Top Rope Anchor Question?

Locker wrote:" Two is better than one for any anchor, locking or not, IMO. Think SERENE. but 3 is better than 2… " I prefer to use 17 because it's safer. ;-)

Locker, you always make me laugh.

I use two opposite opposed screw lockers. I've watched some unsettling things happen to my magnetic lockers (never while being used as top anchors but w/e). Redundancy is a good thing though I don't think I could fit 17 on most bolts I've encountered. I usually use two personal anchors too cause I'm that kind of person.

I just thought of this for some reason jump to the 1:20 mark
youtube.com/watch?v=bsAiOYX…

Eliot Augusto wrote:It's a matter of preference. I personally prefer the sliding x with 1 single large locker for the rope and two regular biner sized lockers for the bolts. I feel that is a bit overkill 99% of the time, but there might be that 1% I have to worry about.

One sling and one biner at the masterpoint, i.e. NO REDUNDANCY, and you think that's overkill?? What in the world could you possibly do with any less, maybe run the rope through the sling without a biner?

What if the one locking carabiner you use has micro fractures ?

Think about it . Micro fractures.

Did I mention how good the General Tso's chicken is here?

Paul.... thanks for the vid...made me spit coffee on keyboard.

esp the "Master Point"

NickinCO wrote: but 4 lockers is even better than 3

To the beginners out there who are reading this - the redundancy principle (the R in SRENE) does not equate to "more is better" as our clown Nick is advancing in this thread. It means you aren't hanging a life on a single point of failure. So one sling, one locker = not redundant. Two slings, two biners (your preference re. locking or not) = redundant.

The anchor is either redundant or it isn't. If you want to climb on a non-redundant anchor, that's your choice, but let's be clear on what the term means.

Gunkiemike wrote: The anchor is either redundant or it isn't. If you want to climb on a non-redundant anchor, that's your choice, but let's be clear on what the term means.

False. There are almost always parts of the system that are not redundant. Some set ups may be more or less redundant than others but its not just either/or.

The amount of redundancy deemed "necessary" depends on the situation.

Bolts on a sport route? Two quickdraws is fine. (Or two lockers or whatever).

Gear anchor on a trad route? Probably want at least three pieces if you can.

Bail anchor on Pony Express? Throw a #2 micronut in the general direction of a crack and lower off that shit.

tl;dr OP, your partner is right.

P.S. stop top roping sport routes

vincent L. wrote:What if the one locking carabiner you use has micro fractures ? Think about it . Micro fractures.

That's why I carry a micro fracture refracter repair kit when I climb.

Ryan Watts wrote: False. There are almost always parts of the system that are not redundant. Some set ups may be more or less redundant than others but its not just either/or. That being said, OP, just use two quickdraws.

Yes, there are other parts of the system that are not redundant. But IMO, this is part of the system that cannot be constantly visually inspected. Therefore, I cannot visually verify that the rope is staying in that one biner or that the single sling is still intact, or that the single locker has remained locked. This is why I consider it essential to have a TR anchor redundant. There are other non-redundant parts to our systems, but many can be visually inspected (belay biner or connection to an anchor MP while belaying from that anchor). Still other parts, like the rope, I consider robust enough or too inconvenient to back up to not warrant redundancy. This is almost never the case with a simple TR setup. And 99.99% of the time on a 2 bolt sport climb anchor, a simple 2-draw setup fits my criteria.

edit...I know this response doesn't address your reply above. In fact, it may be pretty irrelevant to it, but I thought it worth mentioning anyway.

csproul wrote: Yes, there are other parts of the system that are not redundant. But IMO, this is part of the system that cannot be constantly visually inspected. Therefore, I cannot visually verify that the rope is staying in that one biner or that the single sling is still intact, or that the single locker has remained locked. This is why I consider it essential to have a TR anchor redundant. There are other non-redundant parts to our systems, but many can be visually inspected (belay biner or connection to an anchor MP while belaying from that anchor). Still other parts, like the rope, I consider robust enough or too inconvenient to back up to not warrant redundancy. This is almost never the case with a simple TR setup. And 99.99% of the time on a 2 bolt sport climb anchor, a simple 2-draw setup fits my criteria. edit...I know this response doesn't address your reply above. In fact, it may be pretty irrelevant to it, but I thought it worth mentioning anyway.

Oh I agree. Just making the point that "redundancy" is not some yes/no box you check.

Two draws, with the rope end biners opposed. Check the bolt-side biners to make sure they're not rubbing against the rock and opening the gates(you can flip the biners if it bothers you). If there is any chance someone may pull the rope and lead the route, DO NOT LOCK THE DAMN BINERS! or give the leader an anchor draw. Nothing worse than trying to unscrew the stupid locker at the chains.

Top roping?????

I rather use zero biners.....