Harness Belay Loops: When to use, and when to use leg tie-ins

King Tut wrote: Look up "passive redundancy" which is used when dual or multiple components are not practical: "Passive redundancy uses excess capacity to reduce the impact of component failures....The extra strength used in the design is called the margin of safety." It is a common component in any engineering. In this case it is strength over and above that generated by the maximum impact force.

I aware what passive redundancy is, but as Kyle said you're using it out of context. Redundancy is application specific, and in the application of climbing no one considers a single carabiner to be redundant, regardless of its strength. Show me one credible source; the AMGA, UIAA, AAI or other; who agrees with you that a carabiner is redundant solely because it's strong. Further, as I already pointed out and provided references for, most carabiners dont actually have any strength margins when comparing their strength to the maximum impact force possible. The UIAA only requires the carabiners hold the absolute bare minimal to withstand the maximum impact force possible in accordance with UIAA-101 and EN 892:2012.

paci.com.au/Downloads/S-EN1…

Wow. I did not expect all the responses on this question. To clarify my original question, I was asking the question more from a "what are your preferences/how are you ACTUALLY using your belay loop and hard tie-ins" standpoint. In my personal use, I follow the hard and soft tie in points rule of thumb like others have mentioned. However, and kind of what spawned my question, sometimes I see people who out of no other reason than maybe superstition suddenly go from rappelling off their belay loop, to threading their carabiner through both hard tie-ins. It seems to depend on how "nervous" they are about the climb/rappel at hand. And curiously enough, I see it a lot!

Kyle Tarry wrote: Moreover, it's been proven pretty thoroughly, by a multitude of posters, that your claims of belay carabiners being stronger than other carabiners in patently false, so all this discussion of "redundancy through strength" is completely moot anyway, because you don't have extra strength.

Nothing of the sort has been proven lol.

Somebody cherry picked some light lockers and said they were the same strength as regular biners. Locking biner's aren't, generally, they are stronger and heavier.

ie Here's a standard DMM locking biner that tests to 30kn:

dmmclimbing.com/products/kl…

And here is an ultra light biner that tests to 20kn:

petzl.com/GB/en/Sport/Carab…

I would say that 50% stronger is "much stronger".

Now, I will grant you that in recent years the trend has been to lighter and lighter locking biners for entry level gym newbies and sport weenies because they only use them for belaying while standing on the ground. But that is not the same at all as saying that locking biners are not generally stronger, because they in fact are generally stronger than standard biners as they are made for heavier use than a simple draw biner or for gym belaying that could be done with your bare hand.

If I led you astray by saying "belay biners" and you thought I meant an ultra-light locker dedicated for belaying only, I apologize. In fact, I meant as a belay locker a standard locking biner, which is what many use, for their general utility at a stance and other regular climbing use. I use a Petzl Am'D which tests at 27kN which is much stronger than most draw biners. I use a lot of ultra light biners on my draws too, so I guess that experience has also informed my perspective.

And yes, it uses a larger margin of safety, ie redundant strength and well as redundant features like screw gates.

carry on.

20 kN wrote: I aware what passive redundancy is, but as Kyle said you're using it out of context. Redundancy is application specific, and in the application of climbing no one considers a single carabiner to be redundant, regardless of its strength. Show me one credible source; the AMGA, UIAA, AAI or other; who agrees with you that a carabiner is redundant solely because it's strong. Further, as I already pointed out and provided references for, most carabiners dont actually have any strength margins when comparing their strength to the maximum impact force possible. The UIAA only requires the carabiners hold the absolute bare minimal to withstand the maximum impact force possible in accordance with UIAA-101 and EN 892:2012. paci.com.au/Downloads/S-EN1…

Maybe you can tell me why they make Steel Locking carabiners then that test to 40kn? Pretty damn sure it if for the passive redundant properties (margin of safety) of their strength and resistance to abrasion:

rei.com/product/107419/meto…

As far as the rest of your post I am under no obligation whatsoever to educate you on appropriate engineering margins of safety (redundant strength in several multiples of expected max loads).

Allow me to correct you

King Tut wrote: Nothing of the sort has been proven lol. Somebody cherry picked some light lockers and said they were the same strength as regular biners. Locking biner's aren't, generally, they are stronger and heavier. ie Here's a extremely strong industrial and rescue focused DMM locking biner that tests to 30kn: dmmclimbing.com/products/kl… And here is an ultra light biner that tests to 20kn: petzl.com/GB/en/Sport/Carab… I would say that 50% stronger is "much stronger".

And what's this
dmmclimbing.com/products/ph…
a ultralight weenie biner, oh and what's this
blackdiamondequipment.com/e…
A pure belay biner pulled from black diamonds belay/rappel section on their website a biner that has no other use in belaying and it's WEAKER fucking madness i know, clearly I've hacked the two site doctored the images all just to make you silly.

King Tut wrote: Maybe you can tell me why they make Steel Locking carabiners then that test to 40kn? Pretty damn sure it if for the passive redundant properties (margin of safety) of their strength and resistance to abrasion: rei.com/product/107419/meto… As far as the rest of your post I am under no obligation whatsoever to educate you on appropriate engineering margins of safety (redundant strength in several multiples of expected max loads).

Maybe you should read the big writing at the top of the links you post
Metolius Steel Screw Lock Carabiner
The super-strong Metolius Steel screwlock carabiner is designed for heavy-use environments like canyoneering and rescue. I know you're cherry picking and desperate to prove everyone else wrong but this level is just cringy.

that guy named seb wrote: Maybe you should read the big writing at the top of the links you post Metolius Steel Screw Lock Carabiner The super-strong Metolius Steel screwlock carabiner is designed for heavy-use environments like canyoneering and rescue. I know you're cherry picking and desperate to prove everyone else wrong but this level is just cringy.

lol dude, *whoosh* right over your head.

Yea, cause Metolious would never sell a steel biner to leave on the lower off anchor and are WAY INTO canyoneering lol.

Next you are gonna tell me their Big Gun harness is for Randy Rapeller?

Pro Tip bro: Metolius sells plenty of them for a lower off anchor biner suitable for top roping but cannot market them as something left fixed for liability reasons.

WHERE IS THAT PILLOW WHEN I NEEDS IT???

ROFL quoting Alpinists use of ultra light gear (less than 1% of Climbers).

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings with that Gym Newbie reference.

Kyle Tarry wrote: You'll just keep saying that certain types of climbers "don't count" until we are finally down to just talking about some limited subset that matches your claims, and then you'll win the argument. Good strategy. For the record, it was a contrast to your claims that only "gym newbies" and "sport weenies" use ultralight gear. So do alpinists, trad climbers, multipitch climbers, mountaineers, and lots of other folks. Those guys aren't as easy to lump in your "groups that are easy to insult" category though. And, another post with an ad hominem attack! At least you're consistent. Dear MP admins, this is why the forum is full of garbage. I am departing this argument/thread, King Tut feel free to claim this as a "victory" and celebrate. Enjoy insulting everyone who disagrees with you in my absence. You seem like a really cool guy, I bet you're a blast to hang out with.

The POINT that goes *whoosh* over your head is that Gym Newbies and Sportos make up 95% of the locking carabiner market and manufacturers have made accommodations for them by lightening their gear as it sees such light duty.

That does not remotely mean that the majority of locking carabiner designs are not stronger than average basic carabiner designs, because they are, as is integral to their general use.

But keep going with your imagined and poorly comprehended assertion that I said "only" anyone used anything.

Go get some exercise, you'll feel better.

Getting back to how tethers should be attached, note the following prescription from Petzl for their Connect Adjust lanyard.