Top rope anchor setup with mussy hooks.

Anna Brownwrote:

As a bare minimum rule of thumb, I teach that you don’t clip your personal anchor setup into the bottom most thing on the anchor, whatever that last thing might be (mussy, fixed/community carabiner, rap rings, chain link). The reason being is that the person who cleans the group’s personal anchor setup needs to use that last thing on the anchor to lower off the route and you’re creating an unnecessary obstacle for them to do their job.

There are plenty of alternative “closed” clip-in points to use on the anchor itself that are better choices... the hanger, the top quicklink, any of the numerous chain links and the bottom quicklink. With all these “closed” options, there is zero reason to build a personal anchor setup where the “open” mussy hooks (or any lowering carabiner) are used as clip-in points. To me this anchor choice shows lack of knowledge and mentorship.

I teach my clients the same thing. A "friend" I no longer climb with, who had a habit of taking confidently and braggartly (not a real word, but you get it) the lead and then bailing and asking me to finish, also liked to use the bottom pieces when he actually did finish a route, making more work for me. He's told a mutual friend that he doesn't understand why I never respond to his invites anymore, lol.

Stop saying this anchor, intended for top rope, implying multiple laps, is Fine. It’s not fine. It sucks donkey balls. 

B Gwrote:

#1) looks like you have a sliding X. That's fine but it's not redundant if any part of the webbing rubs through. There was an example of this happening at Devil's Lake sometimes in the last couple of years

Is it actually a sliding X? Looking closely I can't quite tell if it's that or if the master point was simply threaded through both strands in such a way that the whole thing would fail if one of the anchor points failed.

Regardless, my take on this anchor is: probably not gonna kill you, but more likely to kill you than I would want from my own anchors. And just plain awkward for cleaning, defeating the whole point of mussies.

Alex Cwrote:

Is it actually a sliding X? Looking closely I can't quite tell if it's that or if the master point was simply threaded through both strands in such a way that the whole thing would fail if one of the anchor points failed.

Regardless, my take on this anchor is: probably not gonna kill you, but more likely to kill you than I would want from my own anchors. And just plain awkward for cleaning, defeating the whole point of mussies.

It doesn't look like a Sliding X to me, either. Your assessment that the whole thing would fail if either anchor point or any part of the sling fails seems to be correct. That's why I said it's not a death anchor but that it's a needlessly stupid anchor. A simple overhand knot would have addressed all of this.

Very surprised that more people aren't calling out the single sling. For me this anchor receives an automatic "F" based on that alone and before even analyzing any other aspect.

David Burridgewrote:

Very surprised that more people aren't calling out the single sling. For me this anchor receives an automatic "F" based on that alone and before even analyzing any other aspect.

Respectfully disagree. AMGA guides commonly teach to use a single sling and they are a very conservative organization. Here's one resource discussing such a practice and here is another. 

I would argue (and to my understanding so would most climbing educators and instructors) it isn't the material used but the redundancy that matters. What happens if one bolt fails or one side gets cut by rock fall? The amount of slings used does not answer this question, but the type of anchor constructed does regardless of quantity of slings present. 

Ricky,
The anchor doesn't appear to be using a sliding-X. If a bolt fails, the climber falls because the carabiners appear to be clipped over both strands of the slings.

Anna Brownwrote:

Ricky,
The anchor doesn't appear to be using a sliding-X. If a bolt fails, the climber falls because the carabiners appear to be clipped over both strands of the slings.

Yes! Sorry, I should have been more explicitly clear about this part. I agree with it getting an "automatic F" but due to anchor construction, not anchor material. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Respectfully disagree. AMGA guides commonly teach to use a single sling and they are a very conservative organization. Here's one resource discussing such a practice and here is another. 

I would argue (and to my understanding so would most climbing educators and instructors) it isn't the material used but the redundancy that matters. What happens if one bolt fails or one side gets cut by rock fall? The amount of slings used does not answer this question, but the type of anchor constructed does regardless of quantity of slings present. 

Thanks for the input. I will read your links more thoroughly later but a quick glance at them shows a key difference - knots tied in the sling which makes them redundant. In those anchors any 1 strand could cut or break and you'll be fine. Not so in the OP's photo.

I realize it's very unlikely that the sling is going to fail but having witnessed a 1" webbing TR sling instantly melt completely through when the climber went to lower and the sling was caught in between the rope and the biner I think I will be continuing to use redundancy in my slings.

