Acceptable use of doubles

BigFeet I agree with you it is always a good idea to test out new gear in safe familiar terrain than learn how to use it on the fly when at your limit. I think you made the right call for sure.

Ok, so just for giggles, when I got home the other night I decided to mess around with what was described and discussed in the earlier posts. I finaly found time to repost.

This one is for those who mentioned the loose loop not being clipped. The same B.F.K. masterpoint, but with dissimilar carabiners and in a double configuration.

B.F.K. clipped loop w/ dissimilar carabiners in double configuration

The interaction between the individual ropes and separate carabiners did not seem to cause any type of negative interference. With the carabiners oriented in the fashion shown there was no contact of carabiner gates when a straight downward force (body weight) was applied. Nor was there any friction and/or drag noticable under same body weight load when the ropes were pulled by hand in each direction through the carabiners.

Interaction of dissimilar carabiners at masterpoint setup in double configuration

NOTE: All kinds of chaos occurs when sudden, sharpe, and violent stress is introduced into the climbing system which can cause twsting, banging, and all manner of things to happen. Do not take this as a means of stating there are not possible issues or failures that could result in the systems shown. No serious testing by me was done. My intentions were to look at possible solutions and observe any issues that I could see be a potential problem.

Another alternative that was given. The procedure for this setup is slightly more time consuming. I'm sure the system is safe enough for top rope, but I believe the configuration could be done a bit differently for strength and efficiency. I would probably use alpine butterflies for the masterpoint if ever to use this in the field, but I have my preference of other more simple solutions.

Dual masterpoint in double configuration

I also used the figure eight double (bunny ears), as was suggested. The carabiners were clipped to individual loops and together. Much the same as would be done with the B.F.K. previously posted.

This is the figure eight double with individual loops clipped but with the ropes running in the twin configuration.

Double eight with individual loops clipped in twin config.

Figure eight double with combined loops in twin configuration.

Figure eight double with combined loops in twin config.

I also set up the figure eight double just as I did the B.F.K. double rope configuration above.

Figure eight double in double config.

I believe any one of these will work as a top rope anchor when using doubles - some setups I favor over others. To be clear, I'm just messing around with possible solutions to a question that I had for myself. If ever I find that I may be top roping with doubles again in the future I will have a better understanding of how to keep things simple, safe, and efficient.

Feel free to critique and discuss.

- "Dual masterpoint in double configuration" will have more extension in the event of failure of one leg of the anchor

- Given the fatness of the purple rope and the skinnyness of your carabiners, it's probably "most ideal" to clip them to only a single strand of purple rope.

- If you are going to do this a lot and are worried about the interactions of the two ropes & carabiners and want to separate them, you might want to consider something like a 3-hole Petzl PAW plate. They are handy, small, and weight about as much as an average locker

- I'm not sure why people are worried about the extra loop with the overhand. Multipoint gear anchors are commonly constructed with a cordalette using an overhand as OP originally did. Just keep the tails (or loop) long.

Both master points look fine to me. However the cordelette is not redundant. I don't understand how all of you missed that. A proper cordelette has the center pulled tward the master, half twisted, and then tied into the overhand knot.

Oh its a rope...I struggle with why you are using a full line to set up a TR.

Patrick Shyvers wrote: - "Dual masterpoint in double configuration" will have more extension in the event of failure of one leg of the anchor...

This is what I see as well. I did this because it was mentioned earlier, but I do believe that I would go with a different setup 100% of the time.

Why didn't anyone suggest using just 1 locker through the loops to simplify? I have never used redundant lockers. I guess doubling up on the thicker bar stock will allow the rope to run smoother.

For doubles I have treated 2 strands as one for clipping pro and then always belay 1 follower on 1 strand.

The guy who critisized your setup was wrong but I always like hearing what others have to say even if they are full of shit, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

gription wrote:Oh its a rope...I struggle with why you are using a full line to set up a TR.

This (purple rope) is not what I'm using in the field. I'm using a 30m x 9mm Mammut static rope to set up the top rope anchor. The purple rope is a section of old rope that I cut and now use to experiment with. I use this rope in the garage to build anchors, tie knots, haul, and basicly keep myself knowledgeable.

BigFeet wrote: ...I would go with a different setup 100% of the time.

