History of ethics of lowering and TRing through fixed gear/quickdraws

cyclestupor wrote:The answer to this age old argument is not so black and white. Like many things in climbing it is situation dependent. Some hardware is ok to lower off of, other hardware isn't (e.g. aluminum rings, warn cold shuts, lap links). Lowering is slightly safer than rapping when the hardware is good. But excessive lowering also turns good hardware to crap. A rule of thumb i like to follow is that i don't put unnecessary wear on any hardware i am incapable or unwilling to replace myself. If am not carrying around a spare hanger/rapring combo, wrench, cold shut, quick link... etc, then i shouldn't be lowering off of that respective hardware. I tend to carry high quality quicklinks everywhere i go, so i don't feel bad about lowering off of quick links. I've seen alot of worn out cold shuts, but i don't like to fiddle with bolts unless they are loose, so as a rule i never lower off of cold shuts. The same goes for fixe rap ring hanger combos. If everyone had the same ethic, then there wouldn't be any worn out rap rings, and there wouldn't be any contraversy. The bottom line is that lowering & TRing on fixed hardware wears it out (eventually). Most crags don't charge admission, so if you are putting wear on anchors, you should be willing to replace it yourself.

There is generally no need to TR directly off anchors, so I agree that is completely unnecessary wear and should be avoided.

Anybody climbing on fixed anchors should help with the upkeep.

If you are competent, equipped and have the opportunity to replace worn gear, that's great. Thanks!

Most folks are lacking one or more of those attributes. They should contribute to the ASCA, the Access Fund, a local climbing group or local rebolters.

If you don't put up routes in the first place, contribute, or replace worn gear, frankly you have no right to say anything on this subject.

Who Dat wrote: Can we all start using "customs" in place of "ethics" when referring to things that have little to do with 'ethics'?

Fun fact of the night:
The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, "custom")

There is sometimes the connotation that following ethics implies righteousness. However, I wasn't using the word in that sense. The customs are different in different places and I was just interested in the historical roots. I should have known that this would erupt into a debate. Sorry everyone!

Mark E Dixon wrote: If you are competent, equipped and have the opportunity to replace worn gear, that's great. Thanks! Most folks are lacking one or more of those attributes. They should contribute to the ASCA, the Access Fund, a local climbing group or local rebolters.

I agree everyone should contribute to climbing charities. I also agree most climbers have no business replacing anchor components like hangers, or unscrewing bolts.

However i think all climbers are "capable" of buying certified quick links to replace worn out quick links or rap rings. Even replacing chains is not hard for anyone w. Half a brain.

All climbers absolutely MUST be skilled at setting up a rappel even if they don't do it frequently they should practice on the ground for the simple reason that some anchors are unsafe for lowering (e.g. lap links)

cyclestupor wrote: All climbers absolutely MUST be skilled at setting up a rappel even if they don't do it frequently they should practice on the ground for the simple reason that some anchors are unsafe for lowering (e.g. lap links)

Setting up and executing a rappel is a basic skill folks should know.

But they could just leave a couple of biners and lower.

Mark E Dixon wrote: But they could just leave a couple of biners and lower.

Good point, but they could just as easily leave some quick links which would benefit everyone, and are cheaper than biners.

The point I would like to get across is that if more people were willing to replace worn hardware then this whole issue of lowering vs repelling would be moot. Lowering would be preferred, and no one would have an argument against it.

This topic is almost as frustrating as talking with someone who whole heartedly supports Donald Trump.

If you really think that you need to do the same thing every time to be safe, or that rappelling is more dangerous than lowering... Consider staying inside and playing chess as your new sport.

What you do should depend on the situation, but you certainly should bring a rappel device with you. It seems that the gym climbing epidemic is creating a selfish and lazy attitude that is infecting an increasing amount of people.

