simul climbing

Evan Sloane wrote:I've also used a Tibloc while simuling to help mitigate a fall by the follower. This has to be used on a piece without using a runner so the rope catches immediately. Second never falls is good in theory but.... Any thoughts on this or similar set-ups?

Hans Florine wrote about using this setup. He and Bill Wright used a Tibloc when doing the RNWF of Half Dome in a day and sheared the sheath off the rope pretty badly when the second jugged through a short section. Apparently it is hard to ensure a good firm grip with the Tibloc on its own and it can just eat the sheath if left unattended. He switched over to using the Wildcountry Ropeman since it doesn't have teeth. Dean Potter / Timmy O'neil and Hans florine / Yuji used the Ropeman when simul climbing sections of the Nose for that purpose as well.

Just FYI, Hans Florine's book "Speed Climbing" has a whole section on simul climbing and is the only book I've ever seen that actually addresses it in detail. The pro's, con's, and how it's actually done. Quite good stuff and a fun read if you've got $10 to drop.

note: I talked with Hans last spring, which is why I've got all the Hans info about the Tibloc, etc.. He's also got a write up about it floating around somewhere on the net.

Jordan.
Thanks for the heads up on that. Sounds like I will be picking up a copy of that soon.

I see how the girth hitch thing can be problematic in alot of cases.
Nice thread.
Cheers
SAL

Having only simul'd only moderate terrain without a ropeman, I'd be curious to hear how folks do this setup.

One per rope length?

How about attachment? Do you attach it to a piece of pro that is at normal spacing (attaching solely to the ropeman); do you set two pieces next to each other (one for a normal biner, one for the ropeman); do you run two different length runners off of one piece (one to ropeman, one to a biner on the rope)?

Don't fall >>>>

Avery Nelson wrote: Marc -- However, I wouldn't personally do your tie-in -- for a few of reasons. 1. Girth hitching nylon to nylon is a bad deal, all around. Especially, when they aren't matched materials. Just read the various studies (BD, etc...)

You've got a point here. During the rare occasions that I've used this setup, I've been pretty confident that the girth-hitch wasn't going to get loaded (i.e. myself or my partner falling).

But I agree that in the event of a fall, I would probably want to retire the rope and/or harness involved; which isn't a cheap prospect.

Avery Nelson wrote: 2. I'd be concerned about the effects if just one rope might gets pulled tight, but not the other... (which could happen if you're running as doubles instead of twins). I don't think the girth hitch is really 'designed' to be pulled on just one side, while not the other, but I'd like to hear if anyone knows for sure Seems like that could cause:

IME, if only one end of a girth hitch gets pulled, there is enough friction in the hitch to keep slippage nil. I would not say this necessarily applies to ropes <8mm because I haven't futzed around with "twins" as much as "doubles."

Avery Nelson wrote: 3. Possible sliding nylon on nylon (assuming # 2) if the leader ever fell... yikes!

I don't doubt that the system would hold (dependent upon the protection, of course) but I would consider all nylon equipment involved in a fall suspect. Also, a potential fall with this setup would much more likely lead to bodily injury of the climbers involved and the end result of my equipment might be last thing on my mind.

Edit: I just gave this more thought and realized that a fall--especially one with a relatively high fall factor--could fuse the middle of a thin rope to the tie-in point of a harness. A fall high up on a route with gear spaced so far apart would likely end up in a bail-situation; the middle of your rope being fused to your harness would definitely hinder rappelling.

Anyone have any info on the temperature that could potentially be created with a hitch tightening up at a high rate of speed? Kind of a stretch to ask for info on that I guess..

Avery Nelson wrote: 4. This setup with 'two ropes' isn't really redundant, if you're tied into both ropes at just one point...but it does kinda go against the logic of redundancy of two ropes! Eh?

I would also agree that it goes against the redundancy of having two ropes, although is doesn't negate the benefits of a double-rope setup; with the exception of the very real possibility of rope separation/cutting.

If you wanted to have two completely independent ropes, while still only using a single half-rope, it would be possible to tie in with two figure-8s/butterflies and use between 2 & 4 locking 'biners.

Overall, I understand one's hesitancy to adopt that method of tie-in. But on a climb as long as "Epinephrine," it was nice to know that I never had to look down to check that my gates were still locked, especially in those chimneys.

--Marc

P.S. On an even more interesting note, "futzed" is actually a word that my computer recognizes as legit, who'd a thunk it?

Great thread guys!

