This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Having just watched the video of the slate climbing posted today on UKC (http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=65359) it struck me again how I always see people belaying indirectly on multi-pitch routes in the UK. (I hope this is the right terminology for what I mean as despite being English I learnt to climb since moving to Germany). I'm talking about people belaying through their harnesses and a dummy runner on multipitch routes.
In the situation in the video I really wouldn't have belayed as the belayer in the clip did. If the climber had fallen near the top of the second pitch (from minute 8:50 in the vid) the belayer would have been slammed into the wall very hard. Why not belay directly from the anchor with an italian hitch? The idea that this exerts more force on the anchor is a myth. In fact more force is exerted on the anchor as the body weight of the belayer is also part of the chain. This is precisely the reason that the German Alpine Club recommends only belaying like this on really solid anchors and when hanging or standing a good bit belay the anchor is possible.
In the situation in the video I really wouldn't have belayed as the belayer in the clip did. If the climber had fallen near the top of the second pitch (from minute 8:50 in the vid) the belayer would have been slammed into the wall very hard. Why not belay directly from the anchor with an italian hitch? The idea that this exerts more force on the anchor is a myth. In fact more force is exerted on the anchor as the body weight of the belayer is also part of the chain. This is precisely the reason that the German Alpine Club recommends only belaying like this on really solid anchors and when hanging or standing a good bit belay the anchor is possible.
In reply to mike1979:
Italian hitches kink the rope and dont feed as well; you want to lead at your limit on such a system? Indirect belays also soften the impact of a fall, very handy when gear is less than perfect.
Italian hitches kink the rope and dont feed as well; you want to lead at your limit on such a system? Indirect belays also soften the impact of a fall, very handy when gear is less than perfect.
In reply to Offwidth: ok I take the point about kinking the rope but I've never found this to be too much of a problem. Like I said it depends on the situation. In the situation in the video, I wouldn't want to be belayed indirectly if I were leading - I'd be worried that if I fell the belayer would be knocked unconscious and that I'd plummet to the ground!
In reply to mike1979:
Is it? I'd be really interested to see research showing this as in the UK we've always been told what you call the "myth". Sometimes research does tell you things that you had always taken as the 'truth' aren't so (for example - that double ropes are better for ice because they exert lower forces on runners), but I've never heard this.
> The idea that this exerts more force on the anchor is a myth.
Is it? I'd be really interested to see research showing this as in the UK we've always been told what you call the "myth". Sometimes research does tell you things that you had always taken as the 'truth' aren't so (for example - that double ropes are better for ice because they exert lower forces on runners), but I've never heard this.
In reply to mike1979:
In any big fall the belay device/hitch is pulled violently, that can't be helped. Big falls are violent, you're right.
If it's attached to you as the belayer then the braking position for the dead rope remains referenced to you also. In the video shown, were he belayed directly then belay hitch would be yanked out to the belayer's right. Now if the belayer is attached to the same point in the belay he goes with the device/hitch, you have what might be called a semi-direct belay, there is some isolation for the belayer but not much. If the belayer is separately attached to the anchors (true direct belay) then the dead rope is going to be pulled aggressively from his hands potentially causing a loss of control and or burns (same deal with an 'up' route). If using an Italian hitch the belayer is now facing the prospect of catching the fall with the dead rope out of the optimum 'locked' position (different if using a plate).
The Italian hitch and direct belay in general is well suited to bringing up a second because the position of the hitch and the geometry remain the same in normal use and in a fall. For the reasons above it's less well suited to belaying a leader.
All that said we're creatures of habit, we use what we know and like. I'd rather my belayer used the system he's been working with successfully for years than see him messing about with a new idea or gizmo.
jk
In any big fall the belay device/hitch is pulled violently, that can't be helped. Big falls are violent, you're right.
If it's attached to you as the belayer then the braking position for the dead rope remains referenced to you also. In the video shown, were he belayed directly then belay hitch would be yanked out to the belayer's right. Now if the belayer is attached to the same point in the belay he goes with the device/hitch, you have what might be called a semi-direct belay, there is some isolation for the belayer but not much. If the belayer is separately attached to the anchors (true direct belay) then the dead rope is going to be pulled aggressively from his hands potentially causing a loss of control and or burns (same deal with an 'up' route). If using an Italian hitch the belayer is now facing the prospect of catching the fall with the dead rope out of the optimum 'locked' position (different if using a plate).
The Italian hitch and direct belay in general is well suited to bringing up a second because the position of the hitch and the geometry remain the same in normal use and in a fall. For the reasons above it's less well suited to belaying a leader.
All that said we're creatures of habit, we use what we know and like. I'd rather my belayer used the system he's been working with successfully for years than see him messing about with a new idea or gizmo.
jk
Apart from the belay Q it is a very nice film, I like the "tree" a lot...
In reply to mike1979:
Lead belaying directly off an anchor is clearly mad unless the anchor is absolutely bomb proof in an upwards direction.
