Thoughts on Girth Hitch Equalisation

Gloweringwrote:

A sliding X with limiter knots equalizes. A girth hitch doesn't equalize, but it doesn't extend.

I took his meaning as static Equalizing, as in connecting a couple pieces in an “as equalized manner as possible”, not that he was expecting dynamic pseudo equalization as in a sliding X.

Equalized =/= Equalizing

Equalized is the goal, Equalizing is a fool's errand

Missed in all of this is the fact that 99.99% of the time a belay anchor holds relatively low forces, mainly the static partial (unless it's a hanging belay) weight of two climbers on a belay stance, maybe adding a little more to catch a falling second. So perhaps 500/600 pounds overall, 3 kn or so.

The need for an anchor to sustain a very unlikely FF2 situation is easily reduced by using a fixed point HMS belay off an anchor point until the first protection is established and clipped. After that the anchor is mostly insulated from potential upward forces by the second belaying off a harness. Adding an Ohmega on the first bolt of a multipitch sport climb eliminates even that issue.

So unless we are on super-sketchy routes with marginal anchors and big runouts right off the belay, the average climbing anchor is actually massive overkill compared to what's necessary. The increasing presence, even on trad routes, of modern, regularly maintained, multi-directional 2-bolt anchors with 20kn+ rated components throughout makes it more helpful that there be a clear and consistent method of assembling, using, and then disassembling an anchor instead of fretting about endless variations of complicated equalization methods. So a girth hitched carabiner master point with the magic X twist is more than adequate, or as HowNot2 puts it, "super good enough" for the vast majority of situations.

When I see those old John Long book illustrations of complex equalization-oriented anchors webbed out across a belay stance, they start looking about as obsolete as the old photos of shoulder belays and their ilk. They probably took forever to put together and take apart and while they looked great in a book, in real-life were cumbersome, used up too much gear, and were unnecessary in the first place.

Hi Peter B. Great post! I mean, really great!

Peter Bealwrote:

Missed in all of this is the fact that 99.99% of the time a belay anchor holds relatively low forces, mainly the static partial (unless it's a hanging belay) weight of two climbers on a belay stance, maybe adding a little more to catch a falling second. So perhaps 500/600 pounds overall, 3 kn or so.

The need for an anchor to sustain a very unlikely FF2 situation is easily reduced by using a fixed point HMS belay off an anchor point until the first protection is established and clipped. After that the anchor is mostly insulated from potential upward forces by the second belaying off a harness. Adding an Ohmega on the first bolt of a multipitch sport climb eliminates even that issue.

So unless we are on super-sketchy routes with marginal anchors and big runouts right off the belay, the average climbing anchor is actually massive overkill compared to what's necessary. The increasing presence, even on trad routes, of modern, regularly maintained, multi-directional 2-bolt anchors with 20kn+ rated components throughout makes it more helpful that there be a clear and consistent method of assembling, using, and then disassembling an anchor instead of fretting about endless variations of complicated equalization methods. So a girth hitched carabiner master point with the magic X twist is more than adequate, or as HowNot2 puts it, "super good enough" for the vast majority of situations.

When I see those old John Long book illustrations of complex equalization-oriented anchors webbed out across a belay stance, they start looking about as obsolete as the old photos of shoulder belays and their ilk. They probably took forever to put together and take apart and while they looked great in a book, in real-life were cumbersome, used up too much gear, and were unnecessary in the first place.

Agree in general, but one part isn't quite right: catching a factor 2 all with a direct anchor belay is still going to hit the anchor with a factor 2 load. The direct belay does not "easily reduce" that. There should be some reduction via the rope running a bit through the Munter, and the situation is surely a lot better than if the belayer has to catch with a Grigri, but the anchor is still going to get quite a jolt.   What you avoid with the direct belay is the impact to the belayer and a possibly greater load in some situations if the belayer is pulled off the stance and becomes part of the falling load. You also avoid substantially increasing the factor 2 load if the party has clipped the anchor or some part of the anchor as the first piece.

So we're stuck with the usual quandry: how much effort should go into trying to neutralize an extremely unlikely event?  I've asked a lot of climbers, and no one I've asked has had to hold a factor 2 fall.  I've had to hold two of them in 68+ years of climbing. Of course, I wouldn't be typing this if my anchors had failed either of those times...

