Small diameter static rope for anchor building

Atwood is a general purpose rope manufacturer, there are no certs. Don't buy it for life safety use.

We did a week of climbing in Ouray at the end of February, and I did a bunch of research prior. I searched for a good static line for building anchors, which they recommend having ~60ft. My end result was a good purchase experience with a new-to-me online store and a really nice chunk of static line that's relatively light, feels great, knots well, seems super burly, and should last a long time. It was considerably cheaper than most other options, as well.

3/8" Samson Static Line, from Search and Recovery Engineering.

By my calipers, this 3/8" measured just a hair over 9mm. This rope is in Samson's Safety & Rescue series and has all the specs and ratings to make me feel comfortable that it was legit and super good enough. After reading their About page, it sounded like an interesting old business, and I also found the History page fascinating.

(don't buy rope from the hardware store, ffs..)

Oliunid has a 100 meter Edelrid Performance Static 9mm rope for $104.  Even with shipping that is less per foot than the Atwood rope, and it has EN 1891 Type B certification.  

https://www.oliunid.com/edelrid-performance-static-9-mm-semi-static-caving-rope.html

Ackley The Improved wrote:

What’s the shipping cost?

$52.  There are many other good buys on the site to make the shipping cost more palatable.

What’s the shipping cost?

Are there tariffs on climbing gear?

B C wrote:

Curious: Why is a BFK a better knot than a figure 8? Is it because of rope used or ease of untying?

The BFK is redundant while the figure eight is not.

Andrew R wrote:

The BFK is redundant while the figure eight is not.

umm how do you define "redundancy" for a knot?

curt86iroc wrote:

umm how do you define "redundancy" for a knot?

Redundancy for a knot would be avoiding failure if any single strand of rope in the knot is cut. In the context of BFK vs Figure 8 on a bight, the single strand in question is the master point. A figure 8 on a bight has only one strand in the master point, while a BFK has two. To use a figure 8 on a bight to make your master point rather than tying a BFK, a good way to do it is to tie two 8s on bights close to each other on your anchor rope, and clip carabiners through both the loops on both of them to your climbing rope (I've heard this called the bunny ears method, not sure if that's a common term for it).

Elliot K wrote:

Redundancy for a knot would be avoiding failure if any single strand of rope in the knot is cut. In the context of BFK vs Figure 8 on a bight, the single strand in question is the master point. A figure 8 on a bight has only one strand in the master point, while a BFK has two. To use a figure 8 on a bight to make your master point rather than tying a BFK, a good way to do it is to tie two 8s on bights close to each other on your anchor rope, and clip carabiners through both the loops on both of them to your climbing rope (I've heard this called the bunny ears method, not sure if that's a common term for it).

no sorry this is not a thing... if it was, nearly every knot used in any kind of application would be considered not redundant. hell, your retraced 8 into your harness would not be adequate by your standards..

curt86iroc wrote:

no sorry this is not a thing... if it was, nearly every knot used in any kind of application would be considered not redundant. hell, your retraced 8 into your harness would not be adequate by your standards..

I agree, a retraced figure 8 is not fully redundant. It's tied with the climbing rope, and climbing ropes are a single point failure everywhere else along the line. They're designed for it (sheath + core can both hold you, etc.). I never made the claim that every knot should be redundant, but anyway, redundancy is more important for something like a TR anchor where you might set it up and then climb all day on it and never look at it again. Not equivalent to a retraced 8 for tying in. 

But you do you, nobody is forcing you to make redundant systems. The vast majority of the time it won't be needed anyway.

Elliot K wrote:

I agree, a retraced figure 8 is not fully redundant. It's tied with the climbing rope, and climbing ropes are a single point failure everywhere else along the line. They're designed for it (sheath + core can both hold you, etc.). I never made the claim that every knot should be redundant, but anyway, redundancy is more important for something like a TR anchor where you might set it up and then climb all day on it and never look at it again. Not equivalent to a retraced 8 for tying in. 

But you do you, nobody is forcing you to make redundant systems. The vast majority of the time it won't be needed anyway.

that's kinda my point. 99% of the rope systems used always have some single point of failure, so calling a BFK a "better" knot than a figure 8 because of its redundancy is an illogical argument. a BFK may be a better choice for other reasons, but a figure 8 is perfectly appropriate as a master point.

IMO, people get way too hung up on redundancy instead of focusing on building strong, simple anchors. 

edit: you make my point below (post limited). IMO, calling a BFK a "better" knot because of the redundancy is overboard. It's fine that we disagree, it's just interesting to see how people perceive and manage risk when building systems. 

curt86iroc wrote:

that's kinda my point. 99% of the rope systems used always have some single point of failure, so calling a BFK a "better" knot than a figure 8 because of its redundancy is an illogical argument. a BFK may be a better choice for other reasons, but a figure 8 is perfectly appropriate as a master point.

IMO, people get way too hung up on redundancy instead of focusing on building strong, simple anchors. 

