Using rope-loop to belay on multi-pitch

AndrewArroz wrote:

No, not true. As I said in my post using just a rope loop adds one more thing that CAN go wrong compared to the belay loop. IT can go wrong either by a knot failing or being improperly tied in the first place. Surely people can fuck up using a belay device or clipping it to their belay loop. But the belay loop itself is NOT going to fail. As noted, it's the strongest piece of fabric any of us owns. And, sure, I could die from improperly tying in my own rope loops, but that's when I fall, not my climber falling instead of being caught because I stupidly belayed off it it. Most multi-pitch belays, in my experience, are off a ledge or at least a good stance. Hanging belays are the exception until you get pretty high up in the difficulty grades.

The whole thing about it putting you out of the line of pull is also suspect, to me. Both things are just a loop between your tie in points. If you really don't want to be in the line of pull that's why we have guide mode.

You are misinterpreting my post. I'm not advocating using the rope loop to belay your follower directly by default. My point was that if you are belaying a follower directly and you fuck up your tie-in knot then it doesn't matter whether you belay off the belay loop or the rope loop. In either case, you are both going to be pulled off and fall to the ground. Don't fuck up your tie-in.

And the whole "putting you out of the line of pull" thing is correct if you do it correctly. How about learning how to do it and trying it out before you just shit all over something you've never experienced. Yes, in my opinion, guide mode is better if you want to be out of the line of pull, but guide mode isn't always an option. 

eli poss wrote:

My point was that if you are belaying a follower directly and you fuck up your tie-in knot then it doesn't matter whether you belay off the belay loop or the rope loop. In either case, you are both going to be pulled off and fall to the ground. Don't fuck up your tie-in.

But that's either not the only knot that this adds or not true, depending on which scenario we're discussing. Two scenarios have been presented, as I understand it:

1. In the one you're proposing, as I understand it you're tying in using a clove hitch to isolate yourself from the force of a fall. If, for example, you tie a Munter instead, you get into a situation where you could both fall. If you were belaying off your belay loop or in guide mode, you'd ostensibly be anchored in some other way, so both the belay loop AND your other tie in would have to fail for both of you to fall. Keeping your personal anchoring and belay systems separate gives you some redundancy.

2. In the other scenario described (not the one you're proposing, I think), the belayer is ring-loading the tie-in knot, which could cause a figure 8 follow-through to fail. It's not that they screwed up the tie in (figure 8 follow-through is a fine tie-in knot) it's that belaying off the rope loop CAUSED an otherwise-fine tie-in to fail.

I'll add too that the "don't knock it until you've tried it" argument doesn't work with climbing safety techniques. We aren't trying new cuisines here--if you try a safety technique that doesn't work, it can kill you. If you understand a technique, you can evaluate it logically without trying it, and that's often the safest thing to do--we don't all have time to set up a boulder pad or toprope backup at the gym and try out every thing in a safe environment. Further, trying something out doesn't prove it is safe: I've seen plenty of people use terrible GriGri belay technique and most of the time nobody dies.

The main reason I can think of that people use the rope loop is because the belay loop is not in an ideal place. 

For example, you just traversed directly left, set up a belay, and now your belay loop is to the left of your rope figure of 8. When you use this belay loop it will be twisted all over your rope and be a pain. 

Instead of clipping into into the rope loop, pull on the anchor to unweight your harness, and then pull the belay loop through your figure 8 so its on the right side. 

If you do that, I really cannot think of a reason the rope tie in is better. 

I never seem to have that problem.  get your  multi pitch belay anchors, syastems and stances ironed out and you can usually avoid clusters. The worst ones i recall seem to be in chimnys  or at night or both.....

BTW  Long long time ago (1986) I did a western road trip with many big routes climbed.  My partner was more experienced and stronger than myself. he had us useing the belay loop as our tie in point. harnesses did not have belay loops back then.  neither of us knew how easy the fig 8 comes apart in that configuration when loaded  from inside the loop in two different directions. We got lucky. neither of us took a hard fall but we were in many situations where a FF2 was possible and several situations where it was likly.....

