Climbing Rope Anchor

I recently read Advanced Rock Climbing by Topher Donahue. It seems he is an advocate for the climbing rope anchor using clove hitches. Doing some more google research I came across this article by James Lucas.  https://www.climbing.com/skills/learn-this-build-a-climbing-rope-anchor/

The second example James uses in the article is the clove hitch anchor which he mentions requires a harness belay. Obviously the lowest piece in the system should be the first loaded so that if it blows the other pieces are not shock loaded. 

1. Is it possible/safe to create a master point below the lowest piece with a figure 8 on a bight (or inline 8) so that one is able to belay off of the anchor? 

2. In this scenario would it be better to use the yosemite anchor? I know this is a complicated question given that one of the main benefits of using a climbing rope anchor is that pieces may be quite a distance apart. 

1. Yes

2. What are you talking about? Are you considering a "Yosemite Anchor (YA)" with a "Clove Hitch Anchor (CHA)"? They're the same thing in the context of the article, just that the YA is a CHA with an added loop to belay from (with the added benefit that with enough slack, the loop will "equalize" (somewhat) the pieces between it. To answer your question, in this scenario the correct anchor will depend upon which pieces and/or how many pieces are bomber versus marginal. 

3. 

"given that one of the main benefits of using a climbing rope anchor is that pieces may be quite a distance apart." 

- Incorrect. Though this is a benefit that exists with enough slack (depending upon the length of the just-finished pitch), the main benefit of using a rope anchor is simply speed. Speed of setup and speed from carrying less gear weight to build said anchor. 

4. 

"Obviously the lowest piece in the system should be the first loaded so that if it blows the other pieces are not shock loaded." 

- Misunderstanding. If one is belaying off your harness due to the anchor being setup in a clove hitch series, the first "piece" loaded is going to be the piece that the belayer is redirecting the rope through, not to the individual piece of the anchor that is lowest/closest to the second, unless the leader decided to redirect through that lowest piece due to its bomberness. The shock loading that the article talks about is a bit badly worded. The issue is not with slack between two specific pieces in a series setup, it's the slack between all pieces in a series anchor. The less slack between piece x and y the less shockload one can hypothetically expect, same with piece y and z and as many other pieces in the CHA that exist. This is why a CHA requires bomber pieces (and is actually better with less bomber pieces than more marginal pieces) when compared to an anchor suing a master point that attempts to distribute the load between multiple pieces via our best attempt at equalization(an entire argument unto itself as to its efficacy in the field) 

Brian Carver wrote:

Thanks for your response. I was originally referring to belaying off of the anchor, but if belaying off my harness it's best to redirect through whichever piece is most bomber?

.

Quoting the article: 

• With this setup, you will have to belay off your harness, running a redirect up through a carabiner or quickdraw clipped to the strongest piece of protection.

You redirect through the anchor so that in the event of a fall, you're pulled up instead or dragged down. This also makes it easier to escape belays and other self-rescue whatnots. Keep in mind that I don't see anyone (except for old dads) that use a pure series anchor anymore (unless it's bolts) as it's just a quick to build a masterpoint to distribute force with some extra slack in the rope between the cloves and belay off of the anchor via that. 

 I do this often. It's simple fast and reliable. You only need to belay off your harness if you do not have enough rope to create a PowerPoint. 

I almost always have enough rope to create a PowerPoint with two pieces and sometimes three. 

Tying the redirection point is optional; I almost never use it.

Thanks for posting that photo, rgold.  

I do steps 1 and 2, skip 3, do 4.  What you are calling the redirect point, I use as the power point to hang an auto block or to redirect to belay off my harness.  Sometimes I connect "point 4" in your photo to my power point if I want three pieces take the load vs "2 pieces with the third piece as backup".  Sometimes I connect "point 4" to my harness so I'm hanging on 2 pieces. I don't find a need for the extra steps to make another point that you call the power point.   

