This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hi,
I've come across the use of a "trapped" figure of 8 to tie a piece of gear into a rope loop when building a belay (and avoiding the use of a karabiner). It's essentially a figure of 8 with an outgoing strand trapped in one of the eyes. Does anyone have a picture of what this is meant to look like? I might be googling the wrong terms.
Thanks!
I've come across the use of a "trapped" figure of 8 to tie a piece of gear into a rope loop when building a belay (and avoiding the use of a karabiner). It's essentially a figure of 8 with an outgoing strand trapped in one of the eyes. Does anyone have a picture of what this is meant to look like? I might be googling the wrong terms.
Thanks!
1
1
In reply to Dave Perry:
It's a way of saving a krab. It's not something I can see myself routinely using, but I'd like to know how to do it.
It's a way of saving a krab. It's not something I can see myself routinely using, but I'd like to know how to do it.
1
In reply to climbwhenready:
Yeah you just wouldn't
There's always karabiners on your harness to use.
Yeah you just wouldn't
There's always karabiners on your harness to use.
8
19
In reply to climbwhenready:
I routinely tie ropes rather than using karibiners in belays and this is a knot I've never used !
I routinely tie ropes rather than using karibiners in belays and this is a knot I've never used !
1
10
In reply to lithos:
I am talking about this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14191160/figure8belay.png
Obviously either I'm not being clear, or it's not frequently used! Nevertheless the handbook does describe it as the preferred way to tie off to a single point anchor (!)
I am talking about this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14191160/figure8belay.png
Obviously either I'm not being clear, or it's not frequently used! Nevertheless the handbook does describe it as the preferred way to tie off to a single point anchor (!)
In reply to climbwhenready:
Don't know about a trapped F8 but that looks similar to the way we used to tie off back in the day, a couple of half hitches tied round all three ropes at the point where you have tied into the rope. One advantage is that the loop that is formed can be used as secondary attachment/equalising point. It is also easy to adjust.
Al
Don't know about a trapped F8 but that looks similar to the way we used to tie off back in the day, a couple of half hitches tied round all three ropes at the point where you have tied into the rope. One advantage is that the loop that is formed can be used as secondary attachment/equalising point. It is also easy to adjust.
Al
Post edited at 11:58
1
In reply to climbwhenready:
I used to do that when i was young, enthusiastic and thought knots were cool- there are much simpler and quicker ways of doing things.
I used to do that when i was young, enthusiastic and thought knots were cool- there are much simpler and quicker ways of doing things.
1
In reply to climbwhenready:
Oh you mean trying off gear back to the harness with a figure 8... Right- yes that's used quite often. But not by me. 3 clovehitches fit on my HMS.
Oh you mean trying off gear back to the harness with a figure 8... Right- yes that's used quite often. But not by me. 3 clovehitches fit on my HMS.
In reply to climbwhenready:
you weren't clear as you implied the fo8 was at the gear end (a bit like zimparas pic)
so thats tying the fo8 at your harness instead of using a clove hitch on a krab.
It's commonly used (sometimes by me) but i usually substitute 2 half hitches for the fo8,
you weren't clear as you implied the fo8 was at the gear end (a bit like zimparas pic)
so thats tying the fo8 at your harness instead of using a clove hitch on a krab.
It's commonly used (sometimes by me) but i usually substitute 2 half hitches for the fo8,
why not larks foot the rope onto the gear before placing the wire ?
not that i would - im bound to have a krab , like the one in the top right with the wires on it !
In reply to climbwhenready:
That is just two half hitches on the bite tied off to the fig 8 tie in loop. Its pretty common and very quick.
That is just two half hitches on the bite tied off to the fig 8 tie in loop. Its pretty common and very quick.
In reply to lithos:
Yup, OK, so I wasn't clear. Anyway, never having done this, I was trying to remember how it is done! I almost always clove hitch to a big HMS.
> you weren't clear as you implied the fo8 was at the gear end (a bit like zimparas pic)
> so thats tying the fo8 at your harness instead of using a clove hitch on a krab.
> It's commonly used (sometimes by me) but i usually substitute 2 half hitches for the fo8,
Yup, OK, so I wasn't clear. Anyway, never having done this, I was trying to remember how it is done! I almost always clove hitch to a big HMS.
In reply to climbwhenready:
That's more or less my default for when the gear is out of reach of where I want to sit/stand. Top out, place gear, screwgate to gear, clip screwgate as if it were a runner, fasten screwgate, return to stance, post a bight through my central loop and tie an 8-on-the-bight, call safe. Repeat if you want more pieces of gear.
