Hitches 101

Hitches are knots that fasten rope, cord or webbing to a mast (carabiner) or taught rope. Hitches are the weakest type of knot. Hitches rarely fail by breaking. Hitches fail by slipping at the slip induction force (SIF). Factors that influence SIF include: mast diameter, mast cross-section shape, mast friction coefficient, hitch material diameter, hitch material cross-section shape, and the hitch material friction coefficient. SIF cannot practically be calculated by climbers, while climbing, with any reasonable degree of accuracy in the field. There are too many variables. In fact, some hitch/post combinations are so weak as to be completely worthless. This is why general specifications for hitch strength are not published anywhere. There are too many variables. 

The OGs were correct… hitches should never be completely relied on in any anchor system. They need to be backed up by a loop type hard knot. Loop knots are fixed, maintain their shape and fail by breaking at very predictable loads... not slipping at highly variable loads.

All the tests and videos you are seeing on the internet that show hitches not failing or failing at very high SIFs are simply cherry-picked carabiners. They are cherry-picked for their ability to grab the hitch. Do not be duped by their BS tests and videos.

I'm trying to think of how somebody would make an entire anchor of hitches. Maybe a 3 piece gear anchor with every piece clove hitched and then a master point girth hitched around a carabiner? Do people actually do stuff like that? It goes against all best practices and what's taught/commonly found in climbing literature. 

Not trying to be difficult, I'm just curious if this is something you've seen often and if so, in what form

Believe it or not... YES. Somebody is going to die if this continues to gain traction.

Just Google "Girth Hitch Masterpoint".

These people would publish "scientific" papers on the viability of using cow hitches for climbing anchors if they thought it would boost their website traffic.

Where have all the protocols gone?

Not all anchors have a "masterpoint". 

A "masterpoint" is not  mandatory to being "safe". It is merely a convenience. Except when it isn't.

Lol. He’s just trying to say someone’s gonna die from using a girth hitch master point. Sure, maybe someone, somewhere, in the next 100 years will die due to a hyper specific instance of a girth hitch slipping during catastrophic anchor failure when a figure 8 would have worked, maybe. I’ll take my chances.

Tony Calderone wrote:

All the tests and videos you are seeing on the internet that show hitches not failing or failing at very high SIFs are simply cherry-picked carabiners. They are cherry-picked for their ability to grab the hitch. Do not be duped by their BS tests and videos.

Can you give an example of which materials and carabiners would fail at low enough forces to be of consequence? I'm very skeptical that people are out there making intentionally misleading videos like this.

Edit: It occurred to me that some viewers might not know this picture. I didn't take it. I have not done this route. I think the picture was taken by Dave Diegelman. Pictured is Dale Bard arriving at a sling belay on the FA of Sea of Dreams. Jim Bridwell would also be present. Now I have to go check on the spelling of Dave's last name. 

Yeah a girth hitch master point is something i've seen mentioned more often in the last couple years but I can't say I've seen it used much "in the field". I've done it exactly once because I was so low on gear and had to make an anchor with not nearly enough material and it happened to get the job done. Not my go to, more of a last resort type thing. 

Yukon,

Maybe they are not doing it intentionally. It is hard to know why people do the things they do.

But if they:

1) Use a new, skinny, Dyneema runner

2) Use a new HMS carabiner with a circular cross-section

3) Tie a girth hitch on the carabiner

4) cut one of the strands right next to the girth (effectively turning it into a cow hitch with a tiny tail)

5) load the above with a realistic, dynamic fall. Not a smooth and constant pull from a machine. That means vibration is involved.

Test that 100 times. If it fails once it fails the test for redundancy. Full stop.

The test for redundancy is not about probability.

Any mention of probability is simply skirting the test.

But I'm willing to bet the above test fails far more than once at shockingly low loads.

Someone woke on the Quixote side of the bed

not all hitches but

relevant?

To quote DeBruin and Sohl 2021:

"3) The sling is cut by rock/ice fall or another sharp object (perhaps the falling leader’s crampons). In this case, minimizing potential slip is crucial. While catastrophic anchor failure due to slip may be possible with very small slip values (ex. 2.5cm with a tight GH), whatever mechanism causes the sling to cut is likely to have cut all legs of the anchor if it strikes within 2.5cm of the masterpoint. Consequently, catastrophic anchor failure would occur regardless of slip."