A lead fall will clearly put a greater force on the anchors if belaying directly (consider the extreme case of a massively obese belayer who is not shifted at all by the force of the fall - the rope/sling from him to the anchors will not come under any tension at all)
I always find some people's gung ho attitude to direct belaying decidedly scary - best reserved for shiny double bolt anchors only.
Lead belaying directly off an anchor is clearly mad unless the anchor is absolutely bomb proof in an upwards direction.
A lead fall will clearly put a greater force on the anchors if belaying directly (consider the extreme case of a massively obese belayer who is not shifted at all by the force of the fall - the rope/sling from him to the anchors will not come under any tension at all)
I always find some people's gung ho attitude to direct belaying decidedly scary - best reserved for shiny double bolt anchors only.
In reply to mike1979:
As noted, lead belaying directly off the anchors is generally awkward and a pain. And with double ropes which most British climbers use a lot of the time much, much worse.
The belaying method not recommended by the DAV because of uncontrolled belayer movement is from a master point between the belayer and the belay, the way shown in the film using a dummy runner is one of the ways you are advised to do it.
And "slammed into the rock" is overstating things, the climber is on a traverse and the belayer leaning against a slab on a two bolt belay. In other words I´d do exactly what he did.
As noted, lead belaying directly off the anchors is generally awkward and a pain. And with double ropes which most British climbers use a lot of the time much, much worse.
The belaying method not recommended by the DAV because of uncontrolled belayer movement is from a master point between the belayer and the belay, the way shown in the film using a dummy runner is one of the ways you are advised to do it.
And "slammed into the rock" is overstating things, the climber is on a traverse and the belayer leaning against a slab on a two bolt belay. In other words I´d do exactly what he did.
In reply to TobyA: Hi Toby, It's amazing that you're the only person to react like this. Everyone else just believes what they've learnt or heard before. I've found this time and time again when I climb in England or when English friends come and climb here in Germany. Things that are taboo in one country are standard practice in the other. For Example in the UK people seem to think it's really weird/dangerous to tie in with a figure of eight without a stopper not. That's how most of my German mates do it. Anyway, I ramble.
The source of this is Deutsche Alpen Verein magazine from June 2009 (my very rough translation) For those who speak German and can maybe explain it better, or refute it? look here:
http://www.bergfuehrer.at/steiermark/aktuelles/Dokumente/Sommerfortbildung/...
"indirect belaying - not really clever
In sport climbing this is usual and is seen as a way of giving a dynamic belay. One might think that this approach is useful in apline climbing where protection or bolts might be bad. But this is a dangerous fallacy. For one thing indirect belaying does not actually reduce the force inpacting on the anchor (see the Panorma magazine, 2002) and for another thing it would be problematic if the leader were to fall into the anchor directly because the entire force of the fall would be on the body of the belayer directly. As a measure against this the dummy runner principle is used [this is then explained in the German text as it's not so common in Germany] Using the dummy runner method the impact on the anchor is 2.5 times what it would be if belaying directly. The force of the fall (the slippage through the belay device calculated here as 2.2 kN) is added to the force of the falling climber which is calculated here as 3.3kN. The impact on the anchor is thus 5.5 kn as opposed to 2.2 kn which is what it would be if belayed directly..."
Kind of makes sense to me, although I'd not sure it would from my quick translation. what do you all think?
Mike
The source of this is Deutsche Alpen Verein magazine from June 2009 (my very rough translation) For those who speak German and can maybe explain it better, or refute it? look here:
http://www.bergfuehrer.at/steiermark/aktuelles/Dokumente/Sommerfortbildung/...
"indirect belaying - not really clever
In sport climbing this is usual and is seen as a way of giving a dynamic belay. One might think that this approach is useful in apline climbing where protection or bolts might be bad. But this is a dangerous fallacy. For one thing indirect belaying does not actually reduce the force inpacting on the anchor (see the Panorma magazine, 2002) and for another thing it would be problematic if the leader were to fall into the anchor directly because the entire force of the fall would be on the body of the belayer directly. As a measure against this the dummy runner principle is used [this is then explained in the German text as it's not so common in Germany] Using the dummy runner method the impact on the anchor is 2.5 times what it would be if belaying directly. The force of the fall (the slippage through the belay device calculated here as 2.2 kN) is added to the force of the falling climber which is calculated here as 3.3kN. The impact on the anchor is thus 5.5 kn as opposed to 2.2 kn which is what it would be if belayed directly..."
Kind of makes sense to me, although I'd not sure it would from my quick translation. what do you all think?
Mike
In reply to mike1979:
In the very unlikely case of falling directly onto the belay itself you may have a point. However, virtually all falls are either leader-falls onto gear higher up (in which case the direction of pull on a direct belay would be extremely difficult for many non-bolt anchors to cope with) or falls by the second lower down (in which case the load on the anchor could be very much reduced by an indirect belay)
The Brits do it this way for very good reasons, even if many haven't really thought it through well! When the anchors are (multi-directional) bolts I can see the argument for direct belaying could become more convincing, but even then it would be difficult for me to accept not having the option of giving a dynamic belay.
