'Neat' Way of Building Anchors 'On the Rocks' (The Scottish Belay)

Ok, I'm done :D.

youtu.be/bAQRIbQQgs4

Saw this video when I first started building anchors and it scared the s$&t out of me, but now I can appreciate it as a legitimate method of building anchors with the rope. Obviously, the usual pros and cons of rope anchors apply, but the Scots do some things very differently, even compared to other rope anchors, and I was wondering what you guys thought.

My biggest concern is triaxial loading; they use Giant HMS biners for this very reason, but it still seems like a lot of knots on one biner. The thing I like about this approach, however, is the fact that the clove hitches are right in front of you, so if you have an anchor that's set a ways back from where you want to belay (say, top of a cliff), you can adjust tension without having to walk all the way back to the anchors themselves. Also, because ALL of the pieces are adjustable, you could conceivably adjust and tweak tension/stance, albeit hopefully before putting your partner on belay. The whole system seems a bit complicated/time consuming, and he lost me with that final tie off around the tie in loop at the end, but perhaps I'm just not used to this approach. Thoughts?

Agreed...that was my favorite part of it. I found a way to do this on a regular powerpoint anchor by pulling out a long length of tether (as long as you could conceivably need) and tying into the anchor using an 8 on a bight. Clove hitch into a biner on your harness wherever you want in the line, or you could even tie it at the anchor and walk it out to where you want to be by pulling up on the bell like he illustrates.

I have meet and climbed with a lot of Brits who do something like this. they seem to have a cultural bias towards belaying off the harness from the top and build their anchors to allow the anchor to take the load while they sit on the edge. It makes sense for English climbing. It was funny when mulit-pitch climbing.
Tri-axel loading is not a concern in this system. The loads are low, the potential for large dynamic forces are limited.

Brits also love using the loop created by their tie-in knot. For the record, the fig-8 Yosemite finish, is capable of capsizing under low loads. so choose a different know if you want to use the loop.

I have seen Americans try and replicate it for whatever reason with disastrous consequences. one gentleman and his wife did as followed. Two overhands one to each bolt via a quickdraw. A 8-12ft ft loop of slack is created, this would place the belayer 4-5ft below the anchor if he fell. With no load shared with the anchor, he put his wife on belay with an ATC to his belay-loop, still with 5-8ft of slack. she climbs up to the "anchor", doesn't fall thankfully.

What I find worrying is the number of people who commenting as though they have never seen and anchor built using the climbing rope. Surely this is a basic skill.

(Personally 95% of my anchors are built solely using the climbing rope. Though my approach is a fair bit faster than what is shown here, a clove hitch per piece. It is no slower that using a whatever-ellette).

absolutely ridiculus-way way to much rope used-
does he plan on being at this station for a week?
alpine butterfly and a clovehitch at the points-done-belay on

Given that UK climbers have a predilection for bringing 300' of rope to climb 40' routes, the use of all that rope at the anchor makes a certain amount of sense. It never hurts to see some new ideas in action. Someday this might be your method of choice for a particular situation... especially if you've been wondering what do do with those 4 giant lockers on the back of your harness.

I don't wish to suggest that building a
belay anchor with the climbing rope is the
best system or your go-to first option, but if
you have dropped/forgotten/lost your
cordalette or it is too short to reach your
pro, then knowing how to use the rope
is a good skill to have.

The system shown in the video can be
improved a bit by introducing a "direct
inline loop" (sometimes referred to as a DIL).

Tying an alpine butterfly knot a short
distance from your tie in knot would
serve as a masterpoint. This would eliminate
the clutter at your harness and would,
if the need arose, allow you to more easily
escape the belay.

This had all been discussed many times
here at MP. RGold has posted, numerous
times, photos showing this system, both
for near and far pro pieces.

Hmm...got a link? That sounds interesting. Is the alpine for a direct belay?

i would luuuuuuuv to see some MPer replicate the lengths, angles and spacing in this anchor without using the rope ...

how many slings and cord will you need???

Place the top piece with a munter on a locker

Climb down protected by the munter clove to belay loop

Loop the second piece and clove it to yr belay loop

Do the same for the third piece ... Etc ...

as said if you want a masterpoint simply put and alpine butterfly at shoulder length and clip everything to it

the loading on the biner is fine ... folks put 2 or more cloves on HMS all the time ... in fact many folks use a big masterpoint biner for everything

;)

As usual, bear cuts to the chase. :)

Edit: interesting video, for certain. Too much rope used for my liking,however-seems a bit complicated.

We've been around the block on this a million times!

Using the climbing rope is arguably the best method for parties swinging leads. It is as fast or faster than a cordelette, more versatile, more robust, and provides better shock absorbtion.

The "Scottish method" in the video uses too much rope, does not provide the power point that modern climbers can't seem to do without for their guide plate upper belays, and piles a lot of knots up at the harness.

