The Devils Lake top rope cluster Fu&k thread...

Tom Grebis wrote: Jon if you really like checking out some sketchy anchors try this website. dumbanchors.blogspot.com/ Most of the pictures are taken from Carderock near D.C. a toproping spot. It seems this guy goes out every weekend and gets these pictures. It is just amazing what people can get away with.

Wow. I used to think we were the best at beating the odds, but that website is stunning.

Mattg I'll bite and take ownership. Ill explain what I did, as well as what I was not happy with. Please explain afterwards what your changes would be.

1. Green static line to a tree, extended. Used a locker and opposite biners on extension sling to prevent possible opening. I like to use naturals when posible, even if it requires running back 15 feet.
2. Two cams placed in crack.
3. Three points equalized using sliding x. Limiter knots tied in legs. Strong, redundant, and non extending.

Ok, what I know wasnt good...
1. Master locking biner on edge of rock. I used a full steel biner (weighs about a pound), and when weighted the biner was pulled past no longer stressing axis. But yes, this was not right.
2. Efficient? Maybe. Static line to tree does complixate things.
3. Rope drag- looks alot worse in tge pictures tgan reality. From master biner drops 6 feet, so.drag was limited but still present.

Ok, honestly looking for feedback. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply.

1. Sliding x - totally understood about the extension, even with limiter knots. I chose the sliding x versus bfk due to the availability of 3 routes all accessible from that anchor. A bfk would not have remained equalized under multi directional pull. Does this change your feelings on using the x here?
2. Putting a bite in the green static - noted and agreed.
3. Opposite and opposed lockers at masterpoint - yes, especially when the possibility of loading across the axis is present.

Thanks for the input. Be curious to hear more about the sliding x - I certainly am not loyal to it, but I thought it was a better fit for this instance, even with the potential for extension and shock loading.

Back to mattg - next time just come and tell somebody you dont like their anchor set up? Worst case they tell you to f off...best case you have a discussion.

I'd like to see simplicity among other things. All of that could've been achieved with one long piece of static rope or webbing. A beautiful SERENE/ERNEST anchor can be achieved with minimal gear.I don't know why people insist building anchors with so much complication: quickdraws, short slings, cordelettes, excessive carabiners, etc. All that complication leaves more potential areas for mistakes.

Also, I've been making a push recently to stop using trees for anchor. Yes, they can be bomber, easy anchors but many of them are taking a lot of abuse. Learn to place solid trustworthy gear and save the trees.

Use two locking biners at your masterpoint. Don't argue, just do it. Good for you using steel though, they last forever and don't dirty your climbing rope.

Most importantly, immense respect for sticking your neck out and owning up to the anchor.

Regarding the sliding x. I haven't spent time studying the photo, but you obviously lived. I don't think there's a need for it but I don't think it's a catastrophic fail. A solidly build anchor will allow for some flexibility climbing adjacent routes but adds some complexity because your anchor points should be multi-directional and be able to absorb a little asymmetric, non-equalized loading.

Best bet if there is more than one route you'd like to climb: set another anchor or re-adjust the one you have. Might be as simple as retying your masterpoint for equalization in the other direction.

Of course, start small with your anchor building and seek help from more experienced climbers.

I imagine there is a full thread somewhere on the advantages/disadvantages of the X which I can find, so im not asking to rehash tgat conversation. Just curious to hear comments, so thank you both for input. A couple years ago I did an Alpine Ascents course two week course in the cascades, and they taught the x. So I appreciate hearing multiple perspectives and continually learning amd reevaluating. I have enough knowledge to know whensomething is wayyyy off, but obviously am early in my climbing life. I added complexity in search of added safety, thus creating a lack of safety. I have no problem admitting this when learning occurs.

Has anyone actually had a TR anchor blow (a leg even..)? Forces are so low that does any of this matter? I know this is all supposed to be training for the real deal, so your anchor should be able to hold a factor 2 on the belay. Good on you for owning up to the anchor braneyc.

Anyone see some bad anchors this weekend?

Mike Robinson wrote:Has anyone actually had a TR anchor blow (a leg even..)?

No never and I never will! Arrogant? Sure. But TRs need to be bomb proof end of story. I will also never die on an unnecessary rapel because I only rapel out of necessity.

Mike Robinson wrote:Has anyone actually had a TR anchor blow (a leg even..)?

Hasn't happened to me in a while, but I've certainly had it happen, at the Lake and elsewhere. And I've seen it happen, with disastrous results for the gear used. And in the last 20 years I've heard of at least 2 accidents where the anchor failed and was composed of a single anchor point.

If you haven't seen this yet, stick around. It's not common, but the Law of Large Numbers says you will eventually see it.

Doug Hemken wrote: ... you will eventually see it.

I suppose I have to admit that I may see someone else do it...

Doug Hemken wrote: Hasn't happened to me in a while, but I've certainly had it happen, at the Lake and elsewhere. And I've seen it happen, with disastrous results for the gear used. And in the last 20 years I've heard of at least 2 accidents where the anchor failed and was composed of a single anchor point. If you haven't seen this yet, stick around. It's not common, but the Law of Large Numbers says you will eventually see it.

