Do you trust one bolt?

Well I did but perhaps didn´t emphasise the down side of two seperate rope threads, assuming that anyone involved in such a discussion would be aware of the basics. The friction is increased causing more rope wear and they usually cause vile twisting of the rope. For this reason when two individual rings or karabiners are use one hopefully sets them vertically above each other.
If one insists on horizontal placement then one makes sure the two end links , rings or whatever can touch under tension which reduces the problem a bit but doesn´t usally eliminate it.
This was (reputedly, I haven´t read it) first discussed in 1926 in a textbook on climbing and seems to have taken some considerable time to filter over the pond.

Just my opinion but i will never trust my life to one thing.Why all that work in a 2 bolt vertical setup to trust everything to just one thing when there can be two.I just dont get it.Yea one rope one harness whatever.

Jim Titt wrote:Well I did but perhaps didn´t emphasise the down side of two seperate rope threads, assuming that anyone involved in such a discussion would be aware of the basics. The friction is increased causing more rope wear and they usually cause vile twisting of the rope. For this reason when two individual rings or karabiners are use one hopefully sets them vertically above each other. If one insists on horizontal placement then one makes sure the two end links , rings or whatever can touch under tension which reduces the problem a bit but doesn´t usally eliminate it. This was (reputedly, I haven´t read it) first discussed in 1926 in a textbook on climbing and seems to have taken some considerable time to filter over the pond.

Thanks for the condescension Jim. And no, you didn't answer my question in any of your previous posts (I just reread them to make sure that I didn't miss anything). When you replied in the past, you just stated a bunch of strength statistics and then stated that Euro's have been doing one bolt anchors for years so it must be okay. To address your reasons above for using a single lowering point:

1) Rope wear. Really? That is a reason for sacrificing redundancy? Not in my book.
2) Rope twisting. This is easily solved by minimizing the angle between the two chain ends. As I'm sure you are aware, the twisting regularly occurs when people use the standard Fixe hanger with attached rap ring in a horizontal setup. And yes, you indeed get annoying rope twisting. Not a problem at all when you use either a vertical setup or a horizontal setup where the chains hang enough that the final angle where the chain ends meet is minimized.

So unless I am reading your response wrong, rope wear and rope twisting are your reasons for using a single rap ring for lowering? As the kids say on this side of the pond, that sir, is weak sauce.

Just thinking: We take jumbo sport falls repeatedly on one bolt, so why not trust same single bolt for a rap which is not generating the force of a fall? Not that it is suggested, but I guess it could be safely done under circumstances.

So let's flip this around a little for all those so anti-single-ring...

You dismiss counter points like one rope, one belay loop etc etc casually as if that's all and well understood.

Why is it a HUGE deal to have a single ring (yes you could add two) but Not a Huge Deal to add:

A Second Belay Loop?
Second Rope?
Second Belay Carabiner?

Why is it A OK to trust your life to THAT ONE SINGLE ITEM (some of which receive far more force than a single rap ring EVER WILL).

If one is so adamant that you take EVERY STEP, no MATTER HOW TRIVIAL to reduce risk, how is it that these single points of failure are so easily dismissed?
- It is much harder to judge the condition and strength of a rope than it is a 50kN ring.
- Same goes for nylon belay loop.
- these fail more easily and at much lower loads than a SS Ring. Shouldn't we be more concerned with these items? Shouldn't we all be using 2 of EVERYTHING?

I want reasons as to why claims that a single ring is ok are so vehemently dismissed while similar comparisons to arguably MORE VULNERABLE equipment are brushed off as non-relevent.

The idea that you do everything possible to reduce EVERY risk is ridiculous. You can always do more (to the point where you just don't CLIMB). At some point, you have to say "good enough". The single ring people (I'm in that camp) are simply saying that a quality made, 50kN ring is SO FAR BEYOND good enough the the idea of "more good enough" is as silly as my phrase sounds.

There are SO many engineered things in life where the "redundancy" is created by over building it, not by duplicating it...

J. Albers wrote: That said, I was also taught (and I still believe) that you always seek to minimize every risk that you have control over. I doesn't matter how small or insignificant, if you can stack the deck in your favor, then you do it.

And yet it appears in your photos that something as simple as a helmet, which could help prevent injuries far more probable than a 50kN ring failure, is not a safety step you seek out?

Dom wrote: It's the system I use When cleaning/bolting with a grigri. Works awesome. Is that something you have ever done? (cleaning or bolting a route I mean) And who said anything about multipitch?

I clean with autoblock and I don't bolt ...I would not mind to bolt but its too much work and now im too busy with summer and all

I want reasons as to why claims that a single ring is ok are so vehemently dismissed while similar comparisons to arguably MORE VULNERABLE equipment are brushed off as non-relevant.

