Anchor building with the rope

David Coley wrote:... The only thing I know of that is faster (and doesn't involve belaying with a munter, or moving together) is the following...

This is a great technique for reducing to almost nil the possibility of the next leader falling directly on the belay. It works fine for trad as well. Of course, it takes more time to place the corresponding pro before clipping it in this situation but hardly more than the classic trad belay system set-up. It works fine (but slightly differently) for block leads rather than swinging. It's my preferred method for protecting the beginning of the next pitch when it can be implemented safely.

Finally, for this

David Coley wrote:... 2. climb to first bolt on next pitch, clip with draw...

- It's best to use a locking draw for that first draw of the next pitch to make redirecting off of it safer, especially if it will be out of easy reach of the belayer while he is bringing up the second.
- If swinging, that top draw should be back-clipped by the previous leader so it is correctly clipped for the second-turned-leader.

David Coley wrote:Hi, Hopefully a couple of useful comments: 1. re Jasons video. I sometimes use a setup similar to this but - I form the main overhand/butterfly as my first act. Then simply rig everything from there on a big fat HMS.

I think that would make it pretty much the system I posted.

David Coley wrote: I have timed how long various systems take - using the rope is not slower than a cordelette, even when not swinging leaders. The key is to carry 3 carabiners (your magic carabiners). The second simply clips these to the three pieces and ties in.

I've also timed it and reached the same conclusion for the leader. In fact, I think an efficient rope method is usually slightly faster than deploying and "undeploying" a cordelette. The reason is that the rigging takes about the same time, but, unlike the rope, the cordelette has to be unwrapped and then wrapped up again.

I also have taken to using the "magic carabiner" method for the second (we need four carabiners, not three, for a three-point anchor), but having the second rebuild the anchor rigging can't possibly be as fast as just clipping into a cordelette, although the difference is surprisingly small and not of consequence unless the route is very long.

David Coley wrote: a sensible way to act is not to confine yourself to a single system. Do whatever you fancy that is safe, or the belay suggests.

Here here!

David mentions a redirected belay through the first bolt on the next pitch, and jkinst mentions the relevance for trad as well. I would caution that for trad this is not a technique to be used by people new to gear-placing; you have to absolutely know that the redirect piece is solid. This is not a hypothetical concern, we had a nasty accident in the Gunks precisely with this method when the redirect blew, possibly because the load came from an unanticipated direction.

Here's my favorite, very well explained in this video.

climbinglife.com/instructio…

rgold wrote: ... David mentions a redirected belay through the first bolt on the next pitch, and jkinst mentions the relevance for trad as well. I would caution that for trad this is not a technique to be used by people new to gear-placing; you have to absolutely know that the redirect piece is solid. This is not a hypothetical concern, we had a nasty accident in the Gunks precisely with this method when the redirect blew, possibly because the load came from an unanticipated direction.

Absolutely. I’ve said before when discussing this approach (and was taken to task for it) that the redirect anchor should be treated almost like a TR anchor in terms of its “failure-proofness”. My preference for this redirect anchor in a trad situation is two solid and equalized pros with a locker (or two opposed-gates biners) for CP. I would use the single locker draw I mentioned above only for a bolt.

Do you have a reference for that Gunks accident?

jktinst, my sources were personal communication. There is a little about it on gunks.com: gunks.com/ubbthreads7/ubbth…. I couldn't find a reference using the search tool for ANAM, but in any case either the Preserve reporting is nearly worthless or the ANAM edits the reports down to worthlessness (I've heard both claims).

Once you start building a top-rope anchor, the speed advantages mentioned by David evaporate.

An interesting possibility that I've never tried to work out in practice is simply building the belay anchor at the location of the first piece on the next pitch and then lowering back down to belay. This is often touted as a strategy for handling run-out leads in which the leader is destined to fall on the belay anchor, but it could work more generally too.

Jake T wrote:I use Rgolds anchor minus the powerpoint (edit: and redirect)

Just curious how you belay with no powerpoint or redirect? Just off the harness?

jktinst wrote:...the redirect anchor should be treated almost like a TR anchor in terms of its “failure-proofness”.

I'd even suggest removing "almost" from that statement.

Nathanael wrote: Just curious how you belay with no powerpoint or redirect? Just off the harness?

Yep. It's what I and my partners do 90% of the time, maybe more.

I too belay off the harness, in a manner of speaking, much of the time, although I find myself using the direct anchor belay more and more when speed and efficiency count a lot. My harness belay is really a kind of anchor belay too, because my belay device goes on the rope tie-in loop, not the harness belay loop, and my tie-in is installed with no slack at all. The load of one (or two) seconds falling is transmitted, via the taut tie-in, directly to the anchor.

