Top Rope Anchor

I thought I was clear in what I wrote roght above the pic. I just didn't have the extra gear on me at the time, there would be 2 carabiner at the 8'same, one on each strand, I clipped them both together so they'd stay put....

The picture was for the other guy to understand the idea, and the explanation above I thought was clear, guess not.

Clearly you wouldn't hang off of closet handles, use 1 carabiner, use a dynamic rope, hand a mad rock lifeguard on the masterpoint of a TR, the list can go on, it was showing the basic concept since the one dude didn't understand the OP's method.

Yes tri loading is bad, and it's not my first rodeo....

And even though in the pic it's positioned that way, AGAIN I didn't have enough gear, hence my description above the pic, unless you're using static line for the climbers rope and doing the worst job ever belaying, like having 10+ foot TR falls, it's not going to produce the forces needed to break 2 biners...

I usually just tie right into the cabinet handles directly. And, of course, open the doors to prevent "shock loading."

Bowline's expedite setup and lessen the need for excessive gear. The classic setup is Bowline on a tree, you prusik or use a gri gri onto this now for an edge tether. Figure out where you want your master point and tie a BFK/BHK. With other strand go to your second tree (or back to your first "monolithic" tree and tie a bowline on bight. Remember bowlines always need to be backup up, most commonly with a double fisherman's knot.

With this setup you need only a rope and two locking carabiners for this masterpoint.

greg 24 wrote: The tree failing is not the concern. The gear failing is the concern. If you want to use one tree go ahead, but the vast majority of publications and climbers recommend using at least two anchor points.

What gear? We're talking about slinging trees; no gear is involved.

Do you mean your static line or webbing? Of course you should rig it in such a way that you're not relying on a single strand (especially if abrasion is a concern; pad the edge if necessary). And if you can't tie a knot you trust, you shouldn't be setting anything up yourself anyway.

Top roping off of one beefy tree is totally fine.

curt86iroc wrote: yea? you'd be wrong. for people who are new to climbing, im a strong proponent of teaching the correct method for anchor building. Yes, we all do things once in a while that are questionable, but let's start with the proper basics...don't tri load a biner...

well curt86iroc, unless you are toproping a bus full of kids I wouldnt worry about that giant ass locker breaking but thats just me, the guy who doesnt do everything by the book. Of course both the guy who posted the pic and myself have said there are better ways but that really doesnt matter does it?

greg 24 wrote: As a general rule I always try to find two points that aren't the same natural feature, but to each their own right?

I used to a lot and still do sometimes find a big ass tree or boulder and tie that off to the first strand. Then I look for some shallow and marginal piece of gear for the other strand. Never in many years has the shallow and marginal piece of gear ever blown after a TR gangbang.

There is a well known old guy around here who tons of people dont like/hate so I wont mention the devils name. This devil of a man TRs sometimes on the most marginal gear you will ever see on questionable rock even, usually all tied off with 1" webbing that is older than most of the people on Mtn Proj. He is still alive(I dont believe he is AMGA certified).

T Roper wrote: well curt86iroc, unless you are toproping a bus full of kids I wouldnt worry about that giant ass locker breaking but thats just me, the guy who doesnt do everything by the book. Of course both the guy who posted the pic and myself have said there are better ways but that really doesnt matter does it?

here is the bus you are referring to... this example is more on the rope access side of things, but the discussion and theory applies to our sport as well...

osha.gov/doc/engineering/20…

curt86iroc wrote: here is the bus you are referring to... this example is more on the rope access side of things, but the discussion and theory applies to our sport as well... osha.gov/doc/engineering/20…

That sucked, I remember that incident, two of them broke their necks and I think someone died eventually. I'd imagine it was a well used biner though I didnt read the whole report.

nkane wrote: Why do people think it's necessary to equalize multiple trees? Let's think about this for a second. We equalize gear because we think that there's a possibility that one of the placements might fail and we want a backup or two. In the case of placing rock gear, screws, or clipping bolts, this is good practice. In a properly rigged anchor, if one piece blows there aren't any consequences: the other pieces hold the load and the blown piece dangles harmlessly. But trees are different. Think about what happens if a tree anchor fails. If you rip a tree out, you will have the entire tree, plus whatever rocks, dirt, and other small trees are entrained in its roots, falling down on top of the climber, belayer, and whoever is at the base. You should not be anchoring off of trees that have any chance of pulling out. Choose extremely bomber trees. This is actually fairly easy, because live trees above 15cm diameter, rooted in good soil, are super super strong. Strong enough that your pelvis will explode before the tree will show any sign of stress. So save the headache and if the climb is right below your tree, just use the one. Are there situations where you need to equalize two trees for other reasons? Yes. If the climb you want to TR is between two trees, then you'll have to rig an equalized system. But do it for the purpose of running the rope the way you want to, not because you're scared of a tree failing. If the tree fails, you're screwed.

Been thinking this for a while now, but it's good to see some data.
Not to mention the potential for the tree to take a significant fall factor onto the remaining leg of the anchor...

T Roper wrote: That sucked, I remember that incident, two of them broke their necks and I think someone died eventually. I'd imagine it was a well used biner though I didnt read the whole report.

Don't worry about minor things like well-used biners! You've gotta forget about those insignificant little worries and just go for it!