In the very unlikely case of falling directly onto the belay itself you may have a point. However, virtually all falls are either leader-falls onto gear higher up (in which case the direction of pull on a direct belay would be extremely difficult for many non-bolt anchors to cope with) or falls by the second lower down (in which case the load on the anchor could be very much reduced by an indirect belay)
The Brits do it this way for very good reasons, even if many haven't really thought it through well! When the anchors are (multi-directional) bolts I can see the argument for direct belaying could become more convincing, but even then it would be difficult for me to accept not having the option of giving a dynamic belay.
In reply to john arran: that makes sense. I normally belay indirectly myself where the leader is about the same weight or leighter, and when I can stand at least 1.5 metres below the dummy runner.
Just had a bit more of a look on the internet and found some tests carried out by the DAV. The found that passive indrect belaying reduced the force on the gear/bolts by 11 percent, if the belayer takes a step back at the moment of impact then the force was doubled and if the belayer can (and has room to) belay dynamically then the force is 30 percent less than when compared to a direct belay.
source pdf article here in German
http://www.alpenverein.de/template_loader.php?tplpage_id=85&mode=detail...
Just had a bit more of a look on the internet and found some tests carried out by the DAV. The found that passive indrect belaying reduced the force on the gear/bolts by 11 percent, if the belayer takes a step back at the moment of impact then the force was doubled and if the belayer can (and has room to) belay dynamically then the force is 30 percent less than when compared to a direct belay.
source pdf article here in German
http://www.alpenverein.de/template_loader.php?tplpage_id=85&mode=detail...
The Germans like to do things differently. At the dav run climbing wall in stuttgart l was told I was told that I was certain to die because I climb trade mostly and it's so dangerousI've not died yet.
In reply to mike1979:
I think you´ll find most of us know this already. If (as in the film) it´s a bolt belay then a dummy runner is no problem and so direct belaying is just awkward and gives no benefit. If the belay is a load of rubbish vaguely joined together then using any part as a runner is stupid and we all just belay straight off the harness and tell the leader to get some gear as soon as possible.
I can hardly think of a situation where I would volountarily lead belay of an anchor unless it was an easy mountain route, mostly because it is so awkward.
I think you´ll find most of us know this already. If (as in the film) it´s a bolt belay then a dummy runner is no problem and so direct belaying is just awkward and gives no benefit. If the belay is a load of rubbish vaguely joined together then using any part as a runner is stupid and we all just belay straight off the harness and tell the leader to get some gear as soon as possible.
I can hardly think of a situation where I would volountarily lead belay of an anchor unless it was an easy mountain route, mostly because it is so awkward.
In reply to TobyA:
Enlighten me please - this kind of bothers me that I thought that but you say it's wrong. Especially because my skinny ropes make me nervous but I tolerate them because of this.
> (In reply to mike1979)
> [...]
>
> (for example - that double ropes are better for ice because they exert lower forces on runners)
> [...]
>
> (for example - that double ropes are better for ice because they exert lower forces on runners)
Enlighten me please - this kind of bothers me that I thought that but you say it's wrong. Especially because my skinny ropes make me nervous but I tolerate them because of this.
In reply to Tdubs: Will Gadd has looked at it (figures on his blog) and got someone at one of the NA rope companies to do tests. Basically because double ropes are tested with 55 kg mass, whilst singles are tested with an 80 kg mass, the impact data between the two isn't comparable. When half ropes are tested with an 80 kg mass, the impact forces were comparable or greater than with good single ropes. My take away is that this doesn't make double ropes unsafe, and they have other advantages, but it does mean that for ice climbing a single is also fine - which is what Gadd now does according to his articles (as well as using a Grigri interestingly). Swings and roundabouts.
In reply to mike1979:
Many, many years ago at about the age of 13 I was in a physics lesson about inertia. There was a simple experiment. A weight was suspended from a door frame with a piece of string. Another piece of string was attached to the bottom of the weight. If you pulled this piece of string fast, it broke. If you pulled it slowly, the string above the weight broke.
And that's always seemed to be a good lesson to me in how a second's body can protect the belay from a sudden load such as a falling leader.
Many, many years ago at about the age of 13 I was in a physics lesson about inertia. There was a simple experiment. A weight was suspended from a door frame with a piece of string. Another piece of string was attached to the bottom of the weight. If you pulled this piece of string fast, it broke. If you pulled it slowly, the string above the weight broke.
And that's always seemed to be a good lesson to me in how a second's body can protect the belay from a sudden load such as a falling leader.
In reply to gethin_allen:
I'm not completely sure your survey of German opinion is statistically true. There is a strong movement against retrobolting in that part of the Germany at the moment, and there are a lot of routes which are sportingly enough bolted that you would want to take a trad rack. However, if you are climbing below about German 6+, the guy in Stuttgart is probably right - the rock on the easier grades is normally too poor to take reliable pro!
