How do you like this tether/ rappel extension ?

Eric Moss wrote: Actually, every book I've read recommends a redundant belay extension when using a friction hitch backup.

Eric Moss wrote:From my understanding, a tether doesn't need to be redundant.

So which is it? Are you looking for redundancy or not? I thought the whole point of this thread was that you want redundancy? If redundancy is not as important then why do you not just use a sling like most other people?

EDIT: Or do you mean the tether simply in the way that you connect to the anchor? I hear more people worried about redundancy there rather than in the rappel extension. Because again you have to think about what might happen to cause your rappel extension to fail (you will probably have trouble coming up with something reasonable). But for your tether, one of the pieces/bolts could pull.

Brady3 wrote: So which is it? Are you looking for redundancy or not? I thought the whole point of this thread was that you want redundancy? If redundancy is not as important then why do you not just use a sling like most other people? EDIT: Or do you mean the tether simply in the way that you connect to the anchor? I hear more people worried about redundancy there rather than in the rappel extension. Because again you have to think about what might happen to cause your rappel extension to fail (you will probably have trouble coming up with something reasonable). But for your tether, one of the pieces/bolts could pull.

The way I see it, redundancy in the attachment is more important in rappelling than just hanging on the anchor because things are changing in the former situation. That's my only justification. Yes. I mean tether in the way I connect to the anchor.

Eric Moss wrote: The way I see it, redundancy in the attachment is more important in rappelling than just hanging on the anchor because things are changing in the former situation. That's my only justification. Yes. I mean tether in the way I connect to the anchor.

You are thinking of this wrong. While yes, the whole system is moving while you are rappelling, there is little to no movement within the system (the system being everything connecting you to the rope, the rope is the only thing moving in reference to you). The forces on your rappel extension are not going to change much if at all if you are keeping with a smooth rappel, and if you are using a third hand then it is very unlikely that you are going to suddenly move a large distance and shock load the set up. While at the anchor you are probably going to be moving around more while you throw the rope then pull up slack and clipping everything in.
Again if you are worried about something like rock fall then you are more likely to have a rock that hits your tether but not you than having one that hits your rappel extension but not you (gravity likes to pull things down, not side ways so the rock won't significantly hit a short piece of vertical webbing/cord). So if a rock were to hit you while you are rappelling and hit you hard enough that it causes your sling connecting your rappel device to fail it would be because it hit YOU so hard that it applied more than 22kN of force to the sling. You would die before the sling even broke.

Rock fall cut through my rappel rope and half way into the sheath....

Maybe a redundant rope would be better...

Eric Moss wrote: First of all, don't tell me what to do or how to argue.

Unfortunately it's an internet forum, so you have no control over how people react to you. Recall you also asked for opinions.

Eric Moss wrote:It's a refreshing departure from the hackneyed retort of "your thing is different, therefore it is stupid", or "the climbing community has been doing it this other way for x years, therefore no new method will surpass existing methods", or my personal favorite "you just don't have enough experience to know what level of risk is acceptable".

You're still missing the point. None of that is what people commenting on your setup are saying. Climbing safety systems are intentionally kept simple because it's easier to not screw up something simple.

No one said yours is different therefore stupid - they said it's stupid because it's needlessly complex and does not provide any significant additional safety.

No one said new methods will not surpass existing methods - they said your method is not an improvement and does not surpass existing, more simple methods.

No one said your lack of experience prevents you from knowing what level of risk is acceptable - they said the risk that you're attempting to mitigate is so insignificant that the additional complexity of your system actually serves to increase risk.

Marc801 wrote: Unfortunately it's an internet forum, so you have no control over how people react to you. Recall you also asked for opinions. You're still missing the point. None of that is what people commenting on your setup are saying. Climbing safety systems are intentionally kept simple because it's easier to not screw up something simple. No one said yours is different therefore stupid - they said it's stupid because it's needlessly complex and does not provide any significant additional safety. No one said new methods will not surpass existing methods - they said your method is not an improvement and does not surpass existing, more simple methods. No one said your lack of experience prevents you from knowing what level of risk is acceptable - they said the risk that you're attempting to mitigate is so insignificant that the additional complexity of your system actually serves to increase risk.

Perfectly said.

Joel Allen wrote: Perfectly said.

I'm sad that it's ending, because this has been my favorite thread the last couple days.

Reed Thorne wrote a great article in Technical Rescue Magazine a while back on the problems associated with "Redundant-itis." I recommend reading it.

Ummm Yeahhh,

Zephyr Feryok wrote:Reed Thorne wrote a great article in Technical Rescue Magazine a while back on the problems associated with "Redundant-itis." I recommend reading it.

I'd love to read it, but I can't find a link.

From Toproping by Bob Gaines:

"I like to rig a double-length sewn nylon sling threaded through both points at the front of my harness (where your rope tie-in goes through) and tied with an overhand knot, to gain redundancy at the sling. I prefer to use a fat nylon sling over a thin Spectra or Dyneema sling for this application because nylon has a higher melting point. If the rappel rope is running across the sling, it could potentially create some heat due to the friction, which could damage the sling and reduce its breaking strength in later applications."

Bob Gaines's rappel extension.

He writes the same thing in AMGA Single Pitch Manual.

Simple

Simple

Not simple

Everybody got it?

Yeah. It's $37.50 for a three musketeers.

Also simple... 22$ holds factor 2 fall... no knots weakening it.

Other option is 120cm nylon runner cost 9$ put a few knots in it.

Nothing unsafe, just seems silly to me. If we climbed together and you pulled that out of your pack at the rap anchors, I probably would not say anything, but I would not climb with you again because I would think you are weird. I use a PAS and extend my ATC, for what it's worth.

Bill M wrote:I would think you are weird.

You wouldn't be wrong :). Thanks for the input.