By mattm
From TX
Jun 2, 2012
| BurtMachlan wrote: I would have no problem lowering off of one brand new ring. But as others said what about 20 years from now when that one ring has been lowered through a couple thousand times?
It gets replaced, just as you do with a 15kN belay loop that is showing signs of wear...
These inline, single ring chain sets are typically NOT used for lowering anchors although they certainly can be. They're better suited for rap stations where the wear comes from pulling the rope. That's A LOT of raps before they need replacement. | 
FLAG |
By BurtMachlan
Jun 2, 2012
| mattm wrote: It gets replaced, just as you do with a 15kN belay loop that is showing signs of wear... These inline, single ring chain sets are typically NOT used for lowering anchors although they certainly can be. They're better suited for rap stations where the wear comes from pulling the rope. That's A LOT of raps before they need replacement.
Oh cool Matt from Texas. On the first page of this forum, the picture that "brianinSLC" posted.... how exactly do you easily change out that one ring? Seems A LOT more complicated that simply swapping two quick links. Please do tell me I am looking forward to your response! |
FLAG |
By J. Albers
From Colorado
Jun 2, 2012
| mattm wrote: So let's flip this around a little for all those so anti-single-ring... You dismiss counter points like one rope, one belay loop etc etc casually as if that's all and well understood. Why is it a HUGE deal to have a single ring (yes you could add two) but Not a Huge Deal to add: A Second Belay Loop? Second Rope? Second Belay Carabiner? Why is it A OK to trust your life to THAT ONE SINGLE ITEM (some of which receive far more force than a single rap ring EVER WILL). If one is so adamant that you take EVERY STEP, no MATTER HOW TRIVIAL to reduce risk, how is it that these single points of failure are so easily dismissed? - It is much harder to judge the condition and strength of a rope than it is a 50kN ring. - Same goes for nylon belay loop. - these fail more easily and at much lower loads than a SS Ring. Shouldn't we be more concerned with these items?
Okay, before I answer each of your questions, I just have to point out why your argument is flawed from the start. What you are essentially saying is the following:
"X has a higher probability of killing you than Y, so we can just go ahead and ignore Y"
Your argument is similar to a 65 year old smoker stating that he doesn't need to wear a seatbelt because, well, he has a much higher probability of dying from heart disease or lung cancer. Why bother with the seatbelt, right? That's his prerogative I guess, but X and Y do not represent conditional probabilities and thus any argument relating them is fatally flawed.
Anyway, to answer your questions concerning belay biners, belay loops, and ropes... As I stated in an earlier post, most decisions in climbing are a balance between safety and feasibility, hence my answers to your questions.
A second rope, belay biner, and belay loop: Are you really telling me that climbing a sport route with two ropes and two belay biners represents the same level of inconvenience and technical difficulty as threading a rope through two chain links instead of one at an anchor? Really?
Moreover, I would argue that a visual inspection of your belay loop and rope is far easier than judging the interior of a weld joint on a rap ring. Besides, as nbrown stated, my harness is not expected to last 20 years and is not exposed to the elements every day of every year.
In short, my decision is more or less based upon the following process. Can I make my system safer in a manner that is both feasible and manageable? How big of a safety margin do I gain by implementing said system? If the answer to these questions is:
A) I can improve my safety and the system is super easy to implement, then great, I will do it.
B) If I only increase my safety marginally and it is difficult to implement the system, then no, I don't do it.
C) If its some mixture of the above, then I don't know....I guess it depends.
As far as the one chain link versus two? I would say that it easily falls into category (A).
....I guess I should add that when I am ice climbing (pointy sh*t everywhere) or alpine climbing where sharp edges and/or rockfall are present, then yeah, I use double ropes.
mattm wrote: And yet it appears in your photos that something as simple as a helmet, which could help prevent injuries far more probable than a 50kN ring failure, is not a safety step you seek out?
I guess you busted me not wearing a helmet on a sport route. I do wear one ice climbing and trad/alpine climbing. That is my balance between convenience and the probability of an event occurring. But again, how exactly is this related to threading anchor chains? |
FLAG |
By Woodchuck ATC
Jun 3, 2012
| BurtMachlan wrote: Uhhh seriously? Because there is generally another bolt less than 10 feet below the one you are taking a whipper on. While an anchor will have only ONE bolt with no more below you. You seem brighter than that....
