Inquery about a certain climbing practice with regards to belaying the 2nd up
|
I've now seen the following practice more than once, and so I wanted to query the climbing community for their opinion on it. |
|
First, it is every climbers place, right, and responsibility to question the practices of their climbing partners. Your lives are in each other's hands, and you should both welcome double-checking each other and opportunities for learning from each other. You should be respectful, and say something like "Hey I've never seen this done this way, it seems like it might not be as safe, can you explain why you do it this way?" and hopefully their response will be something like "Good question! Here's why..." or "Wow, good point, I'll have to do some more thinking/research about this" |
|
Harness belays and, before that, hip belays were standard for a good half-century. If the belayer knows what the hell they are doing (something that cannot be assumed) there is no problem with such belays. If the belay tie-in is slack (not a good sign, because there is no reason for it to be), then the harness belay is still ok if the belayer understands the ancient art of bracing. (Look for grey hairs...) |
|
"With hanging belays, you have to redirect. " |
|
"... the difficulty one might have in keeping a 180 degree angle between the climber strand and the break strand in the case of a fall. " |
|
Bill Lawry wrote:"With hanging belays, you have to redirect. " Why? Maybe I'm a rock, but I can't imagine why a redirect would be mandatory even if having to escape the belay.Hanging belays typically oblige the belayer to face the rock, so the redirect is the most natural thing for the position. Belaying off the harness without redirecting in a hanging belay might expose the belayer to some strange and unpleasant twisting loads. spencerparkin wrote:The main problem I saw with belaying directly off the harness is the difficulty one might have in keeping a 180 degree angle between the climber strand and the break strand in the case of a fall. If that's difficult to do...Stop right there. It isn't difficult to do, its trivial. That said, with a harness-position belay, you don't keep the rope at 180 degrees when taking in, any more than you would keep it at 180 degrees when pumping slack to the leader. In both cases, there is a rope management position and a lock-off position, and the belayer moves between them depending on the demands of the moment. Being able to do this goes under the heading of "basic competence." |
|
Spencer, stop posting stupid shit like this in the Utah forum. It belongs somewhere far, far from here. Put it in the general climbing section in the "I'm unable to think things through on my own" thread. |
|
I believe Freedom of the Hills cautions to keep your tie in on the same side as your brake hand when belaying a 2nd up directly from your harness. You're likely facing down while belaying, and if a fall pulls all your weight onto your tie-in, you may be rotated so you're facing the rock. You want that rotation to naturally pull the brake strand away from the load strand, rather than rotate you into an un-braked position. |
|
Fiona Dunne wrote:I believe Freedom of the Hills cautions to keep your tie in on the same side as your brake hand when belaying a 2nd up directly from your harness. You're likely facing down while belaying, and if a fall pulls all your weight onto your tie-in, you may be rotated so you're facing the rock. You want that rotation to naturally pull the brake strand away from the load strand, rather than rotate you into an un-braked position.If you use the technique I described, you don't have to worry about any of this and the belay is more comfortable and more secure to boot. What's not to like? |
|
W T F you mean there is another way than off your harness, beats the shit out of hip belays. |
|
Yes... belaying the second up with your device connected directly to the anchors :) |
|
spencerparkin wrote:Okay, here's what I'm talking about... See page 49 of "Rock Climbing Anchors, A Comprehensive Guide" by Graig Luebben. Lots of good information here.I don't have that book. But I have "Advanced Rock Climbing" by Long and Luebben. In that book, the first sentence on page 99 is "Usually, you'll belay directly off your harness." Personally, I'm one of the guys mentioned above (the ones with grey hairs, lol). I've climbed since 1977, and presently climb (trad only) about 30-45 days a year. I belay off my harness while tied to gear anchors that I build, and prefer my belayers do the same (assuming they know what they are doing). If they are more familiar with other methods, and the situation is amenable, using the method you they are most familiar with is usually the safest though. |
|
spencerparkin wrote:Okay, here's what I'm talking about... See page 49 of "Rock Climbing Anchors, A Comprehensive Guide" by Graig Luebben. Lots of good information here.You can view this page by going to the book's listing on amazon.com and typing "belay off the harness" into the search box labeled Search Inside This Book. The page describes the various possible twisting loads on the belayer belaying off the harness in the traditional way. Luebben is apparently unaware of the method I described, that avoids these problems most of the time. I learned this method years ago on rec.climbing from Chris Harmston, at the time a BD engineer and one of the most technically astute commentators on climbing ever. The technique is fairly common in the UK, see for example ukclimbing.com/articles/pag… . Luebben also says that harness belays complicate belay escape. Well, you might think you can't beat a guide plate for that, since you can just walk away from it. But if you have to unweight the guide plate as part of the rescue, the situation is just as complex (or, if you wish just as simple) as escaping a harness belay. Our brethren across the Pond are more enthusiastic about harness belays than we have become, so are naturally more inclined to explain how to escape them. See for example ukclimbing.com/articles/pag… , but note that the belayer is using the "rope loop" harness belay I've been advocating, not the "belay loop" harness belay. |
|
here is what you do biatch! |
|
spencerparkin wrote:Great video on that 2nd link.A couple of points about the video on escaping the belay: 1. A mule knot and Munter-mule-overhand (MMO) are good to know in rescue situations. I first use a mule knot to tie off at the belay device, which might be a bit easier than their method if you have a small belay biner. (The mule knot is really quick with a bit of practice, and comes in handy for taking pictures.) 2. If you need to escape the belay, I would use an MMO to attach the klemheist loop biner to the anchor, tied with the end of the brake strand (which comes off the belayer's clove hitch at the anchor). Next back up the klemheist with a slack loop of the climbing rope tied to the anchor, transfer the weight onto the klemheist, remove the rope from your belay device, and finally tie another MMO onto the anchor (using the slack loop of the rope). After removing the remaining slack, you can now release the klemheist to return your second's weight back to the climbing rope, and, importantly, you now have the option of lowering your second, if necessary. @rgold: I really like the idea of using the rope loop when belaying off the harness -- thanks for the tip. |
|
Rocky_Mtn_High wrote: I really like the idea of using the rope loop when belaying off the harness.Yes, and leave the device there when the second takes over the lead. Having the device on the rope loop for leader belays means that if there are big leader fall forces, they will be transmitted to the belay anchor (via the energy-absorbing rope tie-in) rather than creating twisting and tearing loads on the harness. In fact, this is the context of the original comment by Chris Harmston. |