Continue with onX Maps
Continue with Facebook
Single biner lower-off anchors
|
How should I use an anchor like this (this one is near Sestri Lavante in Italy)? I'm relatively inexperienced with outdoor climbing and haven't come across this style of anchor. Other sport areas I've climbed at (California and Squamish) have some variation on two bolts/rap rings from which I'd set up an anchor for top roping then rap down from the rings. Here it looks like I should just lead up and lower off but a) it looks like the top bolt is totally unused normally, b) how strong is that chain? Obviously that ratty old thing on the left is best left alone. The rig looks like one of http://www.raumerclimbing.com/eng/prodotti_dettaglio.asp?prod=belay_group_%F812&qi=0-9-353&qinav=0-9-c, which says for lowering off, but I want to be sure that's the right way to do things.  |
|
so technically the chain makes it redundant.....but I'm with you....that chain tho..... the lack of certification on website.... wtf. |
|
I see stuff like this all the time in Europe. Maybe it's just the areas I've frequented, but so many anchors (especially those at the top of a sport climb) are made up of unequalized, dubious looking cord and/or chain links, always with a single, non locking biner. In the example photo you posted, maybe the anchor would be slightly better if the upper bolt was placed just a tad higher, so to eliminate the "slack" in the thin skinny chain link. But given that's not the case you've got 3 options, depending on the level of safety you want. Option 1: If you wanted to make this as safe as possible, you could leave a cordelette or long sling attached to every piece in the photo (yes, even the manky bolt on the left; 3 pieces are better than 2) equalized/redundant and a locker thru the master point and lower off of that. But then you're leaving all that gear. Second option would be to replace the non locking biner with a locker and lower off that. Third option: be like the locals, and just use the anchor in situ. Either way the hardware here looks a bit rusted and definitely is not an ideal anchor. It just amuses me how poor anchors standards tend to be generally more found and accepted in Europe than in North America (this is just from personal observation and probably doesn't pertain to the more famous and popular European climbing areas.....you find these types of anchors in the more obscure, local crags around Europe). |
  Those anchors are set up for lowering off that single biner. When you first get to it, if you are going to be top roping off it, place a single locker above the lower off biner, and then just run the rope through the biner so it's doubled up, but not putting any weight/wear on the biner. when ready to lower, simply remove the locking biner and you are already in the lower off biner and ready to lower. the pictures are anchors in my local area, same style, except we use two lower offs because people in the US are too freaked out to use a single lower off. I personally don't have a problem with a good, single lower off. As with any anchor, just inspect it. If you don't like it, leave a single biner to back it up. |
|
This kind of uneven anchor setup with chain on one side, and just a bolt on the other side, coming together to a single hook/biner/horns seems more prevalent in Europe. |
 Clip and go! |
|
The 6mm diameter chain is stout, 35kn. Probably more robust than the hangers. |
|
I would take a runner and back up the biner. That is what they are for. Never trust your life to a single anything except the rope. Redundancy saves lives. I'd do the same thing with Brian's anchor. A lot of people die climbing in Europe. |
D. Evans wrote: And the belay biner, and the belay device, and the belay loop, and the belayer, and... |
Micah Klesick wrote: That bottom anchor is the definition of stupid. "Backing up" the bottom anchor by attaching it via that single quicklink and then adding two tow hooks to make it "redundant" is flipping hilarious. I love how this gigantically poorly thought out rig gets passed off as redundant. At least when Jim Titt sets something up like this he makes the center point out of something actually bomber (e.g., a four hundred million kN welded and tested rap ring). With Micah's anchor, I'm less concerned with a single bolt failing than I am with that quicklink. The sad thing is that this could so easily be turned into something useful with one additional quicklink or a few extra links of chain. Just separate these two anchors, add a another quick link to the top chain, add the second tow hook to that quicklink, and leave the two hanging separately....you know, like has been done now for decades at most well-thought out crags. Instead someone here decided to get "clever" and ended up with a face palm. To the OP, in Europe you generally follow Micah's advice above (which is a pretty good method). Personally I'm not a big fan of the single point method (even though Jim assures everyone that European single points can survive armageddon), but at least in Europe the single point is typically pretty truck, so there is much less to worry about than that stupid a$$ thing in Micah's pic. Indeed in the pic you (the OP) posted, the center point is a pretty bomber rap ring (instead of fricking quicklink) and the lower off biner is pretty heavy duty. |