In other words, what the hell is happening on your climbs that a single leg of your anchor is getting cut at the master point without outright killing you?

Isaac Mann-Silverman wrote:

In other words, what the hell is happening on your climbs that a single leg of your anchor is getting cut at the master point without outright killing you?

Agreed. A regular master point could fail, too, if the material happened to get cut right there in the masterpoint... 

Master Points are for Noobs.

Yukon Cornelius wrote:

Agreed. A regular master point could fail, too, if the material happened to get cut right there in the masterpoint... 

Any anchor could fail if the tether gets cut as well, perhaps we should always use two? 

Tony Calderone wrote:

Yukon,

Maybe they are not doing it intentionally. It is hard to know why people do the things they do.

But if they:

1) Use a new, skinny, Dyneema runner

2) Use a new HMS carabiner with a circular cross-section

3) Tie a girth hitch on the carabiner

4) cut one of the strands right next to the girth (effectively turning it into a cow hitch with a tiny tail)

5) load the above with a realistic, dynamic fall. Not a smooth and constant pull from a machine. That means vibration is involved.

Test that 100 times. If it fails once it fails the test for redundancy. Full stop.

The test for redundancy is not about probability.

Any mention of probability is simply skirting the test.

But I'm willing to bet the above test fails far more than once at shockingly low loads.

The Girth-X is the appropriate hitch for this application. Make a sliding X and then girth hitch that. Yann Camus has a good video on it with much data presented. 

Tony Calderone wrote:

Yukon,

Maybe they are not doing it intentionally. It is hard to know why people do the things they do.

But if they:

1) Use a new, skinny, Dyneema runner

2) Use a new HMS carabiner with a circular cross-section

3) Tie a girth hitch on the carabiner

4) cut one of the strands right next to the girth (effectively turning it into a cow hitch with a tiny tail)

5) load the above with a realistic, dynamic fall. Not a smooth and constant pull from a machine. That means vibration is involved.

Test that 100 times. If it fails once it fails the test for redundancy. Full stop.

The test for redundancy is not about probability.

Any mention of probability is simply skirting the test.

But I'm willing to bet the above test fails far more than once at shockingly low loads.

You're taking folks who at least have done anecdotal levels of testing, and crying out about it. And then saying, "I'm willing to bet...". Don't. Don't bet. Go do the science and come back to us, if it's so obvious to you.

Tony Calderone wrote:

Yukon,

Maybe they are not doing it intentionally. It is hard to know why people do the things they do.

But if they:

1) Use a new, skinny, Dyneema runner

2) Use a new HMS carabiner with a circular cross-section

3) Tie a girth hitch on the carabiner

4) cut one of the strands right next to the girth (effectively turning it into a cow hitch with a tiny tail)

5) load the above with a realistic, dynamic fall. Not a smooth and constant pull from a machine. That means vibration is involved.

Test that 100 times. If it fails once it fails the test for redundancy. Full stop.

The test for redundancy is not about probability.

Any mention of probability is simply skirting the test.

But I'm willing to bet the above test fails far more than once at shockingly low loads.

Surviving rockfall that cut part of my masterpoint one hundred times would be God telling you something no matter how it was tied!

Drink this one in Tony and come on back.
HN2
And before you get ya panty's in a twist, time and time and time again slow pulling results almost always deliver the same result as a drop test....but dont take my word for it. There is a large amount of data out there to back it up. HN2 alone can jkeep ya busy for a while on that front. Maybe dive into RopeLab.
Oh, I would also love you to expand on "virbrations" and how they have an effect.....My guess is it will be an explanation of your feelings and not based on data points, but my mind is open to be changed if ya got the goods to share.
Now, around your bet about failure is pulled from thin air. Get to testing and prove the GH = YGD.

 I   hitches and big racks.

It's hard to tell whether this is rage bait or just ignorance. Or, assuming this is the same Tony Calderone that used to post before being banned, it's probably both.