Lower Me, Baby!!

Some follow up on a topic discussed:

APM - Auto-lock Pass-through Munter

It's not a bad idea, but I feel there's an application that probably works a little bit better than most I've tried for the day when you are just getting some mileage and are working from the top. Which can be the case in a place like Ouray.

Granted, as soon as I say Ouray, it's an ethical argument about lowering into the Lead-Only areas (yes, don't do that -- lead it you pussy).

Okay, here is the typical site I'm thinking of:

You want to work from a solid top anchor and lower a climber and climb out, being in a safe system. I don't like pulleying off the autoblock for an entire 50-60 Meter lowering, it sucks; and you also have a friction disadvantage. A larger climber, you pop the system open clipping the pulley sling to your waist, and they drop like a sack of potatoes. Not exactly a fun day.

A gri works, but you bounce the crap out of the climber (figure normal adult) trying to keep that sweet spot in the device, even with a re-direct; it's freaky as hell.

This is the best thing I've tried:



Clip both autoblock biners into the anchor and set up a higher biner as a frictional redirect; fix the back end of the line to the anchor. It's great, you have smooth control even with a heavy dude on the line. You don't subject your rope to repeated loaded munters all day long -- the rope loves you!

Now a good point brought up in the other thread and really also a potential problem in this system. What if you can't get a safe unload area -- something unforeseen happens?? As belayer, you are responsible for your climber, you have to get them out of the situation. Shit does happen that we didn't think of.

Here's the problem site:



I came up with some possible solutions (in any of these cases, I'm assuming you keep the brake hand on when you're supposed to):

1. Climber can unweight the system real quick by climbing, and you switch with an extra biner.



2. Climber can't climb, they are in free-space, set-up the Luebby munter-mule-overhand lowers to do a weight transfer using cord.



3. Again Climber can't climb & in free space, do the hitch load fixed and 8-bight backup (or people use that leg wrap; I kinda like to stay out of the system to be more effective in rigging and hauling). Then set-up a haul to weight transfer.



2&3, you may need to haul more than just the weight transfer, which would suck, but the up-haul is probably the only way to go in something like this.

4. You could add more rope and go for a knot pass. Do any of the typical autoblocking, or any climber devices, allow for a knot pass without load transfers??

5. Start the setup with an added line, already configed for an up-haul; so the climber gets lowered with two lines on them. I think probably anyone taken that single pitch instructor course saw this as a possible solution. I prefer single systems which, I argue, make you more effective.

6. Ask for help, which climbers hate because they shoulda been rapping for a lead anyway.

I still don't get why you'd lower with a munter and then not belay with it. Why add the complexity of a second device when one's already rigged?

asking the wrong person as I'd rather not put my rope through repeated loaded munters all day long.

But I'd gather the idea is similar as posted here -- lower without having to counter the climber's weight off of your hips, and be able to autoblock for the climb.

In most cases it's usually better to just fix the line and have the climber rap down, then belay them back up using whatever method you prefer. On rappel the climber is free to control the speed of their descent, stop and place directionals, not be helplessly lowered past an overhang like in "Touching the Void", ect, ect...

Saves some wear on your rope too.

I don't get why people use rope bags to 'protect' their rope, but also lower off of climbs. Lowering off of climbs, especially if it is a 'bottom-top-bottom' puts way more wear and tear on a rope than getting it a bit dirty at the base of a crag.

Rappel and forget about all the complex rigging that significantly increases the chances of a mistake.

Rapping is certainly is a way to do it. One reason why rapping goes probably out of favor is that the rope always ends up in the drink at the bottom of the canyon & in a tangled up mess also. Some take their tag or other single line & rap it because it ends up in the stream, and then carry the doubles as packed so they stay out of the mess.

I've found the time savings is really more with a lowering than in rapping and you get a much smoother operation and transition in lowering. I'd even venture to say that over a day of mileage, you can get twice as much done in climbing with far less hassle in the switch overs; not too mention, in the rigging presented here, your back feels the love of not countering your partner all day long.

