers are going to continue having their less experienced partners clean anchors. Is that a good thing? Of course not. Is it going to happen anyway? Probably! Wouldn’t opposite and opposed mussy’s help with this?

The point of the lower off initiative was to reduce risk by making it easy to lower instead of rappel.

Wouldn’t the continuation of this effort seek to reduce the likely hood of catastrophic anchor failure (via double unclip) by figuring out a better way? We clearly see a problem. And we know that opposite and opposed hardware specifically combats this issue.

We can’t say “well, they should have noticed something was wrong before lowering” because if they had noticed we wouldn’t be discussing another accident because of the same repeat problem. 

Does the mussy hook need a redesign?

Is the big hook nose shape really providing something needed, or is it just a left over of the industrial nature of a tool which climbers adapted to their own needs without modifying?

I know it makes it easy to drop a rope into, sure. It also makes it easy to have catastrophic anchor failure.

If ClimbTech makes the anchor hook as a climbing specific mussy hook, then surely they could redesign the overall shape.

Is it time yet for the ASCA to stop suggesting the use of dual, outward facing mussy hooks and instead suggest 1 outward facing hook paired with 1 inward facing captive eye carabiner.

I’m not asking for rocket science here folks. What are the downsides? 

I’ve personally heard of 4 separate fatalities from the mussy hooks back clipping after climbing slightly above them and the belayer “taking”/ climber falling.

We lost a good friend last February to this scenario, almost exactly a year ago. Inexperience regularly pays a role, but it does seem so unavoidable if that slight opposed redundancy were added… I don’t think it’s “dumbing down” the anchor so much as it is conforming to already standard practice in any other anchor scenario. Just my two cents.

I’ve always wondered why mussys aren’t always placed opposite and opposed after this incident, thank you to those that shared the operation/ use from ClimbTech, now I understand. 

Just a suggestion, as a second heading up to clean the mussy hooks, unclip the climbers side of the rope from the last bolt(or piece of gear) and clip the belayer side of the rope into the last bolt. Continue climbing up to clean the mussy anchor, then clean the last bolt on the way down. I know of at least two instances where this saved someone's life when both anchors failed simultaneously. 

Alex Fletcher wrote:

I keep seeing this issue of the back-clipped mussy hook unclips itself and the identically oriented second mussy hook also unclips itself resulting in this catastrophic failure mode.

As a community we have determined that opposite and opposed QuickDraws or, even better, a pre-equalized or self-equalizing anchor with opposite and opposed master point carabiners is the industry standard for top rope safety.

Yet somehow opposite and opposed Mussy Hooks have not become the norm.

I understand the shape of the nose on the mussy hook plays a big role here and my question is why has no one decided that the mussy hook’s shape is ultimately what needs to be refined here? Is the protruding hook offering something necessary? Would the gate of a mussy hook being pressed open by a rock it was facing cause the same catastrophic failure as the alternative where both mussy can unclip so easily if the rope lays back over the gate? In the event of a pushed open gate the rope still isn’t going to come out of the hook necessarily and would still have to escape the other hook simultaneously to cause the same catastrophic failure as before. 

Obviously there are mitigations that can be made. Obviously personal responsibility is so important.

We have to look at the reality. Folks that don’t know what they’re doing are going to go climbing.

More experienced climbers are going to continue having their less experienced partners clean anchors. Is that a good thing? Of course not. Is it going to happen anyway? Probably! Wouldn’t opposite and opposed mussy’s help with this?

The point of the lower off initiative was to reduce risk by making it easy to lower instead of rappel.

Wouldn’t the continuation of this effort seek to reduce the likely hood of catastrophic anchor failure (via double unclip) by figuring out a better way? We clearly see a problem. And we know that opposite and opposed hardware specifically combats this issue.

We can’t say “well, they should have noticed something was wrong before lowering” because if they had noticed we wouldn’t be discussing another accident because of the same repeat problem. 

Does the mussy hook need a redesign?

Is the big hook nose shape really providing something needed, or is it just a left over of the industrial nature of a tool which climbers adapted to their own needs without modifying?

I know it makes it easy to drop a rope into, sure. It also makes it easy to have catastrophic anchor failure.

If ClimbTech makes the anchor hook as a climbing specific mussy hook, then surely they could redesign the overall shape.

Is it time yet for the ASCA to stop suggesting the use of dual, outward facing mussy hooks and instead suggest 1 outward facing hook paired with 1 inward facing captive eye carabiner.

I’m not asking for rocket science here folks. What are the downsides? 