Just saying that we usually expect every bolt to hold our falls, never thinking of blowing one out and heading for the next....not like trad gear placements,,,so if a falling body can be held on ONE bolt, it seems fair(not wise I said) to think a rap could be done on one bolt. |
FLAG |
By mattm
From TX
Jun 3, 2012
| BurtMachlan wrote: Oh cool Matt from Texas. On the first page of this forum, the picture that "brianinSLC" posted.... how exactly do you easily change out that one ring? Seems A LOT more complicated that simply swapping two quick links. Please do tell me I am looking forward to your response!
Funny, there's another gentleman at my gym who lives in Texas as well. He also happens to have been a well known Yosemite climber BITD putting up proud FAs. I've met some pretty sorry climbers from Boulder or Nor Cal so location is not an indicator of skill...
As I've covered in other threads, my CURRENT location has absolutely nothing to do with my climbing experience or technical knowledge. I've lived in NY, NH, MA, CA, and WA and climbed in MANY more states and a few countries to boot over my 20+ year career.
While not high in quantity, I HAVE replaced hardware in multiple states and continue to do so in my current home state. I've pulled button heads, chopped and patched wedges, upgraded rusty 5-pieces to SS 1/2in goodness as well as swapped and upgraded anchors.
In regards to Brian's anchor: The ring will wear much less quickly than two QLs. Since the ring is free to rotate, the wear point should be different each time and thus the wear is distributed around the ring's entire circumference. Not so with the QLs as you're wearing one spot for the most part. I have no clue what the wear time difference is and I doubt most if any do...
However, when the time DOES come to replace it, it's true, the inline is not as easy or cheap to replace. You either replace the entire setup (unscrew bolts, swap and reinstall) OR you cut out the worn ring (I've used a cordless angle grinder) and replace with alternate hardware. Keep in mind that 2x SS rings and 2x SS quality QLs will run you the SAME as just buying another inline chain setup. (SS Rings are $6 each and SS QLs are $6ea ). Of course you could cheap out and buy PS but then you're worrying about corrosion issues and how GOOD those QLs are... I'd want to be redundant with funky PS QLs. In fact, I AM redundant with my QLs since they're NOT, IMO, in the same safety ball park as a 50kN ring.
Look, wear issues are something that does need to be taken into consideration when choosing hardware. I currently DON'T use inline chains for my anchors because they're higher use lower offs and the average local user probably doesn't have much experience with a vertical, inline rap station.
How's the below replacement work look to you Burt? It was 2 rusty 5 pieces with single rings that twisted the rope something fierce when you lowered before I replaced it. Not bad for a Texan...
| Titt Bolt Anchor with SS QLs to G43 Chain to PS QLs to Mussy Hooks. Good To Go
Submitted By: mattm on Apr 20, 2012
| |
FLAG |
By Finn the Human
From The Land of Ooo
Jun 3, 2012
| BurtMachlan wrote: Uhhh seriously? Because there is generally another bolt less than 10 feet below the one you are taking a whipper on. While an anchor will have only ONE bolt with no more below you. You seem brighter than that....
FBI Agent BurtMachlan, how many times have you taken a whipper and had the bolt you were clipped into fail? And how many people do you know who this has happened to? How many people have you ever heard of this happening to?
P.S. lol at Ellenor's random instructions for single strand rappel.
P.P.S. Do Jim's apostrophes look different to anyone else? Kinda like a backwards " ` " I'm a little jealous. |
FLAG |
By Finn the Human
From The Land of Ooo
Jun 3, 2012
| J, I have a proposition for you. You stop crying about this non-issue, and I won't force you to climb any routes equipped with the single-rap-ring death anchor. Deal or No Deal? |
FLAG |
By Jim Titt
From Germany
Jun 3, 2012
| Thanks for the condescension Jim. And no, you didn't answer my question in any of your previous posts (I just reread them to make sure that I didn't miss anything).
"Inline chainsets to a single attatchment point are more versatile for installation, use less material and resources, cheaper, HAVE LOWER FRICTION, REDUCE TWISTING and are the system of choice for 99% of applications."
I´ve bolded the bits from the post I made on the top of P3. |
FLAG |
By J. Albers
From Colorado
Jun 3, 2012
| Taylor Ogden wrote: J, I have a proposition for you. You stop crying about this non-issue, and I won't force you to climb any routes equipped with the single-rap-ring death anchor. Deal or No Deal?
I've got a proposition for you Taylor: bite me. Perhaps you should add a comment that communicates actual information instead of just being a jerk.