I guess my sample size is fairly small. During my short career at DL I've seen one crater due to blown gear (lead fall on the Rack). 20 years seems more representative of what can happen. Just for the sake of conversation Doug could you estimate the following:

-Number of anchors set at DL (as this is a DL specific thread)?
-Number of anchors (or legs) blown at DL?

Sorry if this is annoying, but I'm in a stats training module at work and reading this thread in conjunction has me thinking about numbers. What sort of gear blew? There was another thread recently that Dylan has been participating in about cams blowing in 'slippery' parallel cracks...

Single point TR anchors is dumb...

Mike Robinson wrote:Has anyone actually had a TR anchor blow (a leg even..)? Forces are so low that does any of this matter?

The quick answer is that none of it matters until it does, and when it does, it matters a lot. Ultimately it's an individual decision about the desired margin of safety.

The question in anchoring decisions, like in most decisions, is function of three variables, the probability of an event, the consequences of that event (which in the case of complete anchor failure should be assumed to be the death of at least the climber and possibly others) and the cost of lowering the probability of that event. So, since in anchoring, one of those variables (consequence = death) is fixed the equation shortens out pretty easily.

As a very rough example:

If I have a non-redundant sliding-x, and the failure rate for the particular type of sling I'm using is 1/1,000, then (assuming the sliding-x is the weak point) my anchor will also have a failure rate of 1/1,000. If I make my system redundant by adding another independent sling, my failure rate goes to 1/1,000^2 or 1/1,000,000. Adding the second sling costs me almost nothing (a little time and one more sling) but gives me a thousandfold decrease in the probability of failure.

Of course this is a terribly rough example and not in anyway a real-world scenario, but the point is that, from a probability standpoint, adding non-extending redundancy is multiplicative, not additive. Given that, having true redundancy in the system is almost always worth it.

In other words, learn how to do it right, and then do it right every single time.

James M Schroeder wrote: In other words, learn how to do it right, and then do it right every single time.

Agreed. I am not trying to minimize the importance of making bomber anchors.

I'm interested in the actual anchor/gear failure rates specific to DL, as I think the rock type does tend to be 'tricky' compared to granite, sandstone etc. This weekend I heard another hiker claiming 'at least 2 climbers die at the lake every year'...

MR

This article has reports of the major accidents at Devil's Lake.

Well, as Erickson documents, there are more accidents and more fatal accidents among hikers than climbers. (The statistical issue here, however, is "exposure," so direct comparison is less telling than you might think.)

It is not true that climbers don't have accidents.

It is true that there are very very few fatalities among climbers that occur during the actual climbing.

Mike, the accident rate is surely something like a poisson distribution, with a very very low hazard rate. I think even in the two total anchor failures I've heard about there was no fatality (I should reread Erickson).

Although it doesn't really answer your question, James' economic analysis (of course!) of anchor design is right on.

On Saturday at the lake I saw an anchor that incorporated a tree on the opposite side of the trail from the cliff. The rope used for that leg of the anchor was about a foot above the trail and made a tripwire for hikers and runners.

I wanted to ask the owner to fix it but I didn't see any climbers when I looked over the edge. Blocking the trail makes climbers look bad and may cause friction with the park authorities.

Sorry no pics.

powhound84 wrote:Being on a ledge without being roped off scares the shit out of me because that's where all the accidents seem to happen.

One of the accidents from the article is exactly that, with the dumbest quote from the lady who fell:

"I think it's a great sport, and I wouldn't want what happened to me to reflect poorly on it," she said. "Climbing involves risk, and what I did is part of the sport itself."

I'm not sure falling while setting up a top anchor for kids qualifies as being part of the sport. At first I thought she was unroped, but it's unclear from the article. Either way I'm pretty she wasn't taking 'all the precautions' as she stated.

Mike Robinson wrote:Has anyone actually had a TR anchor blow (a leg even..)?

I know of two instances of complete TR anchor failure.

First one, the two people almost went for a long ride to the ground but were saved by a tree when the whole anchor pulled out.

Second one, I pulled the whole anchor out in my hand when I grabbed it to set up a rappel on it. I didn't build the original anchor but I sure as hell re-built it. And then never climbed again with the guy who did.

Mark, are we still talking Devils Lake here? I've certainly heard of multi-point anchors being completely stripped elsewhere ....

Justin Meyer wrote:On Saturday at the lake I saw an anchor that incorporated a tree on the opposite side of the trail from the cliff. The rope used for that leg of the anchor was about a foot above the trail and made a tripwire for hikers and runners. I wanted to ask the owner to fix it but I didn't see any climbers when I looked over the edge.

I think I'm to the point where I'm going to start pulling up ropes like this and dismantling whatever crosses the trail. If you see me being beaten up by boyscouts, please come rescue me!

No, not at Devil's Lake. Just in general. I thought that was the question.