I'll try out your system Marc, but maybe without the girth :-p

tooTALLtim wrote:Great thread guys! I'll try out your system Marc, but maybe without the girth :-p

Don't hate on the girth! :)

Avery Nelson wrote:Having only simul'd only moderate terrain without a ropeman, I'd be curious to hear how folks do this setup. One per rope length?

Maybe a couple. It depends on how many Tiblocs you have and how many cruxes you have to climb, and how much rope drag develops. The best position for a Tibloc is above a crux. (Sorry if I belabor the obvious.)

Avery Nelson wrote:How about attachment? Do you attach it to a piece of pro that is at normal spacing (attaching solely to the ropeman); do you set two pieces next to each other (one for a normal biner, one for the ropeman); do you run two different length runners off of one piece (one to ropeman, one to a biner on the rope)?

One biner. The key is to let the rope pass through the biner. One has to pay attention, because when using the Tibloc as an ascender, the rope does not pass through the biner, but in hauling and in protecting simulclimbing, it is essential that it does. The setup must be such that if the leader falls the biner takes the load--not the Tibloc. This is to prevent both rope damage and Tibloc failure. A picture showing both correct and incorrect setup is Figure 3 here.

Of course, if the second falls, it's the Tibloc that catches him/her. Managing the slack very carefully is therefore very important when using Tiblocs to protect the leader, because shock-loading the Tibloc is a very bad idea.

I've seen the attachment with two biners--one for the rope and one for the Tibloc, but I cannot find good reasons to prefer it to the single-biner setup. A problem with Tiblocs used as pro is rope drag. Sometimes, using a bidirectional anchor (e.g., two opposing pieces) helps in that respect.

tooTALLtim wrote:Great thread guys! I'll try out your system Marc, but maybe without the girth :-p

I tie a bowline on a bight when I need to tie to the middle of the rope. I then backup the knot by clipping the bight to my belay loop with a locker. (The locker is not loaded.) This arrangement is a little bulkier than the girth hitch, but it's safe even if one of the ropes gets cut and it's reasonably easy to get out of even with a weighted rope.

Thanks for the clarification, Brenta.

Marc Horan wrote: Edit: I just gave this more thought and realized that a fall--especially one with a relatively high fall factor--could fuse the middle of a thin rope to the tie-in point of a harness. A fall high up on a route with gear spaced so far apart would likely end up in a bail-situation; the middle of your rope being fused to your harness would definitely hinder rappelling.

The most common way for the nylon goods to melt would be if one runs over the other, with constant motion. I.E. One set of nylon is moving; the other is stationary. So, it would probably be the harness that would do most of the melting, not the rope (though it might see some too).

Of course, if your rope is melting your harness, the concern here is not bailing or gear cost, but dying!

Anyhow, it's all a moot point, as I won't be girth hitching my lead line to my harness any time soon.

Carry on.

Hmmm, the reasons I wouldn't use the bowline: harder to visually inspect; if no one is supposed to fall anyways, when is the knot weighted? If untying the knot is not a concern, the 8 is also a stronger knot than the bowline and easier to inspect (but in relative strengths, not a big concern).

I would still prefer the second to tie in the middle of the rope with an 8 on a bight, and clip the bight into their belay loop if I wanted to be really cautious. It will still provide security if one strand is cut (I assume?) [as long as it's not cut inches from the 8]

I'm not a hater Marc! It's just the weakest way to get into the system. Sucka :-p "We are the Time-Haters, and we've traveled all this way back in time... to call you a Cracker."

tooTALLtim wrote:Hmmm, the reasons I wouldn't use the bowline: harder to visually inspect,

Tim, I'll concede the "harder to inspect," but competent climbers should know how a bowline is supposed to look.

tooTALLtim wrote:if the second isn't supposed to fall anyways, when is the rope weighted? (assuming the second is tied in the middle)

We can't argue this way, can we? If no one falls, why haul rope and rack? When we say that the leader/second must not fall, we mean that all effort must be put in avoiding a fall, not that a fall will not take place.

tooTALLtim wrote:If untying the knot is not a concern, the 8 is also a stronger knot than the bowline (but in relative strengths, not a big concern). I would still prefer the second to tie in the middle of the rope with an 8 on a bight, and clip the bight into their belay loop if I wanted to be really cautious. It will still provide security if one strand is cut (I assume?) [as long as it's not cut inches from the 8]

You are right about the eight being a little stronger than the bowline, but that's not the issue. The bowline on a bight is tied so that it goes through your harness's tie in points. The locker is just for backup and, unlike the one you use with the eight, is in no danger of breaking because of cross-loading. Said otherwise, it's impractical to reweave an eight at mid-rope. Hence, you need a locker to connect it to your harness. This locker is the weak link of the chain. The bowline on a bight connects the rope directly to the harness; the biner is just a backup and is never loaded. (I hope I explained it better this time around.)

