Mussy Hook Unclipped While Lowering

J L wrote:

You did, which is absolutely wild that the ASCA jumped onto mussies with the gusto they did.

However, even I cannot argue that mussies can be considered safer as you are not introducing an entirely new system (your tie-in, the anchor, etc.), only one part of it.

Speaking of jumping on with gusto in a way that’s absolutely wild, trace the source.

Max>Bb Cc>You

I trust you see the problems in this little misadventure.

J L wrote:

You did, which is absolutely wild that the ASCA jumped onto mussies with the gusto they did.

This is kinda funny, since it's been something like 18 years since Peter Croft first suggested that the ASCA should focus more on adding lower-offs and less on bolt replacement, and we slowly moved that direction for more than a decade before introducing the Lower-Off Initiative! There has been a lot of push-back over those years, and lower-offs are now much more widely accepted.

In any case, the take away from the initial post on this thread is a good one to keep in mind - don't force hooks (or carabiners, even lockers) into an awkward orientation. This would be the same takeaway if the hooks were setup opposite and opposed and you tried to force them into both pointed out. And even short, stiff quickdraws - especially if the bolt side carabiner is pinched under a quicklink - could also have issues if you tried to force the rope side carabiners away from how they were naturally lying. Lockers attached straight into quick-links at an anchor could also have issues if you force them into weird orientations - such as the rope running over the gate, or funky cross-loading.

Greg Barnes wrote:

This is kinda funny, since it's been something like 18 years since Peter Croft first suggested that the ASCA should focus more on adding lower-offs and less on bolt replacement, and we slowly moved that direction for more than a decade before introducing the Lower-Off Initiative! There has been a lot of push-back over those years, and lower-offs are now much more widely accepted.

In any case, the take away from the initial post on this thread is a good one to keep in mind - don't force hooks (or carabiners, even lockers) into an awkward orientation. This would be the same takeaway if the hooks were setup opposite and opposed and you tried to force them into both pointed out. And even short, stiff quickdraws - especially if the bolt side carabiner is pinched under a quicklink - could also have issues if you tried to force the rope side carabiners away from how they were naturally lying. Lockers attached straight into quick-links at an anchor could also have issues if you force them into weird orientations - such as the rope running over the gate, or funky cross-loading.

Plenty of issues. Certainly not a dream come true.

Circumstantially adds as much as it reduces.

The effort applied does not justify the acts for all locations.

For time to be the proof only look as far as "we have always done it this way."

Acceptance of in situ is not proof, use however can be an act of faith.

Oh for fucks sakes…can we just go back to chains? They are cheaper, and if one screws up and takes a digger, it is solely the idiot climber’s fault.

I have installed a lot of lower-offs, but this handwringing about mussies/rams-horns/carabiners/shuts gets a bit tiring. 

No, we cannot go back to chains. 

Also, the ASCA has raised $15,800 towards a goal of $30,000 goal for their 2025 Lower Off Initiative. 

All donations are being matched dollar for dollar right now. 

If you appreciate lowering hardware on anchors, get your wallet out.
https://safeclimbing.org/donate

phylp phylp wrote:

Max, I sincerely appreciate that you are using your own time and money to do something that you think will improve safety for climbers. But I do not particularly like this design. I really don’t like the single link, with two bulky things in it that reduce movement. I do not like the rounded nose and gate of the mussy facing the rock. I prefer the current installations.

If I came across this kind of anchor my first thought would be 'wow, whoever did this doesn't know what they're doing'.

Marc801 C wrote:

If I came across this kind of anchor my first thought would be 'wow, whoever did this doesn't know what they're doing'.

That clean glue in job really screams gumby, doesn't it?

Camdon Kay wrote:

That clean glue in job really screams gumby, doesn't it?

No, it's the opposed Mussys and they're on the same quick link.

Marc801 C wrote:

No, it's the opposed Mussys and they're on the same quick link.

OK, WHY is it wrong to put opposed Mussies on the same quick link?

Upthread there is a typical anchor of two opposed carabiners on a ring, Mussies on quick link look like a cheaper variant of that setup. Of course, when crabs wear out replacement is not an option since they are on welded steel ring.
Ring typically specs at 25-50KN match quicklinks depending on the size chosen, specs for carabiners and mussies match as well.

Have YOU done failure analysis that proves Mussies to be more likely to fail in this configuration? How about quicklink? 

J L wrote:

phylp, my understanding was that at the time of the sand rock incident, common refrains were to use a biner or locker on a link above the mussies, so that wear was avoided on fixed hardware, and for ease of cleaning.