I'm not completely sure your survey of German opinion is statistically true. There is a strong movement against retrobolting in that part of the Germany at the moment, and there are a lot of routes which are sportingly enough bolted that you would want to take a trad rack. However, if you are climbing below about German 6+, the guy in Stuttgart is probably right - the rock on the easier grades is normally too poor to take reliable pro!
In reply to mike1979:
Thanks for raising an interesting topic. However, I do think there is something lost in translation there, because the German makes quite an annoyingly subtle point (I'm sorry if I bore you all here). The first point they make here is that it is wrong to think that it reduces the force impacting NOT on the belay, but on the 'Zwischensicherung' - leader placed gear. Note, it doesn't reduce the impact on the gear - but it doesn't increase it either. It then goes on to discuss the possibility of falling onto the belay (Stand) - which is a problem with an indirect belay. A dummy runner offers a solution, but a fall onto the belay will still result in 2.5 times the force.
Now, if we go back to the excellent video today, the leader had some gear in - he was not going to fall onto the belay, but onto gear. That gear will take a big impact, but it would have been the same impact if he was being belayed directly. If you are unsure, look at fig. 11 in the DAV article, and try simply replacing the belayer with a direct belay. You still need 2,2 kN to brake the leader; it would be extracted directly from the belay. I hope that makes sense!
Thanks for raising an interesting topic. However, I do think there is something lost in translation there, because the German makes quite an annoyingly subtle point (I'm sorry if I bore you all here). The first point they make here is that it is wrong to think that it reduces the force impacting NOT on the belay, but on the 'Zwischensicherung' - leader placed gear. Note, it doesn't reduce the impact on the gear - but it doesn't increase it either. It then goes on to discuss the possibility of falling onto the belay (Stand) - which is a problem with an indirect belay. A dummy runner offers a solution, but a fall onto the belay will still result in 2.5 times the force.
Now, if we go back to the excellent video today, the leader had some gear in - he was not going to fall onto the belay, but onto gear. That gear will take a big impact, but it would have been the same impact if he was being belayed directly. If you are unsure, look at fig. 11 in the DAV article, and try simply replacing the belayer with a direct belay. You still need 2,2 kN to brake the leader; it would be extracted directly from the belay. I hope that makes sense!
In reply to TobyA:
Fair enough.
But a thinner rope will stretch more surely? I mean apart from the fact they're 8 bloody millimetres, you can tell straight away that it would be a ball ache trying to jug up them.
What does this mean for somebody who probably weighs nearer 55kg than 80kg even with ice axes and a backpack full of pork pie, old headtorch batteries and what used to be jelly babies?
Will Gadd uses a GriGri for ice climbing? Now you're pulling my leg.
I am absolutely certain that my icelines are much stretchier than my fat indoor single so I'll still use them. Stretchy does mean less force surely?
Fair enough.
But a thinner rope will stretch more surely? I mean apart from the fact they're 8 bloody millimetres, you can tell straight away that it would be a ball ache trying to jug up them.
What does this mean for somebody who probably weighs nearer 55kg than 80kg even with ice axes and a backpack full of pork pie, old headtorch batteries and what used to be jelly babies?
Will Gadd uses a GriGri for ice climbing? Now you're pulling my leg.
I am absolutely certain that my icelines are much stretchier than my fat indoor single so I'll still use them. Stretchy does mean less force surely?
In reply to TobyA:
However the belayers ability to stop the faller is reduced considerably as rope diameter goes down, both the belay device has less power and the gripping ability of the belayers hand are reduced. The CAI give a maximum reduction of about 10% for half ropes but when belaying 30-40% compared with a single in live tests.
However the belayers ability to stop the faller is reduced considerably as rope diameter goes down, both the belay device has less power and the gripping ability of the belayers hand are reduced. The CAI give a maximum reduction of about 10% for half ropes but when belaying 30-40% compared with a single in live tests.
In reply to Ben1983: Thanks Ben. I think I get it. Is the cucial difference between the dummy runner and the leader placed gear that the dummy runner is also part of the belay?
In reply to Tdubs:
Not if its made of dyneema. Seriously, as I understand it rope construction is far more important than width when it comes to the dynamic properties.
Don't know. Not something I need to worry about!
Nope. It was all in his article on "Norwegian Monsters" or some name like that last winter in Rock and Ice. Probably on his blog too. He uses it directly on the belay for bringing up the second too to shock you more!
I didn't say all ropes. Your indoor rope probably isn't waterproof anyway so would be a bad idea for that reason.
BTW, my iceline was the best rope I've had out of a dozen or more in 20 years of climbing. It lasted so well. So I wouldn't give up on them - rather just that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
> But a thinner rope will stretch more surely?
Not if its made of dyneema. Seriously, as I understand it rope construction is far more important than width when it comes to the dynamic properties.
> What does this mean for somebody who probably weighs nearer 55kg than 80kg even with ice axes and a backpack full of pork pie, old headtorch batteries and what used to be jelly babies?