The butterfly knot is good for tying into the middle of a rope.

A Tibloc is not a good device to use for simul climbing.

Tiblocs are a device that require "active" use. You have to "set" them on the rope for them to work properly. If you don't you stand a chance(a good chance)of severly damaging the rope. The teeth are WAY more aggressive(longer) than the ones used on a standard ascender and the cam angle is dramatically reduced.

This method of protecting the leader from the second falling works very well. The device's that should be used are ones that will actively grab the rope(with out assistance)... generally spring loaded device's such as the Rope man, ascenders etc. I've heard of people using the Trango Cinch as well, but I've no experience using it that way.

josh

For the black canyon we use a rope folded in half with an Alpine Butterfly (does way better when pulled in any direction, easier to undo, lower profile) and a steel locker to the harness (not belay loop). I have heard or people using the mini-traxion as a re-belay. Some people bitch about the teeth so they file them down a bit. Really if the system is working correctly there shouldnt be enough slack to have the traxion eat the sheath. I use one for top-rope soloing all the time, similar situation. Cinch or gri-gri wouldnt feed very well. Something that I have noticed no one mentioning is that you need more gear. Since you are stopping less (if at all) you use up your gear. So if you want to simul-climb longer and farther, bring a crap load of gear.

-Jesse

I have used Tibloc for simul-climbing in the Flatirons for a number of years without any issues. The Tibloc is rated up to a fall factor 1 without damaging the rope. It would be difficult to generate a greater than fall factor 1 on low angle terrain, if the extra rope in the system is minimized.

The type of biner used on the Tibloc is very important. I always use a oval biner on a quick draw. This will help the rope run smoothly. I once used an asymmetric wire biner in a pinch on the North Chimney. I got 30ft above the device and it locked up. :(

J. Thompson wrote:Tiblocs are a device that require "active" use. You have to "set" them on the rope for them to work properly. If you don't you stand a chance(a good chance)of severly damaging the rope. The teeth are WAY more aggressive(longer) than the ones used on a standard ascender and the cam angle is dramatically reduced.

True. They need to be set to minimize the chance of sheath damage. Another reason why it is essential to have the rope go through the biner and to carefully manage slack.

On the other hand, the Ropeman adds more friction, and if the leader fell on it, it would be very bad. The fall would be either on the axle of the Ropeman, which is not as strong as a biner, or, worse, on a flange, which would act as a sharp edge. Because of that, you better use separate biners to clip the Ropeman and to protect the leader. The extra biner compounds the problem that the Ropeman is significantly heavier than the Tibloc, takes more time to set up, and adds further friction to the system.

Jesse Zacher wrote:For the black canyon we use a rope folded in half with an Alpine Butterfly (does way better when pulled in any direction, easier to undo, lower profile) and a steel locker to the harness (not belay loop).

Jesse, what kind of steel locker do you use? While in general steel biners wear less than aluminum biners, they are often about the same strength. Also, how do you account for the fact that by attaching the biner to the tie in points you might (depending on the details of locker and harness) create an attachment that is prone to cross-loading?

I'll put a vote in also for the butterfly in the mid-line; the 8 on a bight isn't in-line; though you can tie an "8 in-line" (I have forgotten how -- obviously, the butterfly is much easier to work with).

If you are gonna compare a bowline to an 8 in terms of strength; go with a double-bowline.

Mark Nelson wrote:I'll put a vote in also for the butterfly in the mid-line; the 8 on a bight isn't in-line; though you can tie an "8 in-line" (I have forgotten how -- obviously, the butterfly is much easier to work with). If you are gonna compare a bowline to an 8; go with a double-bowline.

But you still need a connector between the butterfly and the harness, don't you? As for the bowline, I'm often confused on what people call the variants. The bowline on a bight uses two strands--the bight--but is tied as a simple bowline. I've seen it referred as triple bowline. I've seen double bowline used to refer to a rewoven bowline. However, a rewoven bowline at mid-rope has the same drawbacks as the eight and the butterfly. Which one do you have in mind?

EDIT: I see that you edited your post to clarify that you meant "in terms of strength." I agree with you, but I'm still interested in the other clarification. Thanks.