David Kerkeslager wrote:

But that's either not the only knot that this adds or not true, depending on which scenario we're discussing. Two scenarios have been presented, as I understand it:

1. In the one you're proposing, as I understand it you're tying in using a clove hitch to isolate yourself from the force of a fall. If, for example, you tie a Munter instead, you get into a situation where you could both fall. If you were belaying off your belay loop or in guide mode, you'd ostensibly be anchored in some other way, so both the belay loop AND your other tie in would have to fail for both of you to fall. Keeping your personal anchoring and belay systems separate gives you some redundancy.

2. In the other scenario described (not the one you're proposing, I think), the belayer is ring-loading the tie-in knot, which could cause a figure 8 follow-through to fail. It's not that they screwed up the tie in (figure 8 follow-through is a fine tie-in knot) it's that belaying off the rope loop CAUSED an otherwise-fine tie-in to fail.

You've got situation 1 wrong. It has nothing to do with your clove hitch connection to the anchor. We are talking about an improperly tied figure 8 or bowline that would potentially fail under load. If you are belaying your follower directly and your connection to the anchor fails because you fucked up your tie in knot then it doesn't matter whether you are belaying off your belay loop or your tie-in loop. In both cases, the result is that you and your follower go splat. 

In situation 2, yes the figure 8 tie in can roll when ringloaded. However, your follower will never generate the forces necessary to cause your figure 8 to roll. So it's a non issue for belaying your follower. However, I would advise against using the tie-in loop to belay the leader on the next pitch because a factor 2 fall could certainly generate forces high enough to cause the knot to roll.

And I understand what you mean about the "don't knock it till you try it" attitude regarding safety issues. However, one who fully understand the situation should understand that belaying your follower off the tie-in loop checks out safety-wise. Once the safety requirements are met, other factors such as time management, comfort, simplicity, etc. come in to play in evaluating what is the best solution for the current situation. Some factors hold more weight than other depending on the person making the decision and of course the situation at hand.

Look, I'm not telling you that you should use the rope loop for belaying. I'm just asking that you don't shit on somebody else's method for no good reason. If you understand how these things work, you would know that this method is not inherently unsafe. Otherwise you create an environment that is hostile to any new ideas or innovation, an atmosphere which would have inhibited the flow of ideas that produced things we all love such as the double axel cam design, flexible cam stem, or even totems.  

rgold advocates this, or dis last time this came up.  I believe it was because you could escape the belay easier?  I can't remember, I never got past the capsizing potential for my second...

eli poss wrote:

In situation 2, yes the figure 8 tie in can roll when ringloaded. However, your follower will never generate the forces necessary to cause your figure 8 to roll.

Why not?  The flat-eight has been known to fail under body weight and during rappels.  If your tie-in loop is so loaded, could you explain how the follower will not be able to generate similar forces, or what makes the situation somehow different?  If there were some margin of safety, it would seem to be extremely slim.

I recall reading test results that the flat 8 rolled around 800 or 900 lbs, but I certainly could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time my memory failed me. However, I can tell you from personal that it held the bodyweight of two followers, both around 160 or 170, without rolling. I can't remember if this was regular fig 8 or fig 8 with a correctly tied yosemite finish.

eli poss wrote:

I recall reading test results that the flat 8 rolled around 800 or 900 lbs, but I certainly could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time my memory failed me. However, I can tell you from personal that it held the bodyweight of two followers, both around 160 or 170, without rolling. I can't remember if this was regular fig 8 or fig 8 with a correctly tied yosemite finish.

So what? Are you advocating using a knot which is very well known to fail at low loads, which has already resulted in at least one death, just because it dident roll on you once?

20 kN wrote:

So what? Are you advocating using a knot which is very well known to fail at low loads, which has already resulted in at least one death, just because it dident roll on you once?

800 or 900 lbs isn't exactly what I consider a low load. Additionally, in practice the tie-in is loaded at slightly different angles than your textbook ringloading which may also affect it. Besides, most people I see using tie a double overhand backup knot anyways, and others use a bowline which makes this a moot point. What I'm advocating is for people to not just shit on an idea because it is different than the "normal" or "standard". 

GriGris, figure eight follow-throughs, and water knots are all "standard" but I prefer something different in each case, so I think I can be trusted to not reject things just because they're not standard. :)

That said, it's become clear to me that I don't understand the rope loop belay system you're proposing.

eli poss wrote:

800 or 900 lbs isn't exactly what I consider a low load. Additionally, in practice the tie-in is loaded at slightly different angles than your textbook ringloading which may also affect it. Besides, most people I see using tie a double overhand backup knot anyways, and others use a bowline which makes this a moot point. What I'm advocating is for people to not just shit on an idea because it is different than the "normal" or "standard". 