And to address Matt's last post with the pic of the updated anchor: now that is a well done anchor. Fat quicklinks so the chain is easily switched out, long enough chains so that rope twist is minimal, and truck mussy hooks to boot. Bomber. Cheers for helping out the community with replacement work. |
FLAG |
By J. Albers
From Colorado
Jun 3, 2012
| Jim Titt wrote: "Inline chainsets to a single attatchment point are more versatile for installation, use less material and resources, cheaper, HAVE LOWER FRICTION, REDUCE TWISTING and are the system of choice for 99% of applications."
Ahhh I hate to break it to you Jim, but disconnecting the hanging chain from the rap ring doesn't use any more material and thus isn't any more expensive. The amount of friction that you reduce is essentially irrelevant and if the setup is vertical with the chains hanging the same length at a minimal angle, then the rope twisting is irrelevant too.
What else you got? |
FLAG |
By mattm
From TX
Jun 3, 2012
| J. Albers wrote: Ahhh I hate to break it to you Jim, but disconnecting the hanging chain from the rap ring doesn't use any more material and thus isn't any more expensive. The amount of friction that you reduce is essentially irrelevant and if the setup is vertical with the chains hanging the same length at a minimal angle, then the rope twisting is irrelevant too. What else you got?
Look. I think all this comes down to is you don't believe one ring is good enough. Correct?
You're saying the 2 separate components make it good enough. Fine. That all comes down to personal preference of your safety level.
Jim and others have provided plenty of statistical evidence to indicate a 50kN ring is plenty good enough but you'd prefer "more better". We'll just have to agree to disagree.
You'd prefer an anchor like this:
| Rap Anchor
Submitted By: mattm on Jan 24, 2012
|
I've got no issue with that. It's a great setup for the most part. Mind you the weakest "links" are probably the QLs... And they both should be flipped so the screw gate is down...
However, you don't like these:
I as well as others are a-ok with these. This is where we disagree. it's no different than climbers who argue over whether or not you need a locker or not (in a TR anchor for example). Some are fine with two non-lockers where others are insistent that you MUST have two lockers. There's no way to argue personal beliefs well and there's no way to argue what's good enough safety wise. The concept of "less safe" but still "good enough" is a tough area of discussion.
So cheers on sticking to your opinion and good luck to you.
|
FLAG |
By mattm
From TX
Jun 3, 2012
| BurtMachlan wrote: You are so full of shit we can smell ya from this side of the pond. Increased rope wear? Hahaha seriously? .... Got anything else Jim or is that it?
Look, while some may disagree with Jim on a philosophical level (what's good enough or best use/implementation), arguing with the man on things that can be tested and proven is a fools errand. It's pretty much a guarantee that Jim has put more effort, time and testing into these things than nearly ANYONE else posting on the internet forums. It's actually a great thing to have knowledgeable contributors to this and other sites. You may not like what's he's saying but plugging your ears and yelling "nah, nah, nah" doesn't change the fact that Jim knows his facts. Disagree with his philosophies but arguing facts and figures with Jim is foolhardy.
I suspect Jim's sarcasm comes from a healthy does of dry british humor and the fact the internet is chock full of "know it all" know nothings spewing "knowledge" that's patently wrong or at best, misinformed. At some point, you toss cordial out the window and just call people out.
Regarding friction and rope bending, I suspect Jim knows a thing or two on the topic...
Scroll down to the belay device segment. It's not directly related to rap rings but I bet it's in the same realm of study...
Belay Device Theory |
FLAG |
By BurtMachlan
Jun 3, 2012
| Taylor Ogden wrote: FBI Agent BurtMachlan, how many times have you taken a whipper and had the bolt you were clipped into fail?
www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/?type=route&id=1613
There ya go ginger! There is an example of a bolt failing from a lead fall that happened just a month or two ago. I have also heard of several others, one at the New River Gorge not more than a year ago. Guess its time to head outside your gym and get some real world experience gumball.
So obviously not that uncommon but you almost had a valid point there Taylor! Better luck next time. |
FLAG |
By BurtMachlan
Jun 3, 2012
| mattm wrote: Funny, there's another gentleman at my gym who lives in Texas as well. He also happens to have been a well known Yosemite climber BITD putting up proud FAs. I've met some pretty sorry climbers from Boulder or Nor Cal so location is not an indicator of skill...