People seem to think if anchors are steel, then lowering off of them won't really cause that much wear - this is completely false. Even with stainless steel, I have seen anchors wear 40% through in 9 months, in areas with moderate traffic. Worse are fixed position anchors like Super Shuts which are very easy to clip, and do laps on, but also isolate the wear to one single position - stainless steel wears away quickly in these scenarios with every sport climber thinking it's the 'ethic' or it's safer. I suggest all climbers get involved in anchor replacement events - it can be a wake up call to the reality of what happens to bolts and anchor rings. It's no accident that worn gear is replaced - it takes dedicated volunteers. There is no valid argument in my opinion to lowering as a blanket rule. If the climber is cleaning on lower while on steep terrain it makes more sense to lower. There are other scenarios that it makes more sense. But I encourage climbers to try to understand the true impact of additional friction and wear caused by lowering. With rappelling there is negligent wear when the rope is pulled through, unweighted. With lowering there is constant wear. I hate rappelling but I do it because it prevents premature retirement of anchors. Also I do not find criticism for those lowering - I did it exclusively until younger partners taught me better - but please be aware of your impact.

JeffL wrote:This topic is almost as frustrating as talking with someone who whole heartedly supports Donald Trump. If you really think that you need to do the same thing every time to be safe, or that rappelling is more dangerous than lowering... Consider staying inside and playing chess as your new sport. What you do should depend on the situation, but you certainly should bring a rappel device with you. It seems that the gym climbing epidemic is creating a selfish and lazy attitude that is infecting an increasing amount of people.

It is frustrating because people such as yourself resort to ad hominem attacks rather than discuss the issues.

cyclestupor wrote: Good point, but they could just as easily leave some quick links which would benefit everyone, and are cheaper than biners. The point I would like to get across is that if more people were willing to replace worn hardware then this whole issue of lowering vs repelling would be moot. Lowering would be preferred, and no one would have an argument against it.

Stainless rapid links are pretty expensive. Trango captive steel biners (admittedly plated) cost about the same, maybe less.

Cable/chain draws cost about the same as most quick draws and make better project draws.

Regardless, its a lot easier for folks to just leave a couple of regular biners and these can be swapped out whenever worn. Unfortunately, some people climbing easier sport routes tend to have sticky fingers and the biners disappear.

Adding links is an appreciated public service but not one I'd really expect the average climber to perform. But everyone has biners on them.

John Ryan wrote:People seem to think if anchors are steel, then lowering off of them won't really cause that much wear - this is completely false. Even with stainless steel, I have seen anchors wear 40% through in 9 months, in areas with moderate traffic. Worse are fixed position anchors like Super Shuts which are very easy to clip, and do laps on, but also isolate the wear to one single position - stainless steel wears away quickly in these scenarios with every sport climber thinking it's the 'ethic' or it's safer. I suggest all climbers get involved in anchor replacement events - it can be a wake up call to the reality of what happens to bolts and anchor rings. It's no accident that worn gear is replaced - it takes dedicated volunteers. There is no valid argument in my opinion to lowering as a blanket rule. If the climber is cleaning on lower while on steep terrain it makes more sense to lower. There are other scenarios that it makes more sense. But I encourage climbers to try to understand the true impact of additional friction and wear caused by lowering. With rappelling there is negligent wear when the rope is pulled through, unweighted. With lowering there is constant wear. I hate rappelling but I do it because it prevents premature retirement of anchors. Also I do not find criticism for those lowering - I did it exclusively until younger partners taught me better - but please be aware of your impact.

Just wondering how you know that the accelerated wear is due to lowering and not top roping?

My argument for "always" lowering is that it standardizes procedures and establishes consistent expectations between climber and belayer and minimizes one (totally needless) form of lowering accident.

We are talking single pitch sport climbing here. The serious accident rate should be vanishingly small!

If you are rappelling just to save a little wear on the anchors, then replace a few rapid links as cyclestupor suggests to assuage your conscience, and lower away!

Tim Lutz wrote:If one wants to clean a draws off on overhanging routes while practicing 'ethical lowering' (lolz!) by rappelling.. go for it, but you are a dork and you are putting yourself in unnecessary danger.

+1

Mark E Dixon wrote: Just wondering how you know that the accelerated wear is due to lowering and not top roping? My argument for "always" lowering is that it standardizes procedures and establishes consistent expectations between climber and belayer and minimizes one (totally needless) form of lowering accident.