I agree. I also would only ever bother with doubles in, one an alpine environment, two we had three climbers instead of two or four, three I was climbing in europe and wanted partners that weren't american. I would never bother with doubles on a TR unless I had no other choice and in that event I would pretend they were a single line.

JW

Rick Blair wrote:Why didn't anyone suggest using just 1 locker through the loops to simplify...

If somebody ever puts a TR through one locker with me I will correct them very sternly. TRs should be bomb proof and redundant. However if I found this in an alpine environ and it was the only gear you had on you I would look the other way. Though if you had a second locker or even an available non locker that you could have run opposed I would opt to sternly correct you again.

JW

gription wrote: I would never bother with doubles on a TR unless I had no other choice .... JW

Redundancy?

Were you the guy who criticized BigFeet, from the story in the initial post?

Rick Blair wrote: Redundancy? Were you the guy who criticized BigFeet, from the story in the initial post?

I don't prefer two ropes. So again i would only employ them situationally. As far as critism goes...I don't know...quote me and I'll respond.

Rick Blair wrote: ...Were you the guy who criticized BigFeet,...

No I don't offer advice to strangers at the crag. And he is in Texas while I am in California.

Complaining about TRing with the rope running through one locker? How many lockers do you require your partners use on their belay devices?

gription wrote: I also would only ever bother with doubles in, one an alpine environment, two we had three climbers instead of two or four, three I was climbing in europe and wanted partners that weren't american. I would never bother with doubles on a TR unless I had no other choice and in that event I would pretend they were a single line. JW

My objective next summer, Wolfs Head and why I though doubles may be the way to go.

Zach Kling wrote:Complaining about TRing with the rope running through one locker? How many lockers do you require your partners use on their belay devices?

Again TRs are supposed to be bomb proof. It is an accepted practice to use one locker for a belay plate. It is also an accepted practice to use double oppesed lockers on a TR. If I find somebody has put me on a jive ass belay I will correct 100% of the time. And yes TRing on one biner is jive ass.

Zach Kling wrote:Complaining about TRing with the rope running through one locker? How many lockers do you require your partners use on their belay devices?

My partners are there to attend to the single locker on their belay device. Nobody is there to attend to the single locker on a TR. If you haven't seen a locker come unlocked, you either have not been climbing long enough or you have not been paying attention. WHEN (not if) the locker comes undone, you will be TRing on a single unlocked 'biner.

Patrick Shyvers wrote: - "Dual masterpoint in double configuration" will have more extension in the event of failure of one leg of the anchor

Wait, maybe I'm confused, aren't we talking about a slingshot TR anchor where the climber is tied in to both strands? I guess that was my assumption.

Patrick Shyvers wrote: - I'm not sure why people are worried about the extra loop with the overhand. Multipoint gear anchors are commonly constructed with a cordalette using an overhand as OP originally did. Just keep the tails (or loop) long.

No, the overhand on the cordelette, at least the way I tie it, is not the same as the one tied by the OP. To tie the cordelette on a two-piece setup (on two strands of cord) in the exact same way as the OP's overhand (on one strand of rope) will give you four strands at the masterpoint, two extra loops, and a really really bulky knot. While I totally agree that the extra loop in OP's set up is highly unlikely to pull through (especially when the overhand is loaded), but if it does pull through somehow, it can cause the overhand knot to fail. Of course, it's easily solved with a different knot.

csproul wrote: My partners are there to attend to the single locker on their belay device. Nobody is there to attend to the single locker on a TR. If you haven't seen a locker come unlocked, you either have not been climbing long enough or you have not been paying attention. WHEN (not if) the locker comes undone, you will be TRing on a single unlocked 'biner.

Well said and much more constructive than my post Thank you.

aikibujin wrote:No, the overhand on the cordelette, at least the way I tie it, is not the same as the one tied by the OP. To tie the cordelette on a two-piece setup (on two strands of cord) in the exact same way as the OP's overhand (on one strand of rope) will give you four strands at the masterpoint, two extra loops, and a really really bulky knot. While I totally agree that the extra loop in OP's set up is highly unlikely to pull through (especially when the overhand is loaded), but if it does pull through somehow, it can cause the overhand knot to fail. Of course, it's easily solved with a different knot.

Mmm, yes I did not initially notice each leg was only a single strand. I nearly always build mine with two strands for each leg as I'm using 6 or 7mm cord instead of fat 11mm static.