What I've also given here are some solutions for the 1% of the time when things don't go as planned; so when you get stuck in your system, there's a way out of it. Certainly not the only solutions, either and should be considered exceptions to the rule. 99% of the time, it's a great way to control the belay rigging.

As for reducing the chance of mistake, if your belayer can't rig proficiently to start with, what have you solved by rapping and then trusting they set up a good anchor and belay rig when you start climbing? There's still that same chance of mistake there as well; maybe even more so if you get into belay escape and buddy rescue. Which of course won't happen because we're all too good and there's no risk in climbing.

If you want to use the Reverso or ATC Guide and still have the ability to rappel down, here is an idea.

It is a modification of an AMGA technique taken from their Technical Handbook (I have included a photo). It utilizes a slippery 8 knot to "fix" the rope.

The climber would rappel down on one of the fixed lines. After reaching the bottom, the belayer would remove the carabiner and pull the slippery 8 knot free.

The ATC is already correctly placed and ready to belay.

I haven't used this technique; the idea only came to me after reading these posts.

Maybe I'm missing something, but these scenarios seem a little over complicated. Can someone explain the downside of a couple of what seem like simpler options:

Lowering: Rig the reverso/guide/etc for lowering using the normal sling and redirect biner that I've often seen. If sling that goes from the device to a carabiner to the belayer that uses body weight to hold it open puts the belayer in the system and this is not desired, tie the sling off with a load releasing knot. Lower, pull or release the sling holding the device in lower mode and the device is locked off and ready to belay or ready to have a prussic added for uphaul.

Rapelling in, single rope: Rig the reverso/guide/etc for belaying at the rope mid point (or other point depending on route length) and lock off (hold or preferably tie a backup knot). Climber raps down on their climbing line and is on belay after slack is taken up. No re-rigging needed.

There has been more than one view expressed on this and other MP forum discussions that using a munter hitch to lower a climber or to belay a second up is harmful to the rope ( or is more harmful to the rope than using another method).
Can someone supply a reference to a study that shows using a munter hitch for these purposes is more damaging to a rope than using another method?
Thanks in advance.

Thomas Willis wrote:There has been more than one view expressed on this and other MP forum discussions that using a munter hitch to lower a climber or to belay a second up is harmful to the rope ( or is more harmful to the rope than using another method). Can someone supply a reference to a study that shows using a munter hitch for these purposes is more damaging to a rope than using another method? Thanks in advance.

A munter hitch can produce terrible twists in the rope, particularly from long lowers, but only if you use it improperly. Used correctly, this is a complete nonissue. The problem is that so few folks use them correctly...

Bryan Gohn wrote:In most cases it's usually better to just fix the line and have the climber rap down, then belay them back up using whatever method you prefer. On rappel the climber is free to control the speed of their descent, stop and place directionals, not be helplessly lowered past an overhang like in "Touching the Void", ect, ect... Saves some wear on your rope too.

DONT LOWER ME BABY!!!

honestly ... since its single pitch ... if the climber isnt going to hangdog all day, id just use a redirect belay for that scenario

i mean how many times are you going to need to go hands free on a single top rope pitch ... and if you do just tie off with a mule

Walking through the park, you'll see just about every method discussed. I don't think it really matters how anyone gets the job done; as long as you rig for safety and don't dump the climber.

I reckon it ends up being more of a back and arm saver for me by the end of the day and as stated, I found the plaquette set-up effective for smooth long lowers doing mileage and workable to quickly transfer load to perform a haul, if needed.

Derek Doucet wrote: A munter hitch can produce terrible twists in the rope, particularly from long lowers, but only if you use it improperly. Used correctly, this is a complete nonissue. The problem is that so few folks use them correctly...