That said, I've found it useful to use the power-point loop anyway rather than clipping everything back to the tie-in loop. One advantage is that the the belayer can untie without undoing the anchor rigging. Coley and Kirkpatrick call this the DIL method.

So in rgold's photo:

The alpine butterfly is only there in case I need to escape the belay, but in doing so I must untie the rope. Right? Why does the free side of the rope need to go through the power point, if I escape the belay? I'm a little confused by that.

The option redirect point. Can I use a belay device in guide mode directly from that point safely? Or is that designed solely as a redirect for when the follow becomes the lead? If so, would I belay off my harness or the master point instead of using a device in guide mode?

Mathias wrote:So in rgold's photo: The alpine butterfly is only there in case I need to escape the belay, but in doing so I must untie the rope. Right? Why does the free side of the rope need to go through the power point, if I escape the belay? I'm a little confused by that.

At an early point in the self-rescue process, you will want to transfer the belay load to the anchor. That means transferring it to that "free side" strand. If you don't clip the "free side" strand back to the power point, then that strand will put the load on only one piece (the right-hand piece in the diagram) rather than on the entire anchor.

Mathias wrote:The option redirect point. Can I use a belay device in guide mode directly from that point safely? Or is that designed solely as a redirect for when the follow becomes the lead? If so, would I belay off my harness or the master point instead of using a device in guide mode?

Honestly, I almost never use that redirect point. If the two pieces are excellent, you could certainly put a guide plate on it if it is positioned conveniently. Since I have control over where the power point is located, I would usually choose that over the redirect point for installing a direct belay. If the redirect is used for belaying the second, you would typically belay off your harness in the same way you would belay the leader. Many folks using Grigris like to do this.

rgold wrote: At an early point in the self-rescue process, you will want to transfer the belay load to the anchor. That means transferring it to that "free side" strand. If you don't clip the "free side" strand back to the power point, then that strand will put the load on only one piece (the right-hand piece in the diagram) rather than on the entire anchor. Honestly, I almost never use that redirect point. If the two pieces are excellent, you could certainly put a guide plate on it if it is positioned conveniently. Since I have control over where the power point is located, I would usually choose that over the redirect point for installing a direct belay. If the redirect is used for belaying the second, you would typically belay off your harness in the same way you would belay the leader. Many folks using Grigris like to do this.

Thanks for the speedy reply.

So I can use a guide plate off the power point with no issues, I just need to tie it far enough away to be able to operate the device smoothly and manage the rope?

Tying off the free side to the power point makes total sense after your explanation.

Mathias wrote: So I can use a guide plate off the power point with no issues, I just need to tie it far enough away to be able to operate the device smoothly and manage the rope?

Yup.

You are still likely to encounter situations in which the guide plate belay off the anchor is not the best choice---an example is when the anchor is very low (like at foot level). Then a seated harness belay, preferably, in my opinion, the version I described above, is going to work better.

rgold wrote: I think that would make it pretty much the system I posted.

But without the redirect.

I've also timed it and reached the same conclusion for the leader. ....... I but having the second rebuild the anchor rigging can't possibly be as fast as just clipping into a cordelette

There seems to be no difference in the time. This is assuming both are well practiced. If the three points are close as bolts often are, cordelette might win. If further apart rope wins, i.e. trad, as the arms of the cordelette need extending which is faff.

One problem with the cordelette approach is to make it quick you do have to find good pieces that are easy to place that are close to each other. Often on trad the easy to place piece is just out of cordelette reach. Once you need to start using additional slings the seconds slip by.

David Coley wrote: But without the redirect.

I'm kinda sorry I even put the redirect in there. It is just something you can easily do with a slack piece of rope.

David Coley wrote: If the three points are close as bolts often are, cordelette might win.

That's the set-up I timed. The cordelette doesn't win if you count (as is only fair) the undoing and redoing of the cordelette for transportation.

David Coley wrote: If further apart rope wins, i.e. trad, as the arms of the cordelette need extending which is faff. One problem with the cordelette approach is to make it quick you do have to find good pieces that are easy to place that are close to each other. Often on trad the easy to place piece is just out of cordelette reach. Once you need to start using additional slings the seconds slip by.

Good point, I didn't account for any of that in my little test.

Guys, just out of interest, how fast are you talking?

Oh, and as I'm using rope to build the anchor, as my partner may also be doing, it is best to us a 70m if possible? I realize this is a route and pitch length dependent question, but I'd hate for either myself or my partner to just run out of rope before a belay station.

Mathias wrote:Guys, just out of interest, how fast are you talking? Oh, and as I'm using rope to build the anchor, as my partner may also be doing, it is best to us a 70m if possible? I realize this is a route and pitch length dependent question, but I'd hate for either myself or my partner to just run out of rope before a belay station.