I agree. I would use a single length sling with one of these anchor configurations:

• with limiter knots tied nearish to the middle of the sling and a "sliding-X" set into which the rope carabiners are clipped (the sliding-X is NOT optional)
• with an overhand knot tied to create a masterpoint into which the rope carabiners are clipped 
• with a locking carabiner girth-hitched to the sling which becomes the masterpoint into which the rope carabiners are clipped

Anna Brownwrote:

Ricky,
The anchor doesn't appear to be using a sliding-X. If a bolt fails, the climber falls because the carabiners appear to be clipped over both strands of the slings.

I believe it is a sliding X.

But regardless, still a complicated cluster that is not remotely ideal.

Confusion when cleaning such an anchor is probably a major contributor to accidents.

When I study the photo zoomed in, I'm unable to confirm a sliding-X is there. I hope it was!

David Burridgewrote:

Thanks for the input. I will read your links more thoroughly later but a quick glance at them shows a key difference - knots tied in the sling which makes them redundant. In those anchors any 1 strand could cut or break and you'll be fine. Not so in the OP's photo.

I realize it's very unlikely that the sling is going to fail but having witnessed a 1" webbing TR sling instantly melt completely through when the climber went to lower and the sling was caught in between the rope and the biner I think I will be continuing to use redundancy in my anchors.

Yes, this is very much the point I was trying to make. You can make an anchor redundant or not redundant with all sorts of materials. I don't think you can analyze an anchor well just on the materials present but rather it must be evaluated as a whole system. 

I guess rather than just linking to resources that make my argument for me I should explicitly state the lesson learned from the resources I link. After reflection from the feedback I got earlier in this thread I decided I'm going to use more respected climbing education resources -among a couple other take aways- but I guess I ought to summarize my point when I link to them going forward. 

Cheers

If you carefully follow the path of the slings in does in fact appear to be a sliding X.

I think it's actually a pretty clean and safe set-up except the non-redundant sling. The girth hitch is more secure than a biner, and not hard to clean at least if you are able to use both hands. Put the rope in and pull it up towards the gate hinge and then slide out the sling. Probably would be a bit hard with one hand.

David Burridgewrote:

I realize it's very unlikely that the sling is going to fail but having witnessed a 1" webbing TR sling instantly melt completely through when the climber went to lower and the sling was caught in between the rope and the biner I think I will be continuing to use redundancy in my slings.

It's rare but it happens.  There was a report in ANAM some years ago where two people were at an anchor they built with three pieces connected by a single sling, with no knots to create isolation (just like in the situation in this thread).  Rock fall from above sliced the sling resulting in a complete anchor failure and two fatalities.

It does not look like a sliding x.  The hitched single sling has been fed thru the bottom biner and then just clipped to the top, non locking biner. This anchor can fail with fatal results from two failure modes.

Hi all, I think the best way to answer this question is just make it simple and safe, clip a couple draws on the hangers with opposing gates! and and remember when using mossy hooks do not climb above them! Use mossy hook only to lower off and no this is not a standard tr anchor setup, hope that was helpful, happy climbing Mike A.

Sliding x or not. The anchor is shit. 

At the risk of being called out — if instead the 60cm sling was clove or girth hitched to a single biner (ideally a locker), would that pass muster?

J Lwrote:

At the risk of being called out — if instead the 60cm sling was clove or girth hitched to a single biner (ideally a locker), would that pass muster?

Well it would be a much safer anchor but it would still be less than ideal in many ways. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Respectfully disagree. AMGA guides commonly teach to use a single sling and they are a very conservative organization. Here's one resource discussing such a practice and here is another. 

I would argue (and to my understanding so would most climbing educators and instructors) it isn't the material used but the redundancy that matters. What happens if one bolt fails or one side gets cut by rock fall? The amount of slings used does not answer this question, but the type of anchor constructed does regardless of quantity of slings present. 

You're correct that AMGA guides and providers teach how to use a single sling and that they teach redundancy. I've taken some AMGA courses and exams, and if I'd built the anchor in question, I'd have earned myself a fail, and the examiner would have forbidden me to put clients on it and would have ordered me (or someone else) to reconstruct it.

It's a needlessly shitty anchor with needless points of failure so easily avoided.