Mountain Project Logo

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

Double J · · Sandy, UT · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 3,931

Doug, I am with you. I will do the same.

James Schroeder · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 3,166
jkw wrote: 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.
The thing the article doesn't tell you is that she was clipped to a tricam she had placed, and thought she was protected (I wasn't there, but I worked for the same company at the time, we had a lengthy internal review of the incident, and I know the other instructor that was on that trip quite well). I'm a firm believer that being tied-in to a "backup", "quick" or "shortcut" anchor that is anything less than a full anchor, to protect oneself while setting up an actual anchor causes way too much complacency. The best bet to stay safe while setting up top anchors is to be fully aware of one's surroundings and be capable of safely navigating the terrain one is on...or...build a full anchor to protect the setter. A good rule of thumb is to never trust your life to a single point of failure.

On the topic anchors extending across the trail, it happens all the time, and I think a polite discussion of the problem with the offender gradually escalating to impoliteness is called for until it stops. It's totally unacceptable.
jkw · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2015 · Points: 10
James M Schroeder wrote: The thing the article doesn't tell you is that she was clipped to a tricam she had placed, and thought she was protected (I wasn't there, but I worked for the same company at the time, we had a lengthy internal review of the incident, and I know the other instructor that was on that trip quite well). I'm a firm believer that being tied-in to a "backup", "quick" or "shortcut" anchor that is anything less than a full anchor, to protect oneself while setting up an actual anchor causes way too much complacency. The best bet to stay safe while setting up top anchors is to be fully aware of one's surroundings and be capable of safely navigating the terrain one is on...or...build a full anchor to protect the setter. A good rule of thumb is to never trust your life to a single point of failure.
Thanks for the info, it's very poorly written up in that article. Makes a lot more sense as you describe it and is clearly not so cavalier as it was presented.
Doug Hemken · · Madison, WI · Joined Oct 2004 · Points: 13,668

James, Thanks for the additional info on that accident!

James M Schroeder wrote: On the topic anchors extending across the trail, it happens all the time, and I think a polite discussion of the problem with the offender gradually escalating to impoliteness is called for until it stops. It's totally unacceptable.
If folks are around I would always start with a discussion.
Double J · · Sandy, UT · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 3,931

I was just going to pull out my knife and cut the webbing. There are no other options in this situation.

James Schroeder · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 3,166

Back to the sketchiness...I spotted these a little while back:

Between a rock and a soft place
Yes that's a hex placed between a tree and the rock. I'm sure it's bomber, though not sure I'd use it. The real problem is that the same tree was also slung as another part of the system, so this "creative" placement failed to add any real redundancy - tree failure equals two leg failure.

Why?
This is the third leg of the anchor system with the tree hex. The other tree (the one the hex was placed against it) was slung the same way, but with less egregious triaxial loading (albeit still triaxially loaded).

The group to whom this anchor belonged had another rope or two set up, and made extensive use of this method for slinging trees, and I don't understand why. It's not adjustable, it adds (and the weakens by bad loading) another link (the 'biner) into the system, and takes several knots to create.

Why not just retrace an overhand (water knot) around the trunk? Doing so would eliminate some gear (the 'biner), would be fully and easily adjustable (assuming enough tail and an oversized loop around the tree), looks much cleaner and saves the time of tying an extra two knots.

I don't think this system has a realistic chance of failure in a TR setting, but in my mind, the system could have been made stronger with less gear and less complication, and that is the problem I have with it.

James Schroeder · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 3,166
powhound84 wrote: Good luck with that. I guess I won't be surprised when I hear someone threw you off a cliff or took a knife to you for cutting their anchor.
Jugs, it appears, you need to start using your "/sarc" tag.
Double J · · Sandy, UT · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 3,931

well, I wont cut their line all the way through, only five eighths to teach them a lesson. A lesson that is three eights of the people at the lake climb rocks, and five eights are people walking on the rocks trying to use the damn trail.

Mike Robinson · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 251
jon jugenheimer wrote:well, I wont cut their line all the way through, only five eighths to teach them a lesson. A lesson that is three eights of the people at the lake climb rocks, and five eights are people walking on the rocks trying to use the damn trail.
8/8s of them don't understand fractions
Mike Robinson · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 251
Chris treggE wrote:1/8 of the 3/8 know how to build an anchor.
3/64's?
James Schroeder · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 3,166
Chris treggE wrote: Whatever do you mean James?
:-)
Ted Pinson · · Chicago, IL · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 252
James M Schroeder wrote: The thing the article doesn't tell you is that she was clipped to a tricam she had placed, and thought she was protected (I wasn't there, but I worked for the same company at the time, we had a lengthy internal review of the incident, and I know the other instructor that was on that trip quite well). I'm a firm believer that being tied-in to a "backup", "quick" or "shortcut" anchor that is anything less than a full anchor, to protect oneself while setting up an actual anchor causes way too much complacency. The best bet to stay safe while setting up top anchors is to be fully aware of one's surroundings and be capable of safely navigating the terrain one is on...or...build a full anchor to protect the setter. A good rule of thumb is to never trust your life to a single point of failure. On the topic anchors extending across the trail, it happens all the time, and I think a polite discussion of the problem with the offender gradually escalating to impoliteness is called for until it stops. It's totally unacceptable.
Yeah, I've heard that the #1 cause of accidents while toproping is during the setup, which doesn't surprise me at all. Given the amount of ridiculous nonsense on this thread (and unbelayvable.com), it's a wonder more anchor failures DON'T occur; in a way, though, it's oddly reassuring, as I'm reasonably sure that the sketchiest anchors I've set are probably exponentially more solid than what I've seen other people do.