THANK YOU! if you know how to use a Munter hitch properly it does not twist the rope. I have lowered people on multipul occasions off a munter- 60 and 70m lenghts with no twists. It is easier to control off a fixed anchor and is really fast to set up with minimul gear.
Most climbers problem is that they try to use it like a stitch plate and that does twist your rope horribly. It is a really old knot/hitch that has worked when used right for a long time. Just learn to use it the way it its supposed to be loaded and you will come to love this tool.
Dallen

Maybe expound upon what's actually improper/proper with a munter; as it's a focal point in the APM system described, the explanation should serve to help and/or show how you guys are working this system better (or need not be specific to an APM; just thoughts any lowering using a munter).

I'm a fan of the munter & more important for the heavy load super-munter, but I'm hard pressed to say there isn't effect to the rope.

There's still a concern in the use of the loaded munter to switch into an efficient ratchet from a lower given that problem site. You guys have ideas?

I keep going to my solution 3 and just load a hitch with back-up knot, then re-rig for haul -- I guess at that point bag the main munter hitch, switch to use a biner & hitch which will be minded as you haul (that's fun; one-handed haul even possible??), a self-minding pulley helps; the autoblock or gri is self-capture which is a good plus.

Another drawback I see with the APM in this case is that the intended autoblock is committed in the system. The trick being to re-rig without trusting the climber to a only single piece of accessory cord in order to switch over for a haul.

Mark,
I'm scared to get lowered for some reason. I like your warning sign though.

Steve

Anything further on working the loaded munter to maintain a rope?

Bill May and crew brought up an interesting point about belay systems in general. In lowering, or as we more likely see -- in rapping, the change in elevation translates energy which goes to heat at the brake system.

I'm wondering if there is a role in the thermal transfer to the rope that plays more a role in effecting its property when working with loaded munters, and/or how munters are worked with (what was termed proper/improper setups).

The rope is always moving in the hitch and I believe drawing heat out (into the rope), but is time in the brake subject to heat the effector when bending around that we end up seeing those twisting results?

Because ice climbing season is upon us once again, this might be of interest.

I like the innovation shown here by Buff. I have not replicated the systems so cannot comment on them but the re-direct looks like a great idea. That alone might be THE solution to lowering with the autoblock.

Last Friday, at the Secret Waterfall, Brad and I used the AMP (aka the APM) to lower and belay one another. We did up to four "laps" each (climb up, lower and climb up again without switching roles) on the AMP with no kinking. The Munter does not kink and it is very rope friendly.

There is discussion of the safety of switching from lowering to belaying with the AMP. We have found, thru use, that this is easily facilitated. Once lowered, the climber starts up, un-weighting the rope, the belayer maintains the brake strand while releasing the Munter then belays with the autoblock.

Rapping in is time consuming and almost no one does it in Ouray unless leading back out. Tradition in Ouray is to lower in and climb out. With beginners, rapping in and switching to top rope is not an option.

I use a Munter with a Prusik on the load side very comfortably with all sorts of climbing partners and highly recommend this belay. Many climbers really like the autoblock devices so the AMP is a way to use this method of belaying.

Using the built in autoblock release to lower climbers does not provide a safe lower - it converts the autoblock into a pulley that provides for near free fall potential only resisted by the grip of the belayer. Additionally, autoblock devices do not return to autoblock configuration automatically nor instantly (i.e. climbers drop some distance, out of the belayers control before/if stopped) in the event of a fall after the autoblock is released.

All that said, soon enough a new device will appear on the market and this discussion will be obsolete.

if all yr doing is top roping from the top ... why not just use that gri gri you use for sport climbing directly on the anchor IMO

easier to get up and its built for that purpose ..., and easy to lower mid climb should the need arise

The gri does solve some problems with a weighted system and transferring the weight between components while hanging mid-wall; the trouble with the gri is maintaining the sweet spot and you end up 'bouncing' the climber being lowered which is unnerving as hell. (ps -- I brought that point up in the OP)