I again agree with you that 99% (or higher) of systems have a single point of failure. That doesn't mean it logically follows that further single points of failure in the system are fine. Limiting single points of failure means lower overall risk. To me, a BFK is absolutely a "better" knot for this purpose because it is more redundant. Whether or not a figure 8 on a bight is sufficient for your risk tolerance is irrelevant to the fact that that minimizing single-point failures lowers total risk in this context and in climbing systems in general. BFKs and bunny ears anchors are both simple and strong. Nothing in that sense is lost here. While it is absolutely possible to go overboard with excessive levels of redundancy, this isn't it.

How is the BFK going look in the middle of the rope with a 1" tube sheath? Cause thats what was described. It's going to be so bulky the carabiners will likely not sit well or work safely.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

There’s a big difference between tying in with a fig 8 on a harness made of nylon vs. a static rope on rock that’s gonna be moving and grating. It takes an extra two seconds to tie a BFK, and it’s easier to untie. Other than it uses a little more material, it’s a superior knot for this application. 

I like the replaceable sheath idea better.

otherwise
A double loop bowline is more elegant than a BFK.

I used 1” tubular webbing to build top rope for about five years.  That was great.  I then upgraded to 5/8” tubular webbing.  That was even better.  I had six pieces set in loops 10’, 20’ and 30’ loops.  

People recommended static line, but it is heavier and pricier.  I never thought carrying sixty meters of static line and sixty meters of climbing rope made sense.

The big hidden benefit of webbing is once you retire it or buy better stuff, you can cut sections to carry with a quick link so you can reinforce tat anchors. (Because this is MP —> No, I never left rotten webbing on a tree or boulder.  Yes, old webbing which isn’t sun damaged or abraded is safe for rappelling.) 

Live Perched wrote:

I used 1” tubular webbing to build top rope for about five years.  That was great.  I then upgraded to 5/8” tubular webbing.  That was even better.  I had six pieces set in loops 10’, 20’ and 30’ loops.

http://user.xmission.com/~tmoyer/testing/Qualifying_a_Rescue_Rope.pdf 

Webfoot wrote:

http://user.xmission.com/~tmoyer/testing/Qualifying_a_Rescue_Rope.pdf 

Wow, that seriously good data.  Didn’t know that.  I also never built anchors the dragged rope.  No 10”. Definitely not 140”. 

Live Perched wrote:

Wow, that seriously good data.  Didn’t know that.  I also never built anchors the dragged rope.  No 10”. Definitely not 140”. 

Tom Moyer has done some extensive testing on materials and knots. Do some searches and you will be amazed.  I did some testing with him back in the 1990's and many discussions on the EDK and on Technora (when it first came out). You will notice on his testing that "Goldline" is referenced. That is because when we were in Rescue in Boulder, CO. that was the standard rope we used all the way into 2002. (it is very durable and was inexpensive, it was just somewhat difficult to handle, but you learned to work with it) (Nothing like a rope as stiff as steel cable and stretches like Bungee cord! LOL!) Rocky Mountain Rescue Group has always had a policy of no equipment or techniques being used without thorough testing by the group. The group owns its own static pull tester and has a drop tower (Actually the old Forrest Mountaineering Tower) and has developed all the monitoring equipment and various testing fixtures. It is very interesting to do / observe testing. You get an bigger understanding of design, function and materials and how they interact. Also to understand the differences between adequate, acceptable, SOP, and superior. Things do evolve and some things that were acceptable when I started are now considered extremely dangerous. Always aim to make it better and safer.

I will agree that webbing is lighter and less bulk, and adequate, but static rope is so much more durable and much stronger. When you run climbing programs, this becomes so obvious (Getting years of use VS months of use) Cost spread out over time. 

Thomas Worsham wrote:

I am considering purchasing a small diameter static rope for anchor building, approx. 9mm-9.5mm with good knotability and a nice hand. I am considering getting a canyon rope because they come in good lengths and diameters. I am currently looking at the Beal Speleo II in 9mm but I have heard iffy things about the quality of their rope products. I would prefer not to pay more than $200 msrp for a 46m meter rope if that helps with recommendations. 

WTF? why do you need a rope. Buy some cord or webbing. Read a book about anchors. None recommend "a rope" for anchors.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

There’s a big difference between tying in with a fig 8 on a harness made of nylon vs. a static rope on rock that’s gonna be moving and grating. It takes an extra two seconds to tie a BFK, and it’s easier to untie. Other than it uses a little more material, it’s a superior knot for this application. 

my dude, if your master point is "moving and grating" against rock, i hope you're not thinking the BFK is going to save you. if you're that concerned about abrasion, use some edge pro or move your master point...

Thomas Worsham wrote:

I am currently looking at the Beal Speleo II in 9mm but I have heard iffy things about the quality of their rope products. 

I use a Speleo II for building top rope anchors, and rappelling down cliffs that are more easily accessed from the top, 

it’s a good rope, I have no complaints about its quality. It handles well, and doesn’t seem to be showing signs of wear that aren’t in keeping with how I’ve used it.