It is simple to build a much more efficient rope-only anchor with a power point and no cf on the harness---we've known how to do this for decades. I've posted a possible way of doing it many times, starting twelve years ago, but here it is again. Since only single strands run from anchor to belayer, it uses 1/3 less rope than the "Scottish" system. More recently, the same system has been illustrated on multipitchclimbing.com under the name DIL belay (direct isolation loop belay).

(Note that the "slack rope, here tied to create a redirection point" is a strictly optional addition to the basic setup.)

the one "issue" with rgolds system is that the "redirect" is on the 2 upper pieces ... absolutely fine if the gear is bomber

however with the "scottish" system all the load is on all 3 pieces ... the failure of even 2 pieces does not result in extension ... not to mention its belayed off the waits (though you can add a masterpoint)

im "reliably informed" via climbing vids and "hardcore" brit partners that all the gear in the UK is just plain SHIET (hahaha)

if you even look at one of those UK crags, itll fall apart

also with rgolds system one cant use the top piece with a munter to protect themselves as they down climb with widely spaced anchors

there is no right or wrong ... just different circumstances

;)

bearbreeder wrote:the one "issue" with rgolds system is that the "masterpoint" is on the 2 upper pieces )

Not true at all, the masterpoint loads all three pieces, just as with the "Scottish" system. Of course equalization is impossible, but this does as well as anything else can. But an advantage is that since only single strands are involved, the system is less stiff and so provides better shock absorbtion.

As you can see, after I wrote this answer, bb changed his post to read "redirect," in which case his remark is true. But as I said, that redirect is simply an extra possible thing to do with the slack between anchor 1 and anchor 2 and is not in any sense an integral feature of the system.

The system can be rigged to redirect through the master point if the anchor is high enough to allow the power point butterfly knot to be tied high. The pictured redirect can also be used for those who want to clip the leaders rope to the anchor, assuming the two pieces involved are up to the task. In that regard, it is better than cordelette methods, that only allow one anchor piece to be clipped, or else require clipping through the power point lower down. The power point clip is, of course, also possible with the pictured system, except it has more control over power point location.

I'm trying to "enlarge" rgolds pic for closer study(i'm on my iPhone) without much luck. Also, I can't get that link to work?

Sorry/ I should just google "DIL Belay."

rgold wrote: Not true at all, the masterpoint loads all three pieces, just as with the "Scottish" system. Of course equalization is impossible, but this does as well as anything else can. But an advantage is that since only single strands are involved, the system is less stiff and so provides better shock absorbtion.

i edited it to say the "redirect" point is on two pieces ...

i will say that the modified "brit" system i posted above will be faster to build than your anchor though as the clove hitches are at the waist ... especially with widely spaced anchors

theres an easy trick to building it .... after muntering the top piece, simply clip each piece with the rope and clip the HMS to your belay loop and the strand between piece 2 and 3 ...

as you self lower/climb down everything self equalizes, no judging of distance required ... then tie the cloves ...

its likely the fastest way to build widely spaced anchors ... and safest because of the top munter protection as long as the top piece is bomber

;)

I agree bb's method will be faster for widely-spaced pieces, as my method requires climbing up and down between the pieces and the stance. Just be aware that if the anchor pieces are, say, ten feet from the belay stance, then 60 feet of rope is going into the anchor. My method ties up 40 feet of rope while belaying, or 30 feet once off belay.

So, the trade-off is between speed of constructing the anchor and having less restriction on how far the leader can go, something the party will have to decide on a case-by-case basis.

There is at least one case in which these distinctions are moot, and that is if there is a big ledge with the anchors at the back and the belayer wants to be at the edge, far away from the anchors, to make for better rope-handling and communications with the second. In that case, if the extra rope is available, bb's system is faster and easier to rig than mine, and when the leader sets off on the next pitch, the party moves the belay back to the anchor anyway so the extra rope is not an issue. Moreover, the extra stiffness I mentioned is an advantage for this situation, because a long single strand going back to a cordelette will have far more stretch, raising the possibility that the belayer might get pulled over edge when the anchor rope stretches.

T340 wrote:I'm trying to "enlarge" rgolds pic for closer study(i'm on my iPhone) without much luck. Also, I can't get that link to work? Sorry/ I should just google "DIL Belay."

I can't help with the iPhone issues. I fixed the link (I had left out the www part).

actually i do use a variation on rgold anchor alot of the time ...

but unlike his i skip his powerpoint and use his "redirect" point as the masterpoint

of course in this case the top 2 pieces should be pretty good

and its VERY fast to build ....

Simply clove the third piece

the other advantage is that is very fast and logical to take down ...

once the leader reaches the belay (or if they need a few feet more rope) you can take apart the bottom piece and the clove back to your waist ...

and as they setup you can easily desconstruct everything except for the last 1/2 pieces ...

as the rope comes taught on belay simply unclove the last pieces and yr climbing ...

;)

I do that too with two pieces, but since I'm almost always using half ropes I have one rope going to each piece.

Rgold,
Thank you'! A very interesting thread,this.

as someone already pointed out-it is handy to have a variety of options for different situations- i personally think simplicity is best-the vid seems way overkill to me but if thats your thing -go for it.