I agree that a super strong 50 KN ring would likely never break, if it were constructed and maintained properly. However, I think the difference for some people is the fact that the ring is going to be there for (hopefully) many many years to come, and will obviously wear with use, unlike the other single pieces of gear mentioned. It is much more likely that the belay biners, ropes, harnesses, etc. that folks are using will be maintained and replaced more often than (at least) every 30 years, which is not an unreasonable time frame for anchor hardware to be left in place - especially if it's done right. And which part of that set up do you suppose will wear first?

Rgold mentioned using glue-ins, and I agree that these would be the best long term solution. However, on "this side of the pond" (as some smartass so eloquently mentioned earlier), I would venture to guess that many more of the bolts (including anchors) are still getting placed ground up, which of course makes these more than just inconvenient.

Woodchuck ATC wrote:Just thinking: We take jumbo sport falls repeatedly on one bolt, so why not trust same single bolt for a rap which is not generating the force of a fall? Not that it is suggested, but I guess it could be safely done under circumstances.

Uhhh seriously? Because there is generally another bolt less than 10 feet below the one you are taking a whipper on. While an anchor will have only ONE bolt with no more below you. You seem brighter than that....

Jim Titt wrote:The friction is increased causing more rope wear and they usually cause vile twisting of the rope.

You are so full of shit we can smell ya from this side of the pond. Increased rope wear? Hahaha seriously?

And it can cause rope twisting sometimes but I have lowered off of hundred of two ring anchors and had my rope twist maybe once or twice, usually just a result of poor anchor placement.

Got anything else Jim or is that it?

Dale Remsberg wrote: There is simply no reason to have double rings. The single ring is 50kn. Twice as strong as the Locking carabiner that you belay lead climbers with. Now if you are belaying the leader with two lockers all the time then I could see why maybe you want two rings.

I would have no problem lowering off of one brand new ring. But as others said what about 20 years from now when that one ring has been lowered through a couple thousand times?

+1 for Glue Ins, I see many more in the near future, specifically for sandstone.

Downside? Well of course, they are a pain in the ass to place (takes twice as long), and are way more intricate then your standard expansion bolt.

BurtMachlan wrote: I would have no problem lowering off of one brand new ring. But as others said what about 20 years from now when that one ring has been lowered through a couple thousand times?

It gets replaced, just as you do with a 15kN belay loop that is showing signs of wear...

These inline, single ring chain sets are typically NOT used for lowering anchors although they certainly can be. They're better suited for rap stations where the wear comes from pulling the rope. That's A LOT of raps before they need replacement.

mattm wrote: It gets replaced, just as you do with a 15kN belay loop that is showing signs of wear... These inline, single ring chain sets are typically NOT used for lowering anchors although they certainly can be. They're better suited for rap stations where the wear comes from pulling the rope. That's A LOT of raps before they need replacement.

Oh cool Matt from Texas. On the first page of this forum, the picture that "brianinSLC" posted.... how exactly do you easily change out that one ring? Seems A LOT more complicated that simply swapping two quick links. Please do tell me I am looking forward to your response!

mattm wrote:So let's flip this around a little for all those so anti-single-ring... You dismiss counter points like one rope, one belay loop etc etc casually as if that's all and well understood. Why is it a HUGE deal to have a single ring (yes you could add two) but Not a Huge Deal to add: A Second Belay Loop? Second Rope? Second Belay Carabiner? Why is it A OK to trust your life to THAT ONE SINGLE ITEM (some of which receive far more force than a single rap ring EVER WILL). If one is so adamant that you take EVERY STEP, no MATTER HOW TRIVIAL to reduce risk, how is it that these single points of failure are so easily dismissed? - It is much harder to judge the condition and strength of a rope than it is a 50kN ring. - Same goes for nylon belay loop. - these fail more easily and at much lower loads than a SS Ring. Shouldn't we be more concerned with these items?

Okay, before I answer each of your questions, I just have to point out why your argument is flawed from the start. What you are essentially saying is the following:

"X has a higher probability of killing you than Y, so we can just go ahead and ignore Y"

Your argument is similar to a 65 year old smoker stating that he doesn't need to wear a seatbelt because, well, he has a much higher probability of dying from heart disease or lung cancer. Why bother with the seatbelt, right? That's his prerogative I guess, but X and Y do not represent conditional probabilities and thus any argument relating them is fatally flawed.

Anyway, to answer your questions concerning belay biners, belay loops, and ropes... As I stated in an earlier post, most decisions in climbing are a balance between safety and feasibility, hence my answers to your questions.

A second rope, belay biner, and belay loop: Are you really telling me that climbing a sport route with two ropes and two belay biners represents the same level of inconvenience and technical difficulty as threading a rope through two chain links instead of one at an anchor? Really?

Moreover, I would argue that a visual inspection of your belay loop and rope is far easier than judging the interior of a weld joint on a rap ring. Besides, as nbrown stated, my harness is not expected to last 20 years and is not exposed to the elements every day of every year.

