Mountain Project Logo

Acceptable use of doubles

Zach Kling · · Indianapolis, Indiana · Joined Nov 2011 · Points: 40

I'm not saying two lockers is wrong. I'm fine with 2 biners opposite and opposed even if neither are lockers though.
My point was really at what point are concerns about redundancy and "bombproof-ness" misplaced and how many more pressing issues of safety are there that one should be worried about. I'm glad my lunch time troll got some good replies though.

Joy likes trad · · Southern California · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 71
Zach Kling wrote:I'm not saying two lockers is wrong. I'm fine with 2 biners opposite and opposed even if neither are lockers though. My point was really at what point are concerns about redundancy and "bombproof-ness" misplaced and how many more pressing issues of safety are there that one should be worried about. I'm glad my lunch time troll got some good replies though.
Youhave clearly been ignoring accepted safe climbing practice it would seem. This makes you a liability. Pointing this out is not trolling.
Zach Kling · · Indianapolis, Indiana · Joined Nov 2011 · Points: 40

Come to the East. TRing on 2 opposite and opposed nonlocking quickdraws is standard practice and I can't recall anyone dying because of this practice.

Joy likes trad · · Southern California · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 71
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?
Try again dude. As you can see you did not state that above. If you had me on two opposed non lockers I would be cool with that. In fact I have already stated so above.
Gunkiemike · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 3,492
bearbreeder wrote:- clip the loose loop on the top photo ... if it pulls through everything fails ...
Such slippage is simply not a known failure mode of a Fig. 8 loop. So no need to "close the system" (as another reply says) by clipping it or flipping it over. Do it if you like, but it's bordering on irrational safetyism.

Consider this, clipping the end of an otherwise "open" climbing rope e.g. if you're lowering someone, is most effectively done by tying a Fig. 8 loop in the rope end and clipping it to part of the anchor. Textbook "closing the system". If anyone thinks Fig. 8's pull through, then they have a problem with this example as well. Better go tell the AMGA.
BigFeet · · Texas · Joined May 2014 · Points: 385

Both strands are tied to the climber and running through the anchor as shown below.

Single carabiner per rope

Should there be two carabiners for each rope in this case? Am I understanding the discussion correctly here?

My belief was that each rope tied to the climber is independent and therefore makes the system redundant - other than the masterpoint knot. Two ropes attached to the climber, and each running through it's own individual carabiner. The carabiners are connected to separate masterpoint loops which, in turn, are linked to the two separate anchor arms.

Both carabiners would have to come unclipped. Both anchor arms would have to fail... am I looking at this incorrectly?

Edit to add:
This thread was intended to better understand best practices, and the possible issues that I questioned myself. This is not my normal practice and was a one-off situation. I just had questions and thought this would be a good discussion to have.

Am I the only one who does this type stuff? Build and test?

bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065
Gunkiemike wrote: Such slippage is simply not a known failure mode of a Fig. 8 loop. So no need to "close the system" (as another reply says) by clipping it or flipping it over. Do it if you like, but it's bordering on irrational safetyism. Consider this, clipping the end of an otherwise "open" climbing rope e.g. if you're lowering someone, is most effectively done by tying a Fig. 8 loop in the rope end and clipping it to part of the anchor. Textbook "closing the system". If anyone thinks Fig. 8's pull through, then they have a problem with this example as well. Better go tell the AMGA.
Like all things it depends

If the cord/rope is stiff, the knot poorly tied and theres very little tail ... The knot can work itself loose

A properly tied knot with sufficient tail shoyld not come loose ... But you would be amazed at the crap folks tie these days ... Ive seen that same knot at the crags with less than an inch of tail and it was working itself loose

Either way its good practice to clip the loose end so it doesnt rub on the rope

;)
bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065
BigFeet wrote:Both strands are tied to the climber and running through the anchor as shown below. Should there be two carabiners for each rope in this case? Am I understanding the discussion correctly here? My belief was that each rope tied to the climber is independent and therefore makes the system redundant - other than the masterpoint knot. Two ropes attached to the climber, and each running through it's own individual carabiner. The carabiners are connected to separate masterpoint loops which, in turn, are linked to the two separate anchor arms. Both carabiners would have to come unclipped. Both anchor arms would have to fail... am I looking at this incorrectly?
Any of yr systems will work just fine

Dont overthink it

;)
Rick Blair · · Denver · Joined Oct 2007 · Points: 266
gription wrote:And yes TRing on one biner is jive ass.
This sounds very dire. How many accidents do you think have occured were the cause of a toprope anchor system failure is the use of a single locker?
Joy likes trad · · Southern California · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 71
Rick Blair wrote: This sounds very dire. How many accidents do you think have occured were the cause of a toprope anchor system failure is the use of a single locker?
I don;t have access to that info. Here is a fun site though

jive-assanchors.com/
Rick Blair · · Denver · Joined Oct 2007 · Points: 266

Ha ha, you win, that's hysterical.

I think out of all of them the adjustable wrench looks the most credible.

Joy likes trad · · Southern California · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 71
Rick Blair wrote:Ha ha, you win, that's hysterical. I think out of all of them the adjustable wrench looks the most credible.
Indeed! I am pretty sure that was a spoof but who knows? Funny as hell. Most of those are at Devils Lake I think. DL is infamous for Jive Ass TRs.
David Gibbs · · Ottawa, ON · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2
Rick Blair wrote:Ha ha, you win, that's hysterical. I think out of all of them the adjustable wrench looks the most credible.
I think the leader really should have extended the wrench a bit more -- it is an adjustable one, and in my use of them, I've found they have a tendency to walk.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Acceptable use of doubles"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.