No one is shitting on it because it's different, we're doing it because it's clearly unsafe, ridiculous and unnecessary. You wouldn't spend a second considering climbing on a harness rated for 3.5kN, or using a carabiner rated for 3.5kN, so why would you advocate using what is essentially a belay loop rated at 3.5?

My overall impression is it's yet another solution in search of a problem and I also can't see any advantages to it worth the bother and added complexity. I also don't really see where multi-pitch is particularly relevant one way or the other.

Other than the ultra-lite ones, most harnesses today are way over-engineered pieces of equipment. Belay from the belay loop or tie-in points, but there's no reason to engage the rope loop - leave the rope out of it. And as mentioned by others, KISS comes into play here: the rope loop / knot is a primary system point securing you from death, why enlist it to do anything else?

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Lead belay off your belay loop. That's what it's there for. Belay the 2nd off the anchor 98 precent of the time and off your body or belay loop on the few occasions that circumstances dictate that  is the practical way to go.

Your KISS observation was spot on, but this I pretty much universally despise. It's like a communicable disease or a mindless new 'default'' no different than chalk use when only about 5% of the population actually needs it on most rock on most days. The way-more-often-than-not ratchety nastiness from off-the-anchor belays just sucks balls beyond words. It's possibly the worst idea to infect free climbing in decades. Great for aid climbing, should never have crossed over to free climbing. More total and complete horseshit courtesy of guides dragging up two seconds.

I seem to have no problems useing this system and its much safer for takeing photos.... of course I have the experience to know when it will work well and when  a body belay or  belaying off  the belay loop will work better.  I suppose my 98% statement was wrong. I just finished an ice season where that was in fact a good number. most of my anchors were  steep screw belays where that works well. Of course when I plopped my ass down in the snow at the top of a gully I did not belay off the anchor...  naturaly moderate trad climbing has many situations where  belaying directly off the anchor is a bad Idea. most  of the time however, bolted anchors lend themselfs to a good setup to belay off the anchor...

eli poss wrote:

You are misinterpreting my post. I'm not advocating using the rope loop to belay your follower directly by default. My point was that if you are belaying a follower directly and you fuck up your tie-in knot then it doesn't matter whether you belay off the belay loop or the rope loop. In either case, you are both going to be pulled off and fall to the ground. Don't fuck up your tie-in.

And the whole "putting you out of the line of pull" thing is correct if you do it correctly. How about learning how to do it and trying it out before you just shit all over something you've never experienced. Yes, in my opinion, guide mode is better if you want to be out of the line of pull, but guide mode isn't always an option. 

#1, I'm not "shitting all over something." I was answering your question. I don't need to go try this to see that it doesn't add any utility or safety but it does add potential confusion and accompanying failure. 

To your previous point, actually, if I'm belaying someone properly off my belay loop AND I fucked up my tie in to the rope loops I'm much less likely to die in that scenario because once there are a couple pieces of pro in I'm also protected by them DESPITE having failed on my tie in to the anchor because of a bad rope loop. But if I use the same loop for both tying to my anchor and tying to my belay device we're all screwed when it fails.

AndrewArroz wrote:

#1, I'm not "shitting all over something." I was answering your question. I don't need to go try this to see that it doesn't add any utility or safety but it does add potential confusion and accompanying failure. 

To your previous point, actually, if I'm belaying someone properly off my belay look AND I fucked up my tie in to the rope loops I'm much less likely to die in that scenario because once there are a couple pieces of pro in I'm also protected by them DESPITE having failed on my tie in to the anchor because of a bad rope loop. But if I use the same loop for both tying to my anchor and tying to my belay device we're all screwed when it fails.

Your right, I guess you would still be protected by whatever pro your follower hasn't cleaned. Hopefully it doesn't pop.

However, if you have actually tried it you would know that it is more comfortable because the force of your follower goes directly to the anchor instead of pulling you between the anchor and the follower. Rgold, somebody who has been climbing for longer than I've been alive and probably longer than you, who also happens to understand physics and how it applies to various things in climbing, regularly advocates for belaying the follower off the rope loop in a direct belay situation. I would think that if this technique is so unsafe as you put it then somebody would have been hurt by now.