1. My rule when teaching is that once the pro is in (don't want to rush that bit) then you should aim for a time of 5 seconds per piece. So a normal three point belay built with the rope takes 15seconds. A DIL belay is harder to set, and you have to tie the little loop, so allow 30seconds. If someone takes 3minutes to tie the knots, that is an hour on a 20 pitch route.

2. Fit the rope to the route. The guide book should say how long the pitches are. If you have 60m ropes and are looking at a 60m pitch, then this might be a reason to build the belays on that one pitch with slings.

Thanks Rich. Interesting read, that gunks.com thread. Not quite the same redirect situation but close enough and the lessons are certainly applicable.

The three approaches I routinely use to try to eliminate the possibility (or to minimize the impact) of falling directly on the belay anchor are (in order of preference):
- Clip the first progression anchor of the next pitch at the end of the previous one.
- Place the first couple of progression pros of the pitch at arm’s length, using the double rope technique to clip them with one rope while remaining at or below the previous one and being securely belayed on it with the other rope.
- Lower the belayer to belay from a few metres below the main belay anchor.

There is a small time penalty involved in applying one of these three approaches (about the same for each of the three), compared to more classic trad anchor building methods of the same ilk. I use these approaches for the greater safety they provide and consider the time cost a small price to pay.

Regarding the option of

rgold wrote:...simply building the belay anchor at the location of the first piece on the next pitch and then lowering back down to belay.

That is exactly what I mean by clipping the first progression anchor of the next pitch at the end of the previous one.

If you meant more specifically building a bombproof, minimum 3-pro, anchor at that location, I would point out that it would be silly to do that and then neglect to also build some sort of anchor at the main belay location. However, building those two anchors in this manner will most likely mean that the system will be overkill and take more time to build. In addition, the first progression pro location seldom has a good stance for building a full-on belay anchor.

To be clear, I try to take advantage of the greater safety available at the end of the previous pitch to build that first progression pro of the next one fairly high above the main belay (like 3-4 m, if permitted by the rope still available)

I feel that those two anchors together fill the function of the single traditional belay anchor and shouldn’t have to be collectively much more bombproof than that one. My preferred set-up is a “first-lead-progression” and “redirect-second-belaying” anchor made of two equalized downward pros, and a “belayer-securing” anchor at the main belay position also made of two equalized downward pros, possibly complemented by a 3rd upward pull pro. I find that I can usually fairly easily prepare ahead of time the pros and cordage I think I will need for the two-pro progression anchor from the relative comfort of the main belay position but am quite sure that going for 3 pros would add significantly more complication and require a lot more effort.

What I see most often

rgold wrote:...touted as a strategy for handling run-out leads in which the leader is destined to fall on the belay anchor, but it could work more generally too.

is what I list as my third approach of lowering the belayer below the main belay position. As I explained in another thread a couple of years ago, I prefer to use this approach mainly when there are no pro placement options either immediately above or below the main belay anchor. If such options are available, it’s likely that one or both of the other approaches can be used, avoiding various downsides of the lowered belayer approach.

Billcoe wrote:I'll take a shot at this since no one else has: You arrive at the belay station and there is a crack straight above you that is also the next pitch. Assuming you are in a good stance position, plug a cam in @ chest high, grab 2 nuts put one in @ a foot above, the next a foot above that. Clove hitch the cam, then the next piece (so that there is no slack to the cam), then the highest piece (again so that there is no slack to the middle piece). Equalized. Done.

Any other comments on this? My initial feeling is it breaks all the rules because it's just too simple. (Ie should just do the rgold method) But I guess it hits most parts of SERENE, with the caveat that it may be short on equalization.. Any other tips for making this as safe as possible?

If you can get three good pieces in a vertical line, I'd rig them in series as Billcoe says. There is something perhaps a bit silly I do to try to distribute a little bit of the load, which otherwise will probably be all on the bottom piece. I rig the bottom two carabiners so they are sticking out horizontally from the pro, not hanging straight down. If the anchor is loaded, the forces at least a little elongation in the strands above and so applies some load to the upper two pieces. If the pieces are fairly close together, the load sharing might be significant, but not if they are far apart.

Load distribution is at its worst when trying to rig pieces in a vertical line with indpendent arms---the loads in the strands are going to be inversely proportional to the strand length---so the fancier rigging I and others have described is not going to be great anyway.

The one caveat about rigging three vertical pieces in series is if there is any possibility that the vertical crack is itself unstable, eg a crack behind a block or flake. In that case, getting pro in as many different spots as possible is called for.