I'm kind of astounded by how rare it is for people to clip into anything at all while setting up anchors, given the fact that this is clearly the most dangerous time of the day (aside from the approach ;) ). I suppose you have a point about complacency, but something is better than nothing, and an equalized, SERENE anchor as your emergency backup isn't always practical. Personally, I like to find something bomber and huge to clip to before getting anywhere near the edge...usually a big tree or boulder, but I have used a big cam in a solid placement before. I think the need for
a multidirectional backup placement is often overlooked...maybe she placed the tri passively and it worked loose while she was scrambling about on the ledge?
James Schroeder · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 3,166
Ted Pinson wrote:...something is better than nothing...
Only inasmuch as that something doesn't affect the way an individual moves at the top of the cliff. The problem, I'd say, is that many "placed" single point anchors, even huge cams, will not survive the impact a TR setup fall creates. Most people, when they do clip in, are clipped in loosely on a static attachment (rope, webbing, sling, etc.) and not tightly on a lead line. The resulting fall would generate a relatively high fall factor in a static system, in turn creating a high probability of failure.

A much better way to do things is to learn techniques for safely negotiating complex terrain. Perhaps more importantly, learning how to effectively setup and equalize TR anchors without spending a ton of time leaning over the edge, can eliminate a lot of the risk. There is almost never a need to lean over the edge and rig, but I see it happening all the time.

Ultimately thinking one is clipped to an "anchor" that is going to protect one in a fall (but has a high probability of failure under practical circumstances) leads an individual to act differently than if that individual understands falling equals dying. Better to have an effective system that doesn't place one in harm's way for extended periods of time, or in the rare event a particular route demands dangerous positioning, build a bomber backup anchor and attach to it with a dynamic and adjustable (dynamic rope with a running clove hitch or Grigri to adjust the length of the tie-in) medium. Anything else gives a false sense of security.
James Schroeder · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 3,166
Leoj wrote:...it's not for redundancy...
I disagree.

Leoj wrote:...it's for rope wear!!! Twice the surface area puts much less strain on the sheath!...
While this is true (I regularly use three reversed and opposed ovals for this reason), it's not the sole reason.
James Schroeder · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 3,166
powhound84 wrote:...a single bomber tie off point (like a big tree or boulder)...
Hence my use of "placed"
James Schroeder · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 3,166
powhound84 wrote: Yeah but even with a piece of gear, if you don't give yourself enough slack to actually fall off the cliff, fall factor and shock load on the static system are irrelevant. I prefer a tree or boulder but I'd also take a single bomber hex or nut since it won't be catching a fall anyway. My concern with a single piece of gear isn't it's ability to catch a fall but with the possibility of it losing its placement. Assuming it's set well, even a tiny nut is plenty strong enough to keep you from falling over a ledge if the tether is short enough. I still consider this just a backup and rely on common sense and diligence as my first line of protection when building anchors.
If I recall correctly, Elissa had little memory of the event when she fell, but she was found at the base, tied to a single tricam. I'm sure she thought it was well-placed and bomber, and was tied off tight to it. Most likely she fell when she leaned against the piece and it popped. The reality of the situation is that shit happens, pieces fail no matter how bomber anyone assesses them as.

powhound84 wrote: Call me crazy but I trust the physics of a hex or nut over a cam any time you can use both hands to place the gear and a decent spot to stick one. I see where cams are great if you are on a route and pumping out with the ease of placement but if I have 10 seconds and 2 hands, I can usually find a bomber hex or nut placement. I really see no use for cams on top rope setups.
Okay, I will, you're crazy ;-) There are plenty of reasons to use cams in TR setups. And, I'm reasonably certain a well-placed #1 C4 is stronger than a well-placed #13 Stopper in the same stone.
Rick Blair · · Denver · Joined Oct 2007 · Points: 266

I see, it's your position that there should be no more resource extraction on federal lands? So 80% of Nevada should be off limits? That's pretty extreme.

Double J · · Sandy, UT · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 3,931

What I want to know is why Chris's posts keep diapering?!?

Mike Robinson · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 251
jon jugenheimer wrote:What I want to know is why Chris's posts keep diapering?!?
WOAH BRAH its seems like Eggheads posts are disappearing. MP/forums/midwest is haunted. What does diapering mean? Like to put a diaper on someone?
Double J · · Sandy, UT · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 3,931

damn auto correct...I am going to make post that "diaper" now!

This topic is locked and closed to new replies.

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

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

Get Started.