|
The single biner is the less important issue to me. I would rather have 2 biners but I would lower off one if that's all there was. What I don't like is the corrosion going on. It looks like they sealed the bolt hole with expoxy which accelerates corrosion. Given that the chain is starting to see some decent rust, and that the bolt is going to experience worse corrosion (provided they are the same metal), I'd wager that those bolts are less than ideal. |
Greg D wrote: The obsession with redundancy mystifies me, especially when the only thing that's generally redundant is anchors |
Greg D wrote: In a literal mood today Greg? I know what you are driving at here, but his point (if interpreted in a reasonable way) is good. Would it be better to state "use redundancy when its reasonable to do so"? Multiple screws in an ice anchor, multiple pieces in a trad anchor, two bolts in a sport anchor, two draws when toproping, a backup biner on your ascender when jugging at an angle, etc. How about that :) |
J. Albers wrote: I'm not sure where you're buying quicklinks made out of scrap aluminum cans, but an 8mm stainless is 40kn and 10mm is 60kn. |
Micah Klesick wrote: Personally gotta say the mussy hook thing really totally sucks...better to just reuse one of the Fixe 50kn SS rap rings that were there. P.S. If you guys are going to be doing this out there then please for god's sake pull the Metolius Rap hangers and patch the holes. |
|
The visible corrosion would give me pause given its seaside location in the Med and the stainless aspect. My SCC alarm would be going off a bit. Assuming the anchor looked good, it's 100% climb and lower. - Each bolt is more than capable of taking the lowering load by itself. The chain adds placement redundancy. - The Biner is more than strong enough. - You've just lead the route so there are numerous QDs on lower bolts providing a backup to the first lower. This gives you plenty of time for "proof testing" the system. - Single Point Vertical setups reduce rope twisting. That mussy anchor is a cluster. Awful |
Mark Drayton wrote: 1. Finish the climb. 2. Clip the steel binner. 3. Lower down collecting QDs were set on your way up. 4. Untie from the rope. 5. Pull the rope to the ground. |
unemployed astronaut wrote: Seriously, it's a bit ridiculous. We rely on a single bolt to keep us off the ground for the first three, four, sometimes even five bolts of any sport route where we are whipping onto that bolt verses carefully lowering off the anchors. The anchor in the OP is totally bomber (as long as there is no SCC which is a bit questionable). If you are lowering off of a single biner there is no way that the rope can come unclipped from it since it is weighted the whole time, so no worries there, and if you were going to toprope, you should put your own gear in the upper bolt so then you have two pieces on the anchor. As for the chain, I guarantee you it is much stronger than either bolt or hanger. |
Micah Klesick wrote: Good thing there are two Mussy's on that single quicklink since the Mussy's are probably only 2 or 3 times as strong as the quicklink! |
Jim Urbec wrote: I guess if you can´t actually read....... "Certifications Belay Group art. 218:
Carabiner:
However! The bolts are non-standard and not those required to be used by the manufacturer to conform to EN959 (which they also explain on their website). They are either resined-in normal threaded bolts or fitted into glue-in inserts, both of which are generally rubbish. The chain´s fine, just looks a bit cheap and nasty, they´ll be seeing around 40kN for it on the tester. I´d personally never recommend anyone installs just a single, no-locking karabiner due to the risk of someone climbing above and the rope unclipping but I sure have a few customers who order them that way! |
unemployed astronaut wrote: Yes. Namely the belay biner attached to their partner's harness loop. Key difference is that their belay biner is made out of a metal which is well-known to be subject to fatigue fractures, while the single biner in those anchors is most likely made from a metal or combination of metals likely to resist fatigue fractures in that context. And readily inspectable before use. In theory people could regularly inspect their partner's belay biner for stress fractures, but in practice how many do? Ken |