When swapping leads, if I choose the redirect, the new leader is already to go.  Nothing needs to change.  Shealready has her first lead piece (actually 2 'equalized').  If I choose the auto block, I take the new leader's belay device and put her on belay.  She can hang on the auto block while re-racking, no need to anchor.  Then, when she is ready to go, she removes the auto block and takes it with her.    

• I'm curious why in the article, as well as rgolds picture there isn't a fat master point utilizing all 3 pieces. This is how I anchor, am I missing something?

Jackson. wrote:

• I'm curious why in the article, as well as rgolds picture there isn't a fat master point utilizing all 3 pieces. This is how I anchor, am I missing something?

Because efficiency is as important as effectiveness. Many anchor placements are just plain bomber. So you move more quickly up the route when you take the need to equalize less than bomber pieces and don't overapply it to an anchor made up of more than bomber pieces. 

Yes it's safer to equalize everything 

Yes we all can build an equalized masterpoing in "no time at all" 

Yes new climbers should be taught safety first until they have the experience to evaluate a bomber versus not bomber anchor placement

but speed is another form of safety as well with getting benighted or caught in weather being far more common than bomber pieces of an anchor failing.

It sounds like the point of this post was to say if you are building the anchor out of your own climbing rope you will not have enough rope to balance the anchor. This is probably extremely rare and for the average climbing you can ignore and just build a balanced anchor in very little time.

Sounds like they are trying to make an issue out of a non-issue.

kevin deweese wrote:

Because efficiency is as important as effectiveness. Many anchor placements are just plain bomber. So you move more quickly up the route when you take the need to equalize less than bomber pieces and don't overapply it to an anchor made up of more than bomber pieces. 

Yes it's safer to equalize everything 

Yes we all can build an equalized masterpoing in "no time at all" 

Yes new climbers should be taught safety first until they have the experience to evaluate a bomber versus not bomber anchor placement

but speed is another form of safety as well with getting benighted or caught in weather being far more common than bomber pieces of an anchor failing.

Effectiveness is always more important than efficiency. If the anchor is not effective you die. If it is to slow you just spend the night on the side of the wall. Sure I guess maybe if you are climbing in a cold environment or something you could freeze to death or something at night, but anchor failing will kill you before night comes.

Oh ViperScale, I want to believe you purposefully misunderstand  everything just to create a funny online presence but, alas, I doubt that's  the case. 

Jackson. wrote:

• I'm curious why in the article, as well as rgolds picture there isn't a fat master point utilizing all 3 pieces. This is how I anchor, am I missing something?

You're missing something in my picture.  The knot labeled  with "butterfly powerpoint" and the number 3  is a masterpoint utilizing all three pieces.

ViperScale wrote:

Effectiveness is always more important than efficiency. If the anchor is not effective you die. If it is to slow you just spend the night on the side of the wall. Sure I guess maybe if you are climbing in a cold environment or something you could freeze to death or something at night, but anchor failing will kill you before night comes.

No dude. Review the AAJ's statistics on Accidents in North America:

http://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201213443/Statistical-Tables-Accidents-2015

Of the ~5000 accidents reported over 60 years some tiny fraction (only 3 to my knowledge) are the results of Catastrophic Anchor Failure when it was an anchor being used as the only thing keeping the party from decking (no other protection placed on the pitch etc). This does not include some old sling breaking or other sketchy rappel. I mean an anchor that was believed to be bomber or was all that was available to protect the leader.

Famous accident on the Nose resulting in death when a bolt hanger broke (party would have lived if clipped into the anchor correctly with even one redundancy so doesn't count). So this is kinda unique.

Famous accident on "Anchors Away" when the FA party both got killed jugging on one bolt erroneously believing 1/4 threaded bolts were bomber.

Accident on DNB Yosemite which (I believe) was caused by a lead fall directly onto an ancient fixed anchor (pins or ancient 1/4 bolts) that ripped and led to the death of the party.

Rich Gold or someone can probably educate me, but believe there is not one reported case where a self placed anchor of cams/nuts has EVER catastrophically failed resulting in the party having a "really bad day".