I’ll have to take your word for it that this was a common practice as I have personally never seen it or heard of it as a practice. That is not surprising - we only see what we and our partners do. When I heard about it it just struck me as inherently bad.  I find it hard to understand why using a single quick draw in a single bolt would be considered an adequately constructed anchor by anyone. That it is ‘backed up” by the unweighted mussys below it is nice and they would probably perform as a backup. But none of that is necessary.  

This is my last post in this thread. People understand each other’s opinions at this point, which have been clearly and politely expressed  for the most part. 

I second the request for a photo of this "opposite and opposed" Mussies.  We climb on them constantly in the ORG and have no problems.  The gates do get twisted sometimes, I think because of the rope smacking them as it's pulled through.  But for lowering, even without gates altogether, it's hard to imagine a problem if they are both facing out, i.e. NOT twisted. We do TR on our own draws, but occasionally we throw a lap on the Mussies. 

amarius wrote:

OK, WHY is it wrong to put opposed Mussies on the same quick link?

Upthread there is a typical anchor of two opposed carabiners on a ring, Mussies on quick link look like a cheaper variant of that setup. Of course, when crabs wear out replacement is not an option since they are on welded steel ring.
Ring typically specs at 25-50KN match quicklinks depending on the size chosen, specs for carabiners and mussies match as well.

Have YOU done failure analysis that proves Mussies to be more likely to fail in this configuration? How about quicklink? 

The mussies are a pain to clip in this orientation. Also, others have pointed out that due to the design of the baskets, this orientation tends to pinch the rope. 

BAd wrote:

I second the request for a photo of this "opposite and opposed" Mussies.

Um, there's one on this very page upthread. 3 on the previous page.

Uh, DOH!  Posted stupidly before reading further.  

That orientation looks like a bit of hassle to use, but I get the logic.  Use conventional Mussie orientation correctly, you'll be fine--as Phyl pointed out.  You gotta tie into your harness correctly each time, too.  Learn the game.  Teach the game.

OK, let's start educational PSAs -

Do not TR off fixed gear, even though your mom/dad/buddy told it was OK. Hang your own draws
Mussy gates away from the wall are totally super good enough, unless meteorite hits them. Then YGD!

Cleaning anchor with Mussies installed

And, here is "Sand Rock" accident analysis

FWIW: We rarely do it, and we are involved in anchor replacement from time to time.  No need to preach to the converted.  Also, we have some super grizzled veterans in the ORG who put up STACKS of routes sometimes TR'ing on the anchors THEY put in. LOL.  

Sure do love those new super beefy Mussies with the wire gates, tho.

Oh for fucks sake. Time to use anchors made for climbing, Not grandad’s tow hook gumbied up with wire. All the money spent in gas, grass, glue, time, drill bits, bolts, chain. Just come up with some way over built steel captive  locking biner. 

Ackley The Improved wrote:

Oh for fucks sake. Time to use anchors made for climbing, Not grandad’s tow hook gumbied up with wire. All the money spent in gas, grass, glue, time, drill bits, bolts, chain. Just come up with some way over built steel captive  locking biner. 

It would actually be cool if there were a way to crimp a thick sacrificial rope-wearing surface over a portion of a carabiner basket - similar idea to the Edelrid Bulletproof, but different. Same concept as the Mammut plastic wear protector for the lower tie-in point. -Can't think of a way to make that work on stainless 10mm round stock, tho. 

The Mussy hooks do take a lot of abuse before they are used up- I don't think you can find a cost-effective climbing carabiner that would last as long. 

Edit to add: The Edelrid Topper Station does have just such a removable sacrificial two-piece plug of metal - maybe they could rework their design so that they could offer these cast iron bolt-on slugs to fit over existing lower-off carabiners...

https://edelrid.com/us-en/sport/climbing-wall-construction-shop/topper-station

Let’s not forget there is no maintenance company to call for climbing anchors. Organized maintenance of climbing hardware is not the norm in the US, it’s the exception.

With hardware provided by the awesome guys at the ASCA (shout out to Greg & Nate!), many many motivated volunteers have retrofit many thousands of routes with lowering hardware all working towards the goal of making sure everyone gets home safely at night.

To me, the more consistent the education and mentoring can be on the topic of using and cleaning anchors, the less likely accidents will happen.

I never considered someone might purposely turn a mussy hook around so this is something I will add when I work with newer climbers.