Don't know. Not something I need to worry about!
> Will Gadd uses a GriGri for ice climbing? Now you're pulling my leg.
Nope. It was all in his article on "Norwegian Monsters" or some name like that last winter in Rock and Ice. Probably on his blog too. He uses it directly on the belay for bringing up the second too to shock you more!
>
> I am absolutely certain that my icelines are much stretchier than my fat indoor single so I'll still use them. Stretchy does mean less force surely?
> I am absolutely certain that my icelines are much stretchier than my fat indoor single so I'll still use them. Stretchy does mean less force surely?
I didn't say all ropes. Your indoor rope probably isn't waterproof anyway so would be a bad idea for that reason.
BTW, my iceline was the best rope I've had out of a dozen or more in 20 years of climbing. It lasted so well. So I wouldn't give up on them - rather just that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
In reply to mike1979:
That's not quite true. If you substituted 'some climbers, generally inexperienced' for people it would be more reasonable. You're quite right though about taboos in one country being the norm in another.
Looking at those numbers I'm more than a little tempted to shrug and say big deal! Yes a dummy runner on part of the belay introduces a pulley and some friction dramatically increasing the force applied to part of the belay in a fall but what it also does is align the force applied to the belayer so the fall is easier to catch, it also reduces to force applied to the belayer. It's not right for every situation but nor is it inherently dangerous, it's a useful tool. Far more useful in my experience than direct belaying a leader, something that obviously can be done safely but isn't as easy to set up right at a typical british belay be it gear or chains.
I think you should probably stick with what you're most comfortable with so long as it works for you. Your translation was readable though I don't see it making a strong case.
jk
> ...I've found this time and time again when I climb in England or when English friends come and climb here in Germany. Things that are taboo in one country are standard practice in the other. For Example in the UK people seem to think it's really weird/dangerous to tie in with a figure of eight without a stopper not. That's how most of my German mates do it. Anyway, I ramble.
That's not quite true. If you substituted 'some climbers, generally inexperienced' for people it would be more reasonable. You're quite right though about taboos in one country being the norm in another.
> "indirect belaying - not really clever
> In sport climbing this is usual and is seen as a way of giving a dynamic belay. One might think that this approach is useful in apline climbing where protection or bolts might be bad. But this is a dangerous fallacy. For one thing indirect belaying does not actually reduce the force inpacting on the anchor (see the Panorma magazine, 2002) and for another thing it would be problematic if the leader were to fall into the anchor directly because the entire force of the fall would be on the body of the belayer directly. As a measure against this the dummy runner principle is used [this is then explained in the German text as it's not so common in Germany] Using the dummy runner method the impact on the anchor is 2.5 times what it would be if belaying directly. The force of the fall (the slippage through the belay device calculated here as 2.2 kN) is added to the force of the falling climber which is calculated here as 3.3kN. The impact on the anchor is thus 5.5 kn as opposed to 2.2 kn which is what it would be if belayed directly..."
> In sport climbing this is usual and is seen as a way of giving a dynamic belay. One might think that this approach is useful in apline climbing where protection or bolts might be bad. But this is a dangerous fallacy. For one thing indirect belaying does not actually reduce the force inpacting on the anchor (see the Panorma magazine, 2002) and for another thing it would be problematic if the leader were to fall into the anchor directly because the entire force of the fall would be on the body of the belayer directly. As a measure against this the dummy runner principle is used [this is then explained in the German text as it's not so common in Germany] Using the dummy runner method the impact on the anchor is 2.5 times what it would be if belaying directly. The force of the fall (the slippage through the belay device calculated here as 2.2 kN) is added to the force of the falling climber which is calculated here as 3.3kN. The impact on the anchor is thus 5.5 kn as opposed to 2.2 kn which is what it would be if belayed directly..."
Looking at those numbers I'm more than a little tempted to shrug and say big deal! Yes a dummy runner on part of the belay introduces a pulley and some friction dramatically increasing the force applied to part of the belay in a fall but what it also does is align the force applied to the belayer so the fall is easier to catch, it also reduces to force applied to the belayer. It's not right for every situation but nor is it inherently dangerous, it's a useful tool. Far more useful in my experience than direct belaying a leader, something that obviously can be done safely but isn't as easy to set up right at a typical british belay be it gear or chains.
> Kind of makes sense to me, although I'd not sure it would from my quick translation. what do you all think?
I think you should probably stick with what you're most comfortable with so long as it works for you. Your translation was readable though I don't see it making a strong case.
jk
In reply to Tdubs: Found it: http://willgadd.com/?p=501
Don't tell my wife I spent 10 minutes looking for that for you!
Don't tell my wife I spent 10 minutes looking for that for you!