It saves a krab, and I find it slightly easier to get the length just right first time; if I use a krab and clove hitch at my harness I'll often then find I need to adjust it.
That's more or less my default for when the gear is out of reach of where I want to sit/stand. Top out, place gear, screwgate to gear, clip screwgate as if it were a runner, fasten screwgate, return to stance, post a bight through my central loop and tie an 8-on-the-bight, call safe. Repeat if you want more pieces of gear.
It saves a krab, and I find it slightly easier to get the length just right first time; if I use a krab and clove hitch at my harness I'll often then find I need to adjust it.
In reply to climbwhenready:
Yes used it often, mostly in two different scenarios.
First, as you said to tie off a rope to a single out of reach anchor to you. It was taught to us in ML(s) training. It is basically three half-hitches.
Second, I have used it to tie of a belay plate.
It is quite a neat little easy to tie/untie knot.
Yes used it often, mostly in two different scenarios.
First, as you said to tie off a rope to a single out of reach anchor to you. It was taught to us in ML(s) training. It is basically three half-hitches.
Second, I have used it to tie of a belay plate.
It is quite a neat little easy to tie/untie knot.
In reply to climbwhenready:
you're right. I feel some experimenting coming on. I've always used a couple of half hitches to tie off because its easy to get the tension right
you're right. I feel some experimenting coming on. I've always used a couple of half hitches to tie off because its easy to get the tension right
In reply to climbwhenready:
Full set of pictures here (of course):
http://people.bath.ac.uk/dac33/high/6TheBelay.htm#belaysbuiltfromtherope
For those who have not done this, it is much easier to get tight to the anchor(s) that with a clove on a screwgate.
> Hi,
> I've come across the use of a "trapped" figure of 8 to tie a piece of gear into a rope loop when building a belay (and avoiding the use of a karabiner). It's essentially a figure of 8 with an outgoing strand trapped in one of the eyes. Does anyone have a picture of what this is meant to look like? I might be googling the wrong terms.
> Thanks!
Full set of pictures here (of course):
http://people.bath.ac.uk/dac33/high/6TheBelay.htm#belaysbuiltfromtherope
For those who have not done this, it is much easier to get tight to the anchor(s) that with a clove on a screwgate.
Post edited at 21:37
3
1
In reply to climbwhenready:
I just wanted to add that, I too, use this knot all the time. It's my standard way of tieing on at a belay if the anchor is out of reach. I find it easy, quick and very useful. I was slightly surprised by the number of people against it, although I can understand why some people prefer a clove hitch.
Mehmet
I just wanted to add that, I too, use this knot all the time. It's my standard way of tieing on at a belay if the anchor is out of reach. I find it easy, quick and very useful. I was slightly surprised by the number of people against it, although I can understand why some people prefer a clove hitch.
Mehmet
In reply to climbwhenready:
As pointed out, it's a standard way of tying off at the waist, and it's just as easy to get the length right as with a clove hitch. The only advantage of the clove hitch is that you can easily do it after the knot is tied.
By the way, it's a figure-of-eight IN a bight. The figure-of-eight ON a bight is what's also known as the "bunny knot". It's the figure-of-eight equivalent of the bowline on a bight; they both produce two loops.
As pointed out, it's a standard way of tying off at the waist, and it's just as easy to get the length right as with a clove hitch. The only advantage of the clove hitch is that you can easily do it after the knot is tied.
By the way, it's a figure-of-eight IN a bight. The figure-of-eight ON a bight is what's also known as the "bunny knot". It's the figure-of-eight equivalent of the bowline on a bight; they both produce two loops.
1
1
In reply to Mehmet Karatay:
What do you reckon are the pros and cons compored with tying off with a couple of half hitches ?
What do you reckon are the pros and cons compored with tying off with a couple of half hitches ?
In reply to David Coley:
Cheers, David, that's what I was looking for! I should have known to check your website.
Cheers, David, that's what I was looking for! I should have known to check your website.
In reply to GrahamD:
That's what I use, two or three half hitches, and often use the loop to clip a near belay point.
Probably the quickest option and easy to get the length spot on. KISS.
Also, often clip two high belays, climb down to stance, both ropes in one overhand knot, clip one loop to rope loop or belay loop with screwgate, use spare loop to third closer point. Again quick, simple, minimal krabs involved.
> What do you reckon are the pros and cons compored with tying off with a couple of half hitches ?
That's what I use, two or three half hitches, and often use the loop to clip a near belay point.
Probably the quickest option and easy to get the length spot on. KISS.