Ahhhh dude stop spraying I am getting soaked over here!!! When did I say anything bad about texas? Stop being so overly defensive.... All I said was "matt from texas" and you automatically took it as an insult. A bit sensitive are we? |
FLAG |
By mattm
From TX
Jun 3, 2012
| BurtMachlan wrote: Ahhhh dude stop spraying I am getting soaked over here!!! When did I say anything bad about texas? Stop being so overly defensive.... All I said was "matt from texas" and you automatically took it as an insult. A bit sensitive are we?
your entire persona on MtnProj is less than pleasant. Your post was in no way "friendly" so stop kidding yourself that I'm overly sensitive. I've played the big boy climbing forum game for a long time... I know a "spade" when I see one post and call it as such. Other readers, I'm sure, can do the same.
Most of your type hang for a while, get bored and move on... |
FLAG |
By BurtMachlan
Jun 3, 2012
| mattm wrote: your entire persona on MtnProj is less than pleasant. Your post was in no way "friendly" so stop kidding yourself that I'm overly sensitive. I've played the big boy climbing forum game for a long time... I know a "spade" when I see one post and call it as such. Other readers, I'm sure, can do the same. Most of your type hang for a while, get bored and move on...
Are you sure... All I said was "Matt from Texas" since then you have typed two or three paragraphs and gotten yourself all worked up. Is everyone from texas so overly sensitive?
Not to mention you have written close to a book in this thread alone argueing with people about which type of anchor set up is best.... Nothing better to do? |
FLAG |
By Finn the Human
From The Land of Ooo
Jun 3, 2012
| BurtMachlan wrote: www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/?type=route&id=1613 There ya go ginger! There is an example of a bolt failing from a lead fall that happened just a month or two ago. I have also heard of several others, one at the New River Gorge not more than a year ago. Guess its time to head outside your gym and get some real world experience gumball. So obviously not that uncommon but you almost had a valid point there Taylor! Better luck next time.
Okay. Because a few cases of failed bolts (yes, I know it happens) means that you should treat every single bolt in the world as if it's about to fail.
And really? Name calling? Classy. |
FLAG |
By BurtMachlan
Jun 3, 2012
| Taylor Ogden wrote: Okay. Because a few cases of failed bolts (yes, I know it happens) means that you should treat every single bolt in the world as if it's about to fail. And really? Name calling? Classy.
Who said anything about treating "Every bolt as if its about to fail". You implied that bolts failing is unheard of and I cited you an example of a new bolt failing just 2 months ago.(actually the bolt was fine it was the rock that failed) So you are wrong bud.
And yes I think its a good idea to be suspicous of bolts especially if there is only one between you and certain death. You have a lot to learn, the real world is not a gym where everything is perfect and manicured. |
FLAG |
By Jake Jones
From The Eastern Flatlands
Jun 3, 2012
| I know a love triangle when I see one. |
FLAG |
By John Wilder
From Las Vegas, NV
Jun 3, 2012
| That article about the bolt failing is a prime example of why re-bolters need to CHOP THE OLD BOLTS. What the hell were they thinking?
Climbers, for the most part, consider a bolt to be a bolt- they're all the same. To leave old bolts near new bolts is irresponsible at best. |
FLAG |
By Finn the Human
From The Land of Ooo
Jun 3, 2012
| I just remembered that arguing on the Internet is stupid. Silly of me to forget, really. I apologize for any inflammatory comments I've made in this thread. I'm out. |
FLAG |
By rgold
From Poughkeepsie, NY
Jun 5, 2012
| In certain environments, bolts can be less reliable.
From www.sardiniaclimb.com/NuovoScEng/ListaNewsEn.html
27/05/2012- TAKE CARE! Following two cases of expansion and glue-in bolts in good condition breaking, probably due to galvanic currents, you should never lower off just one bolt or nor belay yourself on just one bolt while threading a belay. When abseiling, you should never abseil off just one anchor point if the anchors are not joined together. The instances of failure have occurred next to the sea, but it has not yet been possible to establish the precise cause of the problem. Provided people pay extra attention and follow these suggestions, we can avoid bad accidents and keep climbing in relative safety in marine environments. |
FLAG |
By kenr
Jun 5, 2012
| Jim Titt wrote ...
Every route I did this weekend had a single bolt lower-off and this is standard through most of Europe.
------------------------------
Some European climbers, when top-roping a half-pitch sport route in the usual way with the belayer at the bottom, have a practice of clipping the rope also thru a draw on the bolt just below the anchor. Then only the last climber to lower off has to trust only the anchor bolt(s) -- only after they've been tested.
btw - All but one of the single-pitch crags around France + NE Italy + SE Germany I visited in the last couple of years had two-bolt anchors.
Ken |
FLAG |
|
RSS Feed
