Will an ATC actually damage my dynamic rope when rappelling down it?

Idaho Bob wrote:Not only does rappelling reduce chain wear, it reduces the amount of twist put into the rope.

Twist isn't an issue if the anchors are installed properly

Greg D wrote: You're kidding. Right?

Nope.

I have read your posts on this in the past and understand your arguments. I don't think we will ever agree on this one. A waste of time rehashing it.

Then you know that there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods. You just implied that it's a totally new and outrageous technique or he had a misinformed teacher. At least that was my interpretation.

Carry on.

Greg D wrote:Then you know that there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods. You just implied that it's a totally new and outrageous technique or he had a misinformed teacher. Carry on.

Didn't mean to imply anything of the sort, actually. I recall having the same opinion many years ago, but can't remember how I developed it. I suspect wfscot is a little closer to his climbing origins temporally and probably has a better memory than me no matter what!

I've personally replaced multiple anchor setups that were worn through by lowering through fixed chains or rap rings. Most of these are routes that were put up 5-10 years ago as well. Sure, most of the time you don't have to replace the bolts, but it still cost me $20 for new stainless rap rings, and quicklinks for each anchor. $20 that could have been saved if people just rapped! But the people that lower and TR through rap rings never see the money or work side of things because they don't do the work... I've never met a route developer that lowers off the anchors unless they are biners or mussy's.
Rappelling vs lowering takes the same amount of time and holds the same risks. You still have to untie your knot, you still have to thread it through the rap rings or quicklinks, or chain. You still can't have your belay partner check your work, so either way you are on your own. At least with rappelling, you take one person out of the equation.

I'm totally with David on this. First, the people calling "troll" in fact have no idea what the motivations of the poster are, and anyone who asks a question that turns out to be controversial is going to be branded a troll by someone. The only people who are clearly trolls, which is to say people who are interested in fomenting controversy without any contribution to content, are, amusingly enough, the people shouting "troll," which is meant to discredit the poster and trivialize the responses.

Personally, I look at the content of the question and ignore the supposed motivations of the poster. And if the content is something that could produce useful discussion for some people out there, and if I think I have something helpful to say, then I'll respond. I couldn't care less if the OP was trolling or not.

So, back to the subject. Rappelling with an ATC slowly wears out the rope. If you want to view this as "damage," that isn't wrong, but "wear" has connotations different from "damage," even if damage is the mechanism by which wear occurs. What we know for sure is that a lot of rappelling significantly reduces the number of UIAA test falls a rope can hold, which means the ability of the rope to recover something like its original elasticity declines. In addition, some ropes suffer surface wear more than others from rap devices; I've seen a fine nylon "dust" on an ATC with some ropes. Of course, rappelling too fast can glaze the sheath, but that is a failure of technique and prudence rather than a problem with an ATC.

I have no idea whether lowering is any better for a rope, but seriously doubt it.

rgold wrote:I'm totally with David on this. First, the people calling "troll" in fact have no idea what the motivations of the poster are, and anyone who asks a question that turns out to be controversial is going to be branded a troll by someone. The only people who are clearly trolls, which is to say people who are interested in fomenting controversy without any contribution to content, are, amusingly enough, the people shouting "troll," which is meant to discredit the poster and trivialize the responses. Personally, I look at the content of the question and ignore the supposed motivations of the poster. And if the content is something that could produce useful discussion for some people out there, and if I think I have something helpful to say, then I'll respond. I couldn't care less if the OP was trolling or not.

Thanks for the long winded and pc way of calling me a troll. Well done.

I'm going to actuality climb now. Y'all enjoy Internet stuff.

Micah Klesick wrote:I've personally replaced multiple anchor setups that were worn through by lowering through fixed chains or rap rings. Most of these are routes that were put up 5-10 years ago as well. Sure, most of the time you don't have to replace the bolts, but it still cost me $20 for new stainless rap rings, and quicklinks for each anchor. $20 that could have been saved if people just rapped! But the people that lower and TR through rap rings never see the money or work side of things because they don't do the work... I've never met a route developer that lowers off the anchors unless they are biners or mussy's. Rappelling vs lowering takes the same amount of time and holds the same risks. You still have to untie your knot, you still have to thread it through the rap rings or quicklinks, or chain. You still can't have your belay partner check your work, so either way you are on your own. At least with rappelling, you take one person out of the equation.

I've asked route developers here in the Front Range for their opinions, which has universally been to lower. They prefer to replace gear than see further rap/lowering accidents.

Again, I don't see much point rehashing the issue.

If we could foster a practice of leaving anchor biners in place, all sport routes could have easily replaced lowering biners, but that seems to be beyond the capabilities of many.

Mike Collins wrote:you just gotta rap as fast as possible and get that baby cookin so you can light up with your atc when you get down

I would love to see this.

Micah Klesick wrote:I've personally replaced multiple anchor setups that were worn through by lowering through fixed chains or rap rings. Most of these are routes that were put up 5-10 years ago as well. Sure, most of the time you don't have to replace the bolts, but it still cost me $20 for new stainless rap rings, and quicklinks for each anchor. $20 that could have been saved if people just rapped! But the people that lower and TR through rap rings never see the money or work side of things because they don't do the work... I've never met a route developer that lowers off the anchors unless they are biners or mussy's. Rappelling vs lowering takes the same amount of time and holds the same risks. You still have to untie your knot, you still have to thread it through the rap rings or quicklinks, or chain. You still can't have your belay partner check your work, so either way you are on your own. At least with rappelling, you take one person out of the equation.

Do you never climb at smith? I never see anyone rappelling off of anything easier than 5.11

if yr in squamish, if theres chains where one can easily add quicklinks ... just lower

many developer out here dont mind if folks lower ... in fact some suggest it

the exceptions usually are hard to replace single rings usually horizontally spaced, and metolius rap hangers

one place where its almost always faster and safer to lower ... steep overhangs and traversing climbs ...

as to "wear" ...

according to mammut lowering puts twice the wear on yr rope vs.rapping ...

if yr TR banging the crag all day then it wont matter ... but if all you do id lead and then clean the gear (and rarely fall/project) on climbs then there probably is a bit of difference

;)