Also, often clip two high belays, climb down to stance, both ropes in one overhand knot, clip one loop to rope loop or belay loop with screwgate, use spare loop to third closer point. Again quick, simple, minimal krabs involved.
1
In reply to David Coley:
Another rope <-> gear tie off article:
http://andy-kirkpatrick.com/cragmanship/view/critical_thinking
Another rope <-> gear tie off article:
http://andy-kirkpatrick.com/cragmanship/view/critical_thinking
In reply to climbwhenready:
My standard at the top of a route, two or three half hitches around a loop shoved through the waist belt of a harness
My standard at the top of a route, two or three half hitches around a loop shoved through the waist belt of a harness
In reply to climbwhenready:
I have been shown this repeatedly on SPA training, assessment and I think on a self-rescue course so at least some people think it is important; the context was that you have run out of locking carabiners. I would rather do this than put a clove hitch on a snapgate (although I will do that on a single piece of gear), and you can't clove hitch a pair of back-to-back snapgates.
I have been shown this repeatedly on SPA training, assessment and I think on a self-rescue course so at least some people think it is important; the context was that you have run out of locking carabiners. I would rather do this than put a clove hitch on a snapgate (although I will do that on a single piece of gear), and you can't clove hitch a pair of back-to-back snapgates.
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Do you know much about the properties of a clove hitch? I've seen clovehitches around angle iron stakes on an anchor rope. Only reason I used it was because above 2 clovehiched stakes there was a figure 8 on a stake. That and I accepted the risk of broken ankles.
Do you know much about the properties of a clove hitch? I've seen clovehitches around angle iron stakes on an anchor rope. Only reason I used it was because above 2 clovehiched stakes there was a figure 8 on a stake. That and I accepted the risk of broken ankles.
In reply to zimpara:
Sorry, but it is unclear what you are trying to say. Thanks
> Do you know much about the properties of a clove hitch? I've seen clovehitches around angle iron stakes on an anchor rope. Only reason I used it was because above 2 clovehiched stakes there was a figure 8 on a stake. That and I accepted the risk of broken ankles.
Sorry, but it is unclear what you are trying to say. Thanks
1
In reply to zimpara:
I'm somewhat confused as to what your point is? I'm not seeing what the connection with clove-hitching stakes is, nor why you seem reluctant to use them? I clove hitch a loop of the rope directly onto stakes; none of that messing around with slings and carabiners. Are you suggesting you don't clove-hitch stakes - and if so, why?
Unless you are referring to my comment 'you can't clove hitch a pair of back-to-back snapgates' which I am happy to rephrase as 'you can clove hitch a pair of back-to-back snapgates but it is probably not a brilliant idea'
I'm somewhat confused as to what your point is? I'm not seeing what the connection with clove-hitching stakes is, nor why you seem reluctant to use them? I clove hitch a loop of the rope directly onto stakes; none of that messing around with slings and carabiners. Are you suggesting you don't clove-hitch stakes - and if so, why?
Unless you are referring to my comment 'you can't clove hitch a pair of back-to-back snapgates' which I am happy to rephrase as 'you can clove hitch a pair of back-to-back snapgates but it is probably not a brilliant idea'
In reply to GrahamD:
That is a really good question. Anyone know of some drop test data comparing a fig8 to half hitches?
> What do you reckon are the pros and cons compored with tying off with a couple of half hitches ?
That is a really good question. Anyone know of some drop test data comparing a fig8 to half hitches?
In reply to David Coley:
I suspect in this application a drop test might be a tad painful ! I was thinking more on the practicalities of tensioning up the belay, ease of tying, bulk etc.
I suspect in this application a drop test might be a tad painful ! I was thinking more on the practicalities of tensioning up the belay, ease of tying, bulk etc.
In reply to David Coley:
Standing at the cliff edge, the rope runs to a stake, make a loop, then another loop, place first loop behind second loop, and stick that over a stake...
Is that clearer? Thanks
Andrew, yes a clove in a fig 8 loop sounds good. I use it often but not what I'm explaining here
Standing at the cliff edge, the rope runs to a stake, make a loop, then another loop, place first loop behind second loop, and stick that over a stake...
Is that clearer? Thanks
Andrew, yes a clove in a fig 8 loop sounds good. I use it often but not what I'm explaining here
In reply to zimpara:
I do almost every time I climb, it's quick and easy. Perhaps my sarcasm detector is out of calibration, I'm pretty tired.