In reply to mike1979:
The article isn´t really well written by DAV standards and fails to point out clearly it isn´t generalising but talking about one specific circumstance, alpine style routes and using an HMS. For the rest of the world using normal plates this isn´t really relevant, as the CMT (the technical commision of the Italian Alpine Club) says "the CMT recognises that the body belay (direct from the harness, [my note]) is often the best choice when the stance is bad; it is also a nescessary solution when certain types of belaying devices (say a Sticht plate) are used.
What also isn´t covered in the article (but is elsewhere) is that you are faced with choices and it is up to the climber to take the best option. You have to decide a)are you protecting the belayer from forces he cannot control which will cause rope burns and possible loss of control, b)are you protecting the climber from the consequences of the fall or c)are you protecting the integrity of the belay.
a) and b) are best done with an early piece of gear or a dummy runner. b)is also best achieved with an early or dummy runner as it gives the belayer the best chance of the remaining in a stable position to control the fall. c)is best achieved with an early runner but not a dummy runner which could compromise the belay. If the belay is suspect and no early gear is possible then the belayer has to take his chances since the integrity of the belay is essential and deliberately increasing it´s chances of failure with a dummy runner is stupid.
In the video the belayer is on a bolt belay so wisely used a dummy runner to protect himself (and the climber from the consequences of his losing control) until the first piece of gear was clipped when he then removed it making belaying more convenient and easier to control.
There is no `one size fits all´ solution to belaying, you have to decide which is the least worst situation depending on what you are doing as is usual in climbing.
The article isn´t really well written by DAV standards and fails to point out clearly it isn´t generalising but talking about one specific circumstance, alpine style routes and using an HMS. For the rest of the world using normal plates this isn´t really relevant, as the CMT (the technical commision of the Italian Alpine Club) says "the CMT recognises that the body belay (direct from the harness, [my note]) is often the best choice when the stance is bad; it is also a nescessary solution when certain types of belaying devices (say a Sticht plate) are used.
What also isn´t covered in the article (but is elsewhere) is that you are faced with choices and it is up to the climber to take the best option. You have to decide a)are you protecting the belayer from forces he cannot control which will cause rope burns and possible loss of control, b)are you protecting the climber from the consequences of the fall or c)are you protecting the integrity of the belay.
a) and b) are best done with an early piece of gear or a dummy runner. b)is also best achieved with an early or dummy runner as it gives the belayer the best chance of the remaining in a stable position to control the fall. c)is best achieved with an early runner but not a dummy runner which could compromise the belay. If the belay is suspect and no early gear is possible then the belayer has to take his chances since the integrity of the belay is essential and deliberately increasing it´s chances of failure with a dummy runner is stupid.
In the video the belayer is on a bolt belay so wisely used a dummy runner to protect himself (and the climber from the consequences of his losing control) until the first piece of gear was clipped when he then removed it making belaying more convenient and easier to control.
There is no `one size fits all´ solution to belaying, you have to decide which is the least worst situation depending on what you are doing as is usual in climbing.
In reply to TobyA: And the other important one: http://willgadd.com/?p=500
In reply to mike1979:
Blame indoor climbing Walls for that. I wouldn't loose sleep over it and neither would most I know who are confident outside.
Nothing wrong with cultural norms anyway. Try pouring a beer in England with a head that you would get in germany and see what happens
> For Example in the UK people seem to think it's really weird/dangerous to tie in with a figure of eight without a stopper not.
Blame indoor climbing Walls for that. I wouldn't loose sleep over it and neither would most I know who are confident outside.
Nothing wrong with cultural norms anyway. Try pouring a beer in England with a head that you would get in germany and see what happens
In reply to Ben1983:
Indeed. Bolted climbing in the Frankenjura below about the upper VIIs/low VIIIs is often rather different from sport climbing in a UK/French/Spanish/Italian sense: it's assumed that you either carry some wires/slings, or are comfortable with bolt spacing that should just about keep you off the ground if your belayer is on the ball. The guidebooks have snide comments about over-bolted routes.
See also: Saxony. Although I climb regularly at the wall with a guy from Saxony, and he finds the idea of being responsible for constructing one's own main belays horrifying. All a question of what you're used to / grew up with.
> (In reply to gethin_allen)
> I'm not completely sure your survey of German opinion is statistically true. There is a strong movement against retrobolting in that part of the Germany at the moment, and there are a lot of routes which are sportingly enough bolted that you would want to take a trad rack.
> I'm not completely sure your survey of German opinion is statistically true. There is a strong movement against retrobolting in that part of the Germany at the moment, and there are a lot of routes which are sportingly enough bolted that you would want to take a trad rack.
Indeed. Bolted climbing in the Frankenjura below about the upper VIIs/low VIIIs is often rather different from sport climbing in a UK/French/Spanish/Italian sense: it's assumed that you either carry some wires/slings, or are comfortable with bolt spacing that should just about keep you off the ground if your belayer is on the ball. The guidebooks have snide comments about over-bolted routes.
See also: Saxony. Although I climb regularly at the wall with a guy from Saxony, and he finds the idea of being responsible for constructing one's own main belays horrifying. All a question of what you're used to / grew up with.