In short, my decision is more or less based upon the following process. Can I make my system safer in a manner that is both feasible and manageable? How big of a safety margin do I gain by implementing said system? If the answer to these questions is:
A) I can improve my safety and the system is super easy to implement, then great, I will do it.
B) If I only increase my safety marginally and it is difficult to implement the system, then no, I don't do it.
C) If its some mixture of the above, then I don't know....I guess it depends.

As far as the one chain link versus two? I would say that it easily falls into category (A).

....I guess I should add that when I am ice climbing (pointy sh*t everywhere) or alpine climbing where sharp edges and/or rockfall are present, then yeah, I use double ropes.

mattm wrote: And yet it appears in your photos that something as simple as a helmet, which could help prevent injuries far more probable than a 50kN ring failure, is not a safety step you seek out?

I guess you busted me not wearing a helmet on a sport route. I do wear one ice climbing and trad/alpine climbing. That is my balance between convenience and the probability of an event occurring. But again, how exactly is this related to threading anchor chains?

BurtMachlan wrote: Uhhh seriously? Because there is generally another bolt less than 10 feet below the one you are taking a whipper on. While an anchor will have only ONE bolt with no more below you. You seem brighter than that....

Just saying that we usually expect every bolt to hold our falls, never thinking of blowing one out and heading for the next....not like trad gear placements,,,so if a falling body can be held on ONE bolt, it seems fair(not wise I said) to think a rap could be done on one bolt.

BurtMachlan wrote: Oh cool Matt from Texas. On the first page of this forum, the picture that "brianinSLC" posted.... how exactly do you easily change out that one ring? Seems A LOT more complicated that simply swapping two quick links. Please do tell me I am looking forward to your response!

Funny, there's another gentleman at my gym who lives in Texas as well. He also happens to have been a well known Yosemite climber BITD putting up proud FAs. I've met some pretty sorry climbers from Boulder or Nor Cal so location is not an indicator of skill...

As I've covered in other threads, my CURRENT location has absolutely nothing to do with my climbing experience or technical knowledge. I've lived in NY, NH, MA, CA, and WA and climbed in MANY more states and a few countries to boot over my 20+ year career.

While not high in quantity, I HAVE replaced hardware in multiple states and continue to do so in my current home state. I've pulled button heads, chopped and patched wedges, upgraded rusty 5-pieces to SS 1/2in goodness as well as swapped and upgraded anchors.

In regards to Brian's anchor: The ring will wear much less quickly than two QLs. Since the ring is free to rotate, the wear point should be different each time and thus the wear is distributed around the ring's entire circumference. Not so with the QLs as you're wearing one spot for the most part. I have no clue what the wear time difference is and I doubt most if any do...

However, when the time DOES come to replace it, it's true, the inline is not as easy or cheap to replace. You either replace the entire setup (unscrew bolts, swap and reinstall) OR you cut out the worn ring (I've used a cordless angle grinder) and replace with alternate hardware. Keep in mind that 2x SS rings and 2x SS quality QLs will run you the SAME as just buying another inline chain setup. (SS Rings are $6 each and SS QLs are $6ea ). Of course you could cheap out and buy PS but then you're worrying about corrosion issues and how GOOD those QLs are... I'd want to be redundant with funky PS QLs. In fact, I AM redundant with my QLs since they're NOT, IMO, in the same safety ball park as a 50kN ring.

Look, wear issues are something that does need to be taken into consideration when choosing hardware. I currently DON'T use inline chains for my anchors because they're higher use lower offs and the average local user probably doesn't have much experience with a vertical, inline rap station.

How's the below replacement work look to you Burt? It was 2 rusty 5 pieces with single rings that twisted the rope something fierce when you lowered before I replaced it. Not bad for a Texan...

Titt Bolt Anchor with SS QLs to G43 Chain to PS QLs to Mussy Hooks. Good To Go

BurtMachlan wrote: Uhhh seriously? Because there is generally another bolt less than 10 feet below the one you are taking a whipper on. While an anchor will have only ONE bolt with no more below you. You seem brighter than that....

FBI Agent BurtMachlan, how many times have you taken a whipper and had the bolt you were clipped into fail? And how many people do you know who this has happened to? How many people have you ever heard of this happening to?

P.S. lol at Ellenor's random instructions for single strand rappel.

P.P.S. Do Jim's apostrophes look different to anyone else? Kinda like a backwards " ` " I'm a little jealous.

J, I have a proposition for you. You stop crying about this non-issue, and I won't force you to climb any routes equipped with the single-rap-ring death anchor. Deal or No Deal?

Thanks for the condescension Jim. And no, you didn't answer my question in any of your previous posts (I just reread them to make sure that I didn't miss anything).

"Inline chainsets to a single attatchment point are more versatile for installation, use less material and resources, cheaper, HAVE LOWER FRICTION, REDUCE TWISTING and are the system of choice for 99% of applications."

I´ve bolded the bits from the post I made on the top of P3.