OP: You push a bight through the loop you want to tie back to, pull both strands forming the bight back toward the gear piece and with the bight you tie a fig8 back toward the bit of gear. You can clip the remaining and now somewhat smaller bight to something for security if you like. Best have someone show you or find a video/book with pictures.
jk
> Yeah you just wouldn't
> There's always karabiners on your harness to use.
> There's always karabiners on your harness to use.
I do almost every time I climb, it's quick and easy. Perhaps my sarcasm detector is out of calibration, I'm pretty tired.
OP: You push a bight through the loop you want to tie back to, pull both strands forming the bight back toward the gear piece and with the bight you tie a fig8 back toward the bit of gear. You can clip the remaining and now somewhat smaller bight to something for security if you like. Best have someone show you or find a video/book with pictures.
jk
Post edited at 15:45
In reply to zimpara:
I think both me and David Coley (who has written a book on multipitch climbing) know how to clove hitch an anchor stake. I would add that it is better that the crossing part of the hitch is at the back of the stake, and probably better that the clove hitch is in a loop (Fig 8 on a bight/bowline for the end of the rope, Alpine Butterfly useful for pulling out a long loop for equalizing to a second stake).
What we are still confused about is why you asked about the properties of a clove hitch, or why you brought up stakes in the first place?
I think both me and David Coley (who has written a book on multipitch climbing) know how to clove hitch an anchor stake. I would add that it is better that the crossing part of the hitch is at the back of the stake, and probably better that the clove hitch is in a loop (Fig 8 on a bight/bowline for the end of the rope, Alpine Butterfly useful for pulling out a long loop for equalizing to a second stake).
What we are still confused about is why you asked about the properties of a clove hitch, or why you brought up stakes in the first place?
> Do you know much about the properties of a clove hitch? I've seen clovehitches around angle iron stakes on an anchor rope. Only reason I used it was because above 2 clovehiched stakes there was a figure 8 on a stake. That and I accepted the risk of broken ankles.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
I've just been into the garden, set it up and jumped out of the tree onto a 8.5mm dynamic rope.
What I found:
1. using two half hitches works fine, but is harder to undo once loaded.
2. the second half hitch is critical and hence you need to create a long enough bight to tie it. With just one half hitch I was able to get it to slide to failure by just pulling with my hand. Interestingly, which strand you pull makes all the difference: one slides, the other tightens the knot.
3. Very little load is passed to the second half hitch, which means the first one is tightened down and gets very small and hence moves away from the second - which is then left flopping around and might well work undone.
4. However, the first one is now so tight that it does not seem to be able to slip like it did under point 2.
Note, these were low fall factor, low energy falls. If someone can pull 12kN and check if the above is still true it would be great.
I've just been into the garden, set it up and jumped out of the tree onto a 8.5mm dynamic rope.
What I found:
1. using two half hitches works fine, but is harder to undo once loaded.
2. the second half hitch is critical and hence you need to create a long enough bight to tie it. With just one half hitch I was able to get it to slide to failure by just pulling with my hand. Interestingly, which strand you pull makes all the difference: one slides, the other tightens the knot.
3. Very little load is passed to the second half hitch, which means the first one is tightened down and gets very small and hence moves away from the second - which is then left flopping around and might well work undone.
4. However, the first one is now so tight that it does not seem to be able to slip like it did under point 2.
Note, these were low fall factor, low energy falls. If someone can pull 12kN and check if the above is still true it would be great.
2
In reply to David Coley:
Glad to hear the half hitches work since its my usual belay method ! Intuitively its not surprising the second half hitch is needed. I don't usually have a problem getting the bite long enough - it sort of happens naturally when taking the slack out the belay. If I have a 3 point anchor with one piece close by I sometimes try to get the bite directly do the near anchor. Did you try the 8 for comparison ?
Glad to hear the half hitches work since its my usual belay method ! Intuitively its not surprising the second half hitch is needed. I don't usually have a problem getting the bite long enough - it sort of happens naturally when taking the slack out the belay. If I have a 3 point anchor with one piece close by I sometimes try to get the bite directly do the near anchor. Did you try the 8 for comparison ?
In reply to GrahamD:
yes, easier to untie
it would be good to pull to 12kN and see what difference it makes then
> Did you try the 8 for comparison ?
yes, easier to untie
it would be good to pull to 12kN and see what difference it makes then
In reply to David Coley:
Cheers. Sounds like its worth a look. Did you finish off the final bite at all ? I'm interested because its sometimes useful to have the finishing bite to clip into other points of a belay and the angles don't seem as good with the 8.