Yes for sure lowering after top-roping is still lowering through the anchors with the same force and friction acting on the anchor. I agree that standard procedures can help prevent accidents. Over 80% of the climbers I have climbed with from across the country rappel and do not lower. For these people, their standard procedure is to rappel. A communication error if you are rappelling results in clarification once you try to pull the rope up, and the belayer still has you on. A communication error if you intend to lower and belayer thinks you are rappelling results in a ground fall.

To be fair, if lowering were the standard practice, that communication issue would be moot.

Ted Pinson wrote:To be fair, if lowering were the standard practice, that communication issue would be moot.

Yes, and this is the exact reason for going to a standardized practice of always lowering. The reason to standardize to lowering instead of rapping (especially in sport climbing) is that there are many sport routes where rapping is impossible, with lowering (as long as you have a long enough rope) this isn't the case.

kennoyce wrote: I certainly replace gear, and I also certainly advocate lowering off of sport routes. Also, everyone I know who replaces gear also advocates lowering off of sport routes.

I kinda know a lot of people who replace gear. A lot. Just sayin...
As for advocating lowering, it depends on the situation and anchor.

I'd hope that, if you are lowering, you are putting in gear that is easily replaced so that when it wears out, it gets replaced. The odds of a task being completed and completed correctly and in a timely fashion are at least somewhat proportional to the ease of the task.

I've got no beef with lowering off of anchors designed and arranged to be lowered off of.
But you might want to rethink that as best practice on glue-ins with no rings above sandy beaches, etc...

Ted Pinson wrote: Lowering off of worn and grooved rappel rings is more dangerous than rappelling.

Is it, though? Just look at the occurrence of accidents. We see accidents related to rappelling from the top of a single pitch anchor occur with reasonable (and alarming) regularity. If worn fixed gear at the top of sport climbs was a similar threat to public safety, shouldn’t there also be recurring accidents caused by failure of worn rap rings? To my knowledge, these types of accidents occur at a rare/never sort of frequency. Of course, rap anchors do fail and cause accidents, but these failures usually involve worn old webbing, single fixed nuts, or junk pitons from the 70s. But a failure of a modern sport anchor, with two bolts and steel rings or chains, due to excess wear from people lowering? I’ve never heard of it happening.

climbing.com/people/built-t…
Most of the examples are full on bolt failures so not necessarily exactly what you are looking for. However, it is clear that you cannot always assume the gear will be solid and well maintained, and being that rappelling places less load on the anchors, it's possible they may have held a rap but not a lower.

muirvalley.com/assets/clean…
Instructions from Rick Weber, former owner and overseer of Muir Valley, clearly instructing climbers NOT to lower off rap rings. Whether or not this is valid, it's definitely still the ethic in many sport areas.

Most rappel accidents are caused by rapping off the ends of ropes, which also happens when lowering. A knot at the ends of the ropes prevents both accidents, and an autoblock can prevent you from rapping off the ends of your ropes (happened to me once). Other times it happens from people rapping directly off of bolts (seriously, wtf?) or worn webbing (I still think rapping directly through webbing is a terrible idea due to rope:webbing friction), which are very different scenarios than cleaning a single pitch anchor. For single pitch sport anchors, almost all of the accidents have been due to poor communication or mistakes during handoff from direct to rappel/belay, in which the decent method wouldn't have made much of a difference unless they had used the bight through the rings method discussed earlier. In any case, a redundant attachment (2 PAS's instead of 1) and weighting the rope before detaching the tethers would have prevented both accidents.

Ted Pinson wrote:http://www.climbing.com/people/built-to-last/

What do those incidents have to do with excessive wear from lowering? The point of this sub-discussion is [the lack of] accidents resulting from failure of worn hardware, not bolts with an unknown history breaking in corrosive environments.

If you discover anchors are dangerously grooved or whatever, it's not hard to leave a couple of biners.

If you discover while starting to lower, that your belayer had assumed you were rappelling, your options are more limited.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Regardless, its a lot easier for folks to just leave a couple of regular biners and these can be swapped out whenever worn. Unfortunately, some people climbing easier sport routes tend to have sticky fingers and the biners disappear..

I rarely mind leaving a biner or two at an anchor that's obviously setup for lowering. I just wonder how somebody gets down from an open shut and a bolt with a single link, pulls their rope, and doesn't immediately regret scoring that sweet booty.

Maybe noobs just enjoy laboriously untwisting their ropes?