In reply to mike1979:
Yep, that's a great summary!
Yep, that's a great summary!
In reply to TobyA:
You've got to take Gadd's comments with a pinch of salt - remember, he's uber good and not going to fall off, so why not use a Gri-Gri?
Back to the OP - at 8.50 in the video the leader has placed his first bit of gear near the anchor to stop him falling past the belayer and to reduce the fall factor - as far as I can tell from the vid. it's probably just the
only bit he could get, hence it's quite near the belayer and looks like he's re-driecting the fall through this.
> which is what Gadd now does according to his articles (as well as using a Grigri interestingly). Swings and roundabouts.
You've got to take Gadd's comments with a pinch of salt - remember, he's uber good and not going to fall off, so why not use a Gri-Gri?
Back to the OP - at 8.50 in the video the leader has placed his first bit of gear near the anchor to stop him falling past the belayer and to reduce the fall factor - as far as I can tell from the vid. it's probably just the
only bit he could get, hence it's quite near the belayer and looks like he's re-driecting the fall through this.
In reply to TobyA:
>. He uses >it directly on the belay for bringing up the second too to shock you more!
Can't see anything bad about that - no different from using a guide plate or some such, or even an italian hitch.
This issue with using a gri-gri in trad/ice climbing as a lead belay device is the arguement is that it would impart more impact force.
Some figures here from beal:
http://www.bealplanet.com/portail-2006/index.php?page=facteur_chute&lan...
>. He uses >it directly on the belay for bringing up the second too to shock you more!
Can't see anything bad about that - no different from using a guide plate or some such, or even an italian hitch.
This issue with using a gri-gri in trad/ice climbing as a lead belay device is the arguement is that it would impart more impact force.
Some figures here from beal:
http://www.bealplanet.com/portail-2006/index.php?page=facteur_chute&lan...
In reply to Davy Virdee:
Why does he bother with a rope then?
> You've got to take Gadd's comments with a pinch of salt - remember, he's uber good and not going to fall off, so why not use a Gri-Gri?
Why does he bother with a rope then?
In reply to Davy Virdee:
Two things:
I am not clear what "maximum impact force" is. Is it a fixed value for a given rope - the maximum recommended safe force on it?
Why would using a grigri rather than a normal belay device make any difference? is it assumed that a normal belay device is used dynamically, letting some slack run through it? Surely no one realistically does this in practice (unless they are belaying inattentively....)
Two things:
I am not clear what "maximum impact force" is. Is it a fixed value for a given rope - the maximum recommended safe force on it?
Why would using a grigri rather than a normal belay device make any difference? is it assumed that a normal belay device is used dynamically, letting some slack run through it? Surely no one realistically does this in practice (unless they are belaying inattentively....)
In reply to Robert Durran:
Funny you should say that, Robert.
A mate of mine emailed me
http://gravsports.blogspot.com/2010/02/simple-tricks-for-speed-on-multi-pit...
A year or so ago and asked what I thought
I found my reply,
"Ok, here's my dissection of this article, and why I think 1) it's not
really making thinks quicker IN ASCENT and 2) why it's got some
serious drawbacks for 99.9 % of ice climbing. 3) it only works if
you're not really using a rope."
I then go on and on a bit
Funny you should say that, Robert.
A mate of mine emailed me
http://gravsports.blogspot.com/2010/02/simple-tricks-for-speed-on-multi-pit...
A year or so ago and asked what I thought
I found my reply,
"Ok, here's my dissection of this article, and why I think 1) it's not
really making thinks quicker IN ASCENT and 2) why it's got some
serious drawbacks for 99.9 % of ice climbing. 3) it only works if
you're not really using a rope."
I then go on and on a bit
In reply to Robert Durran:
Hello Robert,
I think from that Beal webpage they are quoting the "maximum recommended impact force" for a paricular rope, and the peak, observed force.
Looking at example 1 with a gri-gri, the 12kN rope (red) generates 14.35 kN of force at the top runner. Using a "classic device", the same rope would generate 8.25 kN. 14.35 kN will hurt!
The argument is there is more slippage with a classic device, as you suggedt, hence the force on the top anchor will be less.
Davy
The impact measrued at the
Hello Robert,
I think from that Beal webpage they are quoting the "maximum recommended impact force" for a paricular rope, and the peak, observed force.
Looking at example 1 with a gri-gri, the 12kN rope (red) generates 14.35 kN of force at the top runner. Using a "classic device", the same rope would generate 8.25 kN. 14.35 kN will hurt!
The argument is there is more slippage with a classic device, as you suggedt, hence the force on the top anchor will be less.
Davy
> (In reply to Davy Virdee)
>
> Two things:
>
> I am not clear what "maximum impact force" is. Is it a fixed value for a given rope - the maximum recommended safe force on it?
>
> Two things:
>
> I am not clear what "maximum impact force" is. Is it a fixed value for a given rope - the maximum recommended safe force on it?