Countless thousands of slow parties have had a variety of epics resulting in deaths, injuries or very near misses from being slow, or rushing inappropriately while on lead because they are behind schedule, wanting to get off before dark yadda yadda due to inefficiency.

So it can be argued that people are spending countless hours thinking about SERENE anchors but actually need to spend those hours focusing on placing bomber gear cause it just doesn't, ever, fail. When you know its bomber you are safe. There is no substitute.

We used to joke that 3 shitty ones = 1 good one but it simply isn't true.

Learn the Yosemite Anchor (basically 3 bomber pieces, tie off) and go actually climb something. Efficiency is a HUGE part of being safe. A "Yosemite Anchor" can be placed in under one minute saving potentially hours over the day instead of playing with spaghetti and then rapping in the dark/getting stormed on/doing the sketchy walk off by headlamp. Save all that time to focus on the real business: Climbing the route and getting down to the Pizza Deck in time for happy hour.

Keep in mind that Kev and I are going to have a Yose bias in the sense that you can play with your anchor all you want on 1 pitch routes or w/e most people climb elsewhere in the country. If you want to get up a multi-pitch route in the Yose/Sierras you must learn efficiency or plan to fail.

King Tut wrote:

 

 Rich Gold or someone can probably educate me, but believe there is not one reported case where a self placed anchor of cams/nuts has EVER catastrophically failed resulting in the party having a "really bad day".

Well, I know of 2 anchors of cams that failed.  One was in Tahquitz.  The leader feel onto the anchor and they both fell to their death.  I can't remember the details of the other.  I agree with you to a degree.  Solid primary placements are more important than lots of complex rigging to attempt to "equalize".

But, I surmise that the reason for such few anchor failures is due to the rarity that one actually gets tested (other than body weight).  If people were routinely falling directly onto anchors, we might see a much higher rate of failures.  One key reason the anchor must be solid is failure would likely result in death of all in the climbing party.  Everyone already knows that, of course.

Kevin, My argument was that if your taking the time to equalize 2 pieces why not equalize the third. 

Rgold yep, missed the butterfly knot on my phone. That is an excellent anchor setup. Wouldn't an 'inline figure 8' be more appropriate than a butterfly knot?

rgold wrote:

Is it the case when redirecting a belay you need to eventually tie that line off to escape the belay? If you were to belay directly from the point between 1 and 2 would you eliminate the need for bringing the free strand back to point 3?

I'd appreciate any clarity you can provide.

EDIT: I think I know. Directly belaying from the point between 1 and 2 causes points 3 to be useless. If I directly clove the strand coming from 2 onto 4 and remove the butterfly at 3,I would have an equivalent anchor from the OP's link, correct?

King Tut wrote:

 

No dude. Review the AAJ's statistics on Accidents in North America:

http://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201213443/Statistical-Tables-Accidents-2015

Of the ~5000 accidents reported over 60 years some tiny fraction (only 3 to my knowledge) are the results of Catastrophic Anchor Failure when it was an anchor being used as the only thing keeping the party from decking (no other protection placed on the pitch etc). This does not include some old sling breaking or other sketchy rappel. I mean an anchor that was believed to be bomber or was all that was available to protect the leader.

Famous accident on the Nose resulting in death when a bolt hanger broke (party would have lived if clipped into the anchor correctly with even one redundancy so doesn't count). So this is kinda unique.

Famous accident on "Anchors Away" when the FA party both got killed jugging on one bolt erroneously believing 1/4 threaded bolts were bomber.

Accident on DNB Yosemite which (I believe) was caused by a lead fall directly onto an ancient fixed anchor (pins or ancient 1/4 bolts) that ripped and led to the death of the party.

Rich Gold or someone can probably educate me, but believe there is not one reported case where a self placed anchor of cams/nuts has EVER catastrophically failed resulting in the party having a "really bad day".