I'm not sure it is all that productive to speak in terms of anchor loads.  Trad pieces fail on occasion, not always predictably.  The real issue isn't anchor loads so much as it is redundancy and the time and complexity trade-offs imposed by adding redundancy.  I think we should pay more attention to those trade-offs.  If I'm climbing a two-pitch climb in the Gunks, there is no earthly reason why I shouldn't set up a three-piece anchor.  If I'm climbing a ten-pitch route in Yosemite, I have to decide whether the unlikely but far from remote threat of a storm and/or the danger of either an unplanned bivouac or a nighttime descent makes it more sensible to stick with two-point anchors.  And if I'm in the mountain back country where afternoon storms are a regular feature of life, then I'm going to use two-point trad anchors whenever I possibly can.

On the other hand, in particular situations, I might escalate to four-point anchors. I recall one such stance in Red Rocks. An outward-sloping belay ledge with no bracing opportunities, a single finger-sized sandstone crack, and the pitch above having no pro for more than twenty feet. I used four cams in that belay anchor. Over the years (perhaps influenced by the pictures in Long's book), I got fast at rigging such things---as the complexity rises, using the rope rather than slings and cordelettes is much more efficient (and probably more robust).

The quandry issue applies to the on-topic discussion too.  If a piece fails and the load extends the girth hitch, the anchor doesn't fail because the blown piece functions as a stopper knot.  So the issue is whether a strand of the anchor rigging gets cut.  I think that cutting an anchor strand without catastrophically killing the party is almost cosmically unlikely (and yeah, I know that such a thing has happened once), so I think there is no real value in investing any time and effort in forestalling such an outcome.  The girth hitch is good enough for all practical purposes.

Thanks Richard!
In reply to: "Agree in general, but one part isn't quite right: catching a factor 2 all with a direct anchor belay is still going to hit the anchor with a factor 2 load. The direct belay does not "easily reduce" that. There should be some reduction via the rope running a bit through the Munter, and the situation is surely a lot better than if the belayer has to catch with a Grigri, but the anchor is still going to get quite a jolt. What you avoid with the direct belay is the impact to the belayer and a possibly greater load in some situations if the belayer is pulled off the stance and becomes part of the falling load. You also avoid substantially increasing the factor 2 load if the party has clipped the anchor or some part of the anchor as the first piece."

Yes it reduces the impact on the belayer but also because the FPB is usually done through one bolt of a two-bolt anchor, spares the other from the first impact, impact which is also mediated via a Munter/HMS. This is similar to but much more effective than simply clipping the anchor as a first piece because the load is not doubled on the single anchor point owing to the braking effect of the Munter. Without the Munter, the pulley effect is in place doubling the force (more or less) on that anchor and making the fall much harder to catch.

Peter Bealwrote:

Yes it reduces the impact on the belayer but also because the FPB is usually done through one bolt of a two-bolt anchor, spares the other from the first impact, impact which is also mediated via a Munter/HMS. This is similar to but much more effective than simply clipping the anchor as a first piece because the load is not doubled on the single anchor point owing to the braking effect of the Munter. Without the Munter, the pulley effect is in place doubling the force (more or less) on that anchor and making the fall much harder to catch.

This would not be true (bolded sentence) exactly because of the (partial) pulley effect increasing the load on the anchor.   The anchor would see an approximate 1.6 x the Load vs direct belay by munter on the anchor but with the rope clipped through the anchor…while the belayer and his/her munter on the harness would see a ~40% force reduction (due to friction) making it an easier catch — assuming the anchor held.  

Mark Pilatewrote:

I took his meaning as static Equalizing, as in connecting a couple pieces in an “as equalized manner as possible”, not that he was expecting dynamic pseudo equalization as in a sliding X.

I prefer the term "potentially load sharing" instead of equalized when it comes to the girth hitch or other anchors with a static knot/hitch. 

I saw the results of testing that John Long had done for his books years ago that popularized the quad anchor and it made perfect sense for what I expected and the below numbers are about what I can remember. 

An anchor like the girth hitch, or a cordallette with a masterpoint knot don't come anywhere near equalizing. *IF the two pieces are horizontal and the fall forces is straight down you may get lucky and have some decent load sharing, like 70/30. But usually almost all the force is on one piece. The positive flip side is there is very little or no extension if one piece fails.