The impact measrued at the
> Why would using a grigri rather than a normal belay device make any difference? is it assumed that a normal belay device is used dynamically, letting some slack run through it? Surely no one realistically does this in practice (unless they are belaying inattentively....)
In reply to Davy Virdee:
Mmmm. How do you safely make a V-thread while also belaying?!
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> Funny you should say that, Robert.
> A mate of mine emailed me
>
> http://gravsports.blogspot.com/2010/02/simple-tricks-for-speed-on-multi-pit...
> A year or so ago and asked what I thought
> Funny you should say that, Robert.
> A mate of mine emailed me
>
> http://gravsports.blogspot.com/2010/02/simple-tricks-for-speed-on-multi-pit...
> A year or so ago and asked what I thought
Mmmm. How do you safely make a V-thread while also belaying?!
In reply to Robert Durran:
I think that's why WG likes being belayed with a gri-gri
(Health warning - gri-gri's are not hands free devices and probably not a good idea to use as a winter belay device)
I think that's why WG likes being belayed with a gri-gri
(Health warning - gri-gri's are not hands free devices and probably not a good idea to use as a winter belay device)
In reply to Davy Virdee:
But he was using an ATC!
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> I think that's why WG likes being belayed with a gri-gri
>
> (Health warning - gri-gri's are not hands free devices and probably not a good idea to use as a winter belay device)
> I think that's why WG likes being belayed with a gri-gri
>
> (Health warning - gri-gri's are not hands free devices and probably not a good idea to use as a winter belay device)
But he was using an ATC!
In reply to Robert Durran:
Eek!
From:
http://willgadd.com/?p=501
"-I’d generally rather have a belayer using a gri-gri ..... finishing a V-thread,"
Eek!
From:
http://willgadd.com/?p=501
"-I’d generally rather have a belayer using a gri-gri ..... finishing a V-thread,"
In reply to mike1979: this is a complicated question to answer as there's many different factors involved. But basically what he's doing is fine so long as he keeps hold of the rope.
In reply to Robert Durran: ATC *GUIDE*... theres a big difference as it's a magic plate i.e. hands free belay. So you can safely arrange other stuff and then every so often yard in the slack... or be winding in screws one handed after having started them, or feeding the thread etc...
In reply to Robert Durran:
The maximum force measured during the first drop test for certification, it was written on the information that came with your rope.
> (In reply to Davy Virdee)
>
>
>
> I am not clear what "maximum impact force" is. Is it a fixed value for a given rope - the maximum recommended safe force on it?
>
>
>
>
> I am not clear what "maximum impact force" is. Is it a fixed value for a given rope - the maximum recommended safe force on it?
>
The maximum force measured during the first drop test for certification, it was written on the information that came with your rope.
In reply to mike1979:
To cut through the usual amount of faff on this topic.
You belay on the master point created by the hanging belay.
You don't use an Italian hitch, that is an outdated technique from the GAC.
The use of a dummy runner is a fairly difficult subject, I won't go into that.
To cut through the usual amount of faff on this topic.
You belay on the master point created by the hanging belay.
You don't use an Italian hitch, that is an outdated technique from the GAC.
The use of a dummy runner is a fairly difficult subject, I won't go into that.
In reply to CorR:
I take it you never used one on heavily iced ropes in that case. There is a time and place for the Italian/Munter/Friction hitch. Just like there is a time and place for a modern belay plate. For example, a friction hitch has significantly higher amounts of friction than a belay plate. To the tune of 20% - so if you happen to need to lower heavy weights (like your climbing partner with a pack on) they are useful. Just because it's old, it doesn't mean its crap...
> You don't use an Italian hitch, that is an outdated technique from the GAC.
I take it you never used one on heavily iced ropes in that case. There is a time and place for the Italian/Munter/Friction hitch. Just like there is a time and place for a modern belay plate. For example, a friction hitch has significantly higher amounts of friction than a belay plate. To the tune of 20% - so if you happen to need to lower heavy weights (like your climbing partner with a pack on) they are useful. Just because it's old, it doesn't mean its crap...
In reply to CorR: PS were you refering to the GAC as in the Get A Clue?
In reply to mike kann:
I agree. The other massive advantage to the Italian hitch(and the reason a lot of guides and German's use it) is that it is basically multidirectional (it locks off best with the ropes in parallel, but will lock off everywhere else as well). Plus, it is a great knot to know if you lose your belay plate. Finally, it is the easiest belay style to lock off quickly, by a distance. It certainly has a place in a climbers' range of techniques.
I agree. The other massive advantage to the Italian hitch(and the reason a lot of guides and German's use it) is that it is basically multidirectional (it locks off best with the ropes in parallel, but will lock off everywhere else as well). Plus, it is a great knot to know if you lose your belay plate. Finally, it is the easiest belay style to lock off quickly, by a distance. It certainly has a place in a climbers' range of techniques.
In reply to Ben1983:
sorry, I obviously meant tie off.
sorry, I obviously meant tie off.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...