To use the belay loop or the tie-in loops?
|
Greg D wrote: Biners breaking is far from just theoretical. Many have broken in the field over the years. I don't know of any belay biners though. But, biners are the second weakest link in the climbing system. They do warrant protecting.Let's use the statement in the context it was made and that is specifically using a biner to belay on through the tie in loops. The theoretical failure, assuming your biner isn't cross loaded, is the tri-axial loading you could get from the tie in points separating during a fall and providing load from multiple directions. I have never read a report or seen real testing so its pretty much theoretical unless someone can provide test data. |
|
Very unlikely that anything would happen if you belay off tie-in points, yet belaying off the belay loop is better. |
|
I recall reading some document a while back, from Petzl I think ;) It stated that carbines can break as little as 80 pounds when loaded across the actual gate. I've been using ANSI rated stuff (16 kn gate strength) for important connections lately. Both DMM & CMI make some light alloy ones. |
|
I follow the manufacturers specifications. People keep bringing up the Alpine Bod. That harness is built differently then a standard climbing harness. Yes back in the day the diaper style harness was the norm and as such you used a carabiner through the leg loop and waist belt to connect it. However if you look at an Alpine Bod or Bod harness they are built differently then a regular sit harness. The leg loop "loop" is longer making it join with the waist belt higher, eliminating the triaxial loading that is common when a regular harness is connected using a carabiner. Using a carabiner to attach the legs and waist of a regular (non diaper style ) harness is not a good idea. Here is a link to what BD has to say about it: |
|
Sunny-D wrote:I follow the manufacturers specifications. People keep bringing up the Alpine Bod. That harness is built differently then a standard climbing harness. Yes back in the day the diaper style harness was the norm and as such you used a carabiner through the leg loop and waist belt to connect it. However if you look at an Alpine Bod or Bod harness they are built differently then a regular sit harness. The leg loop "loop" is longer making it join with the waist belt higher, eliminating the triaxial loading that is common when a regular harness is connected using a carabiner. Using a carabiner to attach the legs and waist of a regular (non diaper style ) harness is not a good idea. Here is a link to what BD has to say about it: blackdiamondequipment.com/e… Here is another one: blackdiamondequipment.com/e… I would think that the companies that stand to be sued over gear failure would have the final say in how their gear works the best and how it is intended to be used and should be used. Just my thoughts Dallenactually in neither of your two links does it say explicitly not to belay off the tie in points as to the "leg loop" being higher with the alpine bod ... all it takes is for someone taller with with a bigger waist to crotch gap for that argument to go out the window ... if that was the case then people with big "crotch gaps" shouldnt be using alpine bods ... which of course isnt the case theres a reason why BD makes 2 of these harnesses ... im still waiting for someone to bring up an actual accident report where the biner failed in a real life belay situation with this configuration ... there are MANY things in climbing that WILL kill you ... this aint one of those big killers... |
|
Avalon'cha wrote:I recall reading some document a while back, from Petzl I think ;) It stated that carbines can break as little as 80 pounds when loaded across the actual gate. I've been using ANSI rated stuff (16 kn gate strength) for important connections lately. Both DMM & CMI make some light alloy ones.thats from BD and nose hooking ... not a problem with properly locked lockers a biner cross loaded will meet a minimum rating of 7 KN .... ;) |
|
bearbreeder wrote: thats from BD and nose hooking ... not a problem with properly locked lockers a biner cross loaded will meet a minimum rating of 7 KN .... ;)No, it was not regarding cross loading, at least not the way we think of it. But rather, a load resting on the actual gate, not the nose. And it will break much lower than the rated cross load strength, weather it's locked or not makes no difference. In fact I believe that wire gates averaged the strongest for gate strength. |
|
Avalon'cha wrote: No, it was not regarding cross loading, at least not the way we think of it. But rather, a load resting on the actual gate, not the nose. And it will break much lower than the rated cross load strength, weather it's locked or not makes no difference. In fact I believe that wire gates averaged the strongest for gate strength.the UIAA crossload test IS a test with the load on the gate ;) |
|
Avalon'cha wrote: No, it was not regarding cross loading, at least not the way we think of it. But rather, a load resting on the actual gate, not the nose. And it will break much lower than the rated cross load strength, weather it's locked or not makes no difference. In fact I believe that wire gates averaged the strongest for gate strength.Let's see the data. |
|
rging wrote: Let's use the statement in the context it was made and that is specifically using a biner to belay on through the tie in loops. The theoretical failure, assuming your biner isn't cross loaded, is the tri-axial loading you could get from the tie in points separating during a fall and providing load from multiple directions. I have never read a report or seen real testing so its pretty much theoretical unless someone can provide test data.see the link i posted at the end of page 2. |
|
|
|
Sunny-D wrote:I would think that the companies that stand to be sued over gear failure would have the final say in how their gear works the best and how it is intended to be used and should be used.I agree. But there are pig-headed people out there like the OP's "mentor" who feel they are smarter. As others have said, it makes you wonder what other "improvements" they've incorporated into their climbing practice. |
|
20 kN wrote: Proponents of the myth state that threading the biner through the tie-in points is safer because it is redundant, unlike most belay loops.Metolius SafeTech harnesses remove this concern with double belay loops. |
|
Ryan Kempf wrote:Oh god... Here we go.I apologize for my comments above. You were right. I should have known better; I've been around here long enough. What a joke. |
|
Syd wrote: Metolius SafeTech harnesses remove this concern with double belay loops.I didn't realize we were shooting for complete redundancy. I suppose everyone will be using two ropes and two belayers starting next year as well. |
|
I suspect that a good deal of the fuss started from a report in the UIAA journal a few years ago (I think by Pit Schubert) documenting some failures in which a figure-eight device had indeed levered open a locking biner clipped through the tie-in points of a harness. My memory is that there had been more than one incident and I think a fatality. |
|
Syd wrote: Metolius SafeTech harnesses remove this concern with double belay loops.As does the BD Big Gun. However, the point of the dual belay loops is not really for redundancy, but rather to simplify operations in a multi-pitch environment. Although I have never found them to really simplify things that much. There really is not much I can do with a dual belay loop that I cannot do with a single. When I belay using a harness with dual belay loops, typically I only clip one. Since the chance of belay loop failure is almost zero, clipping both yields virtually no advantage. However, if I clip both, the chance of crossloading the carabiner increase as I now have roughly 1 3/8" of webbing running through the biner as opposed to 11/16" (the belay loops sit side-by-side, not under-and-over). |
|
3 pages really? Tie in through leg and waist, belay/rappel off the loop. End of discussion. |
|
Not to open up another can of worms, but how do people feel about personal anchors girthed through belay loops. I was taught that all soft materials go through the hard points since they're reinforced to take the nylon on nylon wear, but I see tons of people girthing slings and PAS systems through the belay loop. Thoughts? |
|
Can opened. |