A quad can do a decent job load sharing. If the two pieces are horizontal and the force is straight down the load sharing is almost 50/50 (that situation is the only one that comes close to equalizing). If the pieces are vertically separated or the fall force is to the side it can still achieve pretty good load sharing, it varies a lot, but could still be 70/30. A sliding X can have binding/friction on the strand that wraps around the biner. However when I have tied sliding Xs with limiter knots I would do them so that strand is a little looser and it wouldn't bind, so it would probably work almost as well as a quad. A lot of how well they will equalize/load share is based on material. A 1" nylon sling is going to have a lot more friction/binding, than 8mm dyneema webbing.

But as mentioned striving for equalization is a fools errand, at least for most anchors. Two or three solid pieces can be connected however you want, including three clove hitches in series along the rope, which of course has no load sharing. Where trying for equalization can be a benefit is for that example of two dicey aid placements. So you'd want to try to share the load and only have 1/2 body weight on each placement so a girth hitch likely wouldn't do any good. A sliding X on an 8mm sling would be a better option.

Gloweringwrote:

We totally agree on the technicalities, I was merely pointing out that I understood the clumsy semantics being used.   Let’s say “distributed” rather than “equalized” for the sticklers.  I sincerely believe though that few climbers use the word “equalized” to mean anything more than “kinda-sorta equalized-ish”

rgoldwrote:

This is crazy talk.

Or or ooooorrrr...Meteors.

Super cereal.

Mark Pilatewrote:

We totally agree on the technicalities, I was merely pointing out that I understood the clumsy semantics being used.   Let’s say “distributed” rather than “equalized” for the sticklers.  I sincerely believe though that few climbers use the word “equalized” to mean anything more than “kinda-sorta equalized-ish”

Distributed is a great term. I'm a stickler because I think it influences how a lot of people thing about things. I think I lot of people would assume an equalized right hitch anchor does actually equalize. A lot of people thought the coredelette with a knot equalized until it was tested and found out it doesn't. 

This stuff is easy. Just emphasize NO EXTENSION. This whole debate is created by the creation of a pneumonic. All the methods and mechanics there of were in place prior to the creation of the pneumonics. 

The no extension concept, to mitigate potential shock loading, IF an anchor piece blows, is fxxx'n easy to teach. I and many others taught it for years before any of the pneumonics existed. 

I guess all this endless debate is Marc Chauvin's fault?

Here we go: 

           SERENE

Solid Efficient REdundant No Extension 

or THE original: RENE

REdundant No Extension 

Eric Craigwrote:

This stuff is easy. Just emphasize NO EXTENSION. This whole debate is created by the creation of a pneumonic. All the methods and mechanics there of were in place prior to the creation of the pneumonics. 

The no extension concept, to mitigate potential shock loading, IF an anchor piece blows, is fxxx'n easy to teach. I and many others taught it for years before any of the pneumonics existed. 

I guess all this endless debate is Marc Chauvin's fault?

No, it's the fault of nublings with no real experience towing miles of spaghetti up routes cause some nub Colorado guide taught them that way.

As much as I love me some Dougie Robinson it's really the AMGA's and NOL's etc fault for teaching what insurance companies required them to teach. And the Cordelette afterbirth was born.

"But it's equalized!"

That and quads. I love to hate quads. No worse nubbery than a quad on two bomber bolts.

John Tuttlewrote:

No, it's the fault of nublings with no real experience towing miles of spaghetti up routes cause some nub Colorado guide taught them that way.

As much as I love me some Dougie Robinson it's really the AMGA's and NOL's fault for teaching what insurance companies required them to teach. And the Cordelette afterbirth was born.

"But it's equalized!"

That and quads. I love to hate quads. No worse nubbery than a quad on two bomber bolts.

You still have time to start and sell pre tied quads to the nubbs. 

I'd focus on the gyms first.

"Distributed" is much more accurate than "equalized". Didn't I read that someone come up with N.E.R.D.S? No Extension, Redundant, Distributed, Strong.

M Mwrote:

You still have time to start and sell pre tied quads to the nubbs. 

I'd focus on the gyms first.

Too late!!    blackdiamondequipment.com/p…;

I can't wait to see one in the wild LOL

wivanoffwrote:

"Distributed" is much more accurate than "equalized". Didn't I read that someone come up with N.E.R.D.S? No Extension, Redundant, Distributed, Strong.

One time I forgot my acronyms and my anchor blew.  

Now this thread is going somewhere useful!

Nothing like an anchor thread to bring out the most dogmatic people of mountain project! And remember, ALWAYS tie knots in the end of your rope, even if you can see 20ft of each side laying on the ground and the middle mark is clearly at the anchor! ALWAYS!