Countless thousands of slow parties have had a variety of epics resulting in deaths, injuries or very near misses from being slow, or rushing inappropriately while on lead because they are behind schedule, wanting to get off before dark yadda yadda due to inefficiency.

So it can be argued that people are spending countless hours thinking about SERENE anchors but actually need to spend those hours focusing on placing bomber gear cause it just doesn't, ever, fail. When you know its bomber you are safe. There is no substitute.

We used to joke that 3 shitty ones = 1 good one but it simply isn't true.

Learn the Yosemite Anchor (basically 3 bomber pieces, tie off) and go actually climb something. Efficiency is a HUGE part of being safe. A "Yosemite Anchor" can be placed in under one minute saving potentially hours over the day instead of playing with spaghetti and then rapping in the dark/getting stormed on/doing the sketchy walk off by headlamp. Save all that time to focus on the real business: Climbing the route and getting down to the Pizza Deck in time for happy hour.

Keep in mind that Kev and I are going to have a Yose bias in the sense that you can play with your anchor all you want on 1 pitch routes or w/e most people climb elsewhere in the country. If you want to get up a multi-pitch route in the Yose/Sierras you must learn efficiency or plan to fail.

There have been anchor failures, almost all involving  factor 2 falls as Greg mentioned above.  Definitely rare, though.

Greg D wrote:

Well, I know of 2 anchors of cams that failed.  One was in Tahquitz.  The leader feel onto the anchor and they both fell to their death.  I can't remember the details of the other.  I agree with you to a degree.  Solid primary placements are more important than lots of complex rigging to attempt to "equalize".

But, I surmise that the reason for such few anchor failures is due to the rarity that one actually gets tested (other than body weight).  If people were routinely falling directly onto anchors, we might see a much higher rate of failures.  One key reason the anchor must be solid is failure would likely result in death of all in the climbing party.  Everyone already knows that, of course.

Perfect! Thanks for that. I wanted to put it out there to get filled in on what I may have missed. The Tahquitz one vaguely comes back to me now. Details would be interesting.

And the point about the anchors not getting severely tested is that people have the good sense to not directly fall on them. Absolutely right. Primary lesson there.

Fundamentally, the only way you are going to be safe (especially on moderate trad routes) is not to fall. Its not an option regardless unless you are the second.

This is really what traditional climbing is all about (neglecting the crack test pieces that are really sport climbs with cams).

Kyle Ondy wrote:

rgold, Thanks for the insight you've provided in this thread. I am not sure I understand what you mean by clipping the free strand into the masterpoint with an additional carabiner to escape the belay.

Is it the case when redirecting a belay you need to eventually tie that line off to escape the belay? If you were to belay directly from the point between 1 and 2 would you eliminate the need for bringing the free strand back to point 3?

I'd appreciate any clarity you can provide.

EDIT: I think I know. Directly belaying from the point between 1 and 2 causes points 3 to be useless. If I directly clove the strand coming from 2 onto 4 and remove the butterfly at 3,I would have an equivalent anchor from the OP's link, correct?

Clipping the free strand to 3 to escape is for an emergency situation.  Belayer needs to escape and partner needs to be secured.  

Greg D wrote:

Clipping the free strand to 3 to escape is for an emergency situation.  Belayer needs to escape and partner needs to be secured.  

Ok! So in an emergency the rope is tied off to powerpoint, distributing the load across all three anchor points. Makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification.

Ted Pinson wrote:

There have been anchor failures, almost all involving  factor 2 falls as Greg mentioned above.  Definitely rare, though.

Right? And just how rare too....2-3 cases out of probably hundreds of thousands of anchors built using cams/nuts? (Don't get me wrong, it is not a case of blindly trusting anchors and cams being always good, but of the good sense of climbers to build safe anchors and the strength of solid placements).

But, there are thousands and thousands of accidents and unreported epics from inefficiency.

The idea is not to shut down talk of building SERENE anchors in any way, just to focus on solid placements. The rest is gravy, imo.