HowNOT2, ASCA, and us are talking about getting a new hook designed. Why? Old standard hook has a basket that's a lot easier for the rope to enter, both good and bad. There's additional metal on there that could get shaved off to cut down weight, whereas the wear-point can benefit with extra meat instead for longer wear. (Standard lifting hooks are designed so loads can be put on/off with ease. So mold shape needs to change. The ClimbTech hook is tricky to outfit with a 2nd gate, and I'm not sure who in the States wants to spend the time doing it. A new mold would factor in design for the standard single wire gate and a simple way to install the 2nd gate, so both options are provided. Also adjust design for more stability against the rock. R & D is gonna take awhile. But given the interest several organizations, HN2, and other developers have expressed interest in getting another hook on the market, its definitely worth getting a new mold made for forged hooks + additional powder-coated options. A group order can definitely reach the MOQ and make it worthwhile for the initial mold fees.

Alex Fletcher wrote:

If ClimbTech makes the anchor hook as a climbing specific mussy hook, then surely they could redesign the overall shape.

Is it time yet for the ASCA to stop suggesting the use of dual, outward facing mussy hooks and instead suggest 1 outward facing hook paired with 1 inward facing captive eye carabiner.

I’m not asking for rocket science here folks. What are the downsides? 

The CT/SB may be in the process of developing a second version of the Top Anchor Hook, I'd make an educated guess that the V1 has it's shape because it's similar/same as commercially produced hardware store mussy hooks of which millions are produced, lowering the cost significantly, this, paired with a gate that holds up to abuse is a MAJOR appeal for fixed hardware given that many route developers are extremely price conscious. I'd venture any major improvements in terms of shape/design/material/additional features will come as a significant price increase. The current design does not meet UIAA standards for connectors, and does not proport itself to, it's intended as lower-off hardware only, not to be used as a connector in a top rope or lead climbing system. null The Fixe lower off hooks below are a superior design in terms of how they sit on the rock when opposed and the lack of nose preventing unwanted backclipping, the downsides are that the spring the gate corrodes and breaks fairly easily in outdoor environments, they have "less meat" in the basket, and they are significantly more expensive than the CT/SB hooks. 

Just in the time that I've been climbing we went from rappel only, to lower through rings or quicklinks, to mussy hooks on many routes. We're lowering the bar every few years for the purpose of convenience and ease of use in terms of technical complexity, without proper education to accompany the changes we'll continue to see accidents. Despite that, statistically, in my area (and I suspect many others) these types of accidents are becoming less frequent not more, showing we're on the right track. Nearly every accident that has happened at lowering or rappelling transition could have prevented by simply weighting the system first, a basic principle that should be taught on day 1 for all new climbers. Until everyone is doing this there will still be these types of accidents regardless of what hardware is used.

Any fatality is crushing, and we all want to prevent them.

Yes, it'd be great to have double-gated hooks and/or perfectly opposed, hanging anchors.

But don't let the quest for the perfect anchor blind you to the basics:

• closed anchors are going to be the safest possible anchor for a beginner to climb on
• however history has shown that closed anchors lead to many more fatalities than open anchors due to screw-ups at belay changeovers. Just look at Owens, for many years the safest sport crag in the country even when every route had open cold shuts worn halfway through
• throwing a couple of hooks on existing anchors is super fast and a climber can add hooks to many routes in a day, while if you wanted to outfit with nicely positioned, chained, and opposed anchors, you would likely need to drill to reposition some anchors, and at a minimum would need a variety of chain segments and more links. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm saying that realistically speaking, fewer routes would have hooks
• for many of these anchors without good equalization, hooks pointed into the rock can cause big problems, such as the rope running near or even on the gate
• even with perfect equalization, opposed hooks for some slabby anchors may be a bad call depending on how these hooks lie on the surface
• most anchors for most routes don't get climbed past
• the hooks we have may not be perfect, but we have them now

The ASCA expects that one double-gated hook at most anchors will become the standard, once those hooks are available in bulk. At crags with walk-to-the-top TR access (for routes which are also led), we'd plan on having two double-gated hooks (although that could obviously cause issues with cruxy anchor clips). But we don't have those available currently.

Also, while climbers might not like to admit it, even having double-gate hooks at every anchor may not prevent all of these kind of accidents. People can do really illogical things when under stress in a new environment, such as panic and take off their face mask deep underwater while diving. A new climber who is stressed out could unclip draws on the way up, get to an anchor with double gated hooks, and unclip everything on purpose (despite how totally illogical that sounds). We tend to forget how many close calls we all had when starting out. And the vertical world is unforgiving.

!. Don't climb above Mussy hooks.

2. Don't top rope through Mussy hooks.

Is this really that difficult for people to master?

Marc801 C wrote:

!. Don't climb above Mussy hooks.

2. Don't top rope through Mussy hooks.

Is this really that difficult for people to master?

Yes?

I’m not asking for rocket science here folks. What are the downsides?

You're asking other people to spend their money and time, your way. The downsides?

No.