Cheers. Sounds like its worth a look. Did you finish off the final bite at all ? I'm interested because its sometimes useful to have the finishing bite to clip into other points of a belay and the angles don't seem as good with the 8.
In reply to David Coley:
I don't think it really matters, all the knot and krab systems will be strong enough for the anchors.
It is more about which is quicker and easier to adjust.
Also the two half hitches can be tied in at least two different ways.
I do them so as to form a clove hitch on the rope.
> That is a really good question. Anyone know of some drop test data comparing a fig8 to half hitches?
I don't think it really matters, all the knot and krab systems will be strong enough for the anchors.
It is more about which is quicker and easier to adjust.
Also the two half hitches can be tied in at least two different ways.
I do them so as to form a clove hitch on the rope.
In reply to Rick Graham:
Hi, that is why I thought it might be worth loading to a high load - it would be good to see if either can be undone afterwards.
> I don't think it really matters, all the knot and krab systems will be strong enough for the anchors.
> It is more about which is quicker and easier to adjust.
Hi, that is why I thought it might be worth loading to a high load - it would be good to see if either can be undone afterwards.
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Can you explain why it isn't a brilliant idea?
> Unless you are referring to my comment 'you can't clove hitch a pair of back-to-back snapgates' which I am happy to rephrase as 'you can clove hitch a pair of back-to-back snapgates but it is probably not a brilliant idea'
Can you explain why it isn't a brilliant idea?
In reply to Mike Nolan:
I'm just not convinced it is going to sit nicely; most crabs have angled top bars but the clove hitch is going to want to pull them parallel. This is probably going to twist the carabiners out of their natural alignment along the spine. HMS crabs would probably be a bit better but who has HMS snapgates? You are going to be rubbing these two carabiners together in a more complicated way than just running a single rope through them (which will tend to hold them in a single orientation). Finally you are clove hitching to an unstable object - the carabiners can move about a bit and they could shift inside the hitch, loosening it or moving the carabiners to an unfavourable geometry.
Does anyone actually do this or think it is a good idea? I'd much rather do the tie-in at the harness if I was out of screwgates and wasn't happy with clove-hitching a single snapgate...
I'm just not convinced it is going to sit nicely; most crabs have angled top bars but the clove hitch is going to want to pull them parallel. This is probably going to twist the carabiners out of their natural alignment along the spine. HMS crabs would probably be a bit better but who has HMS snapgates? You are going to be rubbing these two carabiners together in a more complicated way than just running a single rope through them (which will tend to hold them in a single orientation). Finally you are clove hitching to an unstable object - the carabiners can move about a bit and they could shift inside the hitch, loosening it or moving the carabiners to an unfavourable geometry.
Does anyone actually do this or think it is a good idea? I'd much rather do the tie-in at the harness if I was out of screwgates and wasn't happy with clove-hitching a single snapgate...
In reply to andrewmcleod:
>Is this actually true? I can see why it seems that way. With the cross at the back the load appears to be tightening the hitch, with it at the front it sort of appears to be trying to pull it apart. It's not true though, if you think about it.
Could just be one of those myths that have found their way into the orthodoxy, though I don't think it matters very much.
> I would add that it is better that the crossing part of the hitch is at the back of the stake
>Is this actually true? I can see why it seems that way. With the cross at the back the load appears to be tightening the hitch, with it at the front it sort of appears to be trying to pull it apart. It's not true though, if you think about it.
Could just be one of those myths that have found their way into the orthodoxy, though I don't think it matters very much.
In reply to Andy Long:
It only really makes any difference if the stake starts to bend or move. The locking bit of the clove hitch at the back makes the hitch tighten. In front it doesn't. Exactly like slinging a horizontally buried axe - if that starts to pivot then you really don't want the sling sliding off it.
It only really makes any difference if the stake starts to bend or move. The locking bit of the clove hitch at the back makes the hitch tighten. In front it doesn't. Exactly like slinging a horizontally buried axe - if that starts to pivot then you really don't want the sling sliding off it.
In reply to jon:
True enough, but if the stake is correctly angled, away from the direction of load, any tendency for the hitch to slide (assuming there is one - I'm not convinced) would be down the stake to the ground, minimising the leverage.
True enough, but if the stake is correctly angled, away from the direction of load, any tendency for the hitch to slide (assuming there is one - I'm not convinced) would be down the stake to the ground, minimising the leverage.
In reply to Andy Long:
I think the word IF there is awfully well chosen!
> True enough, but IF the stake is correctly angled, away from the direction of load, any tendency for the hitch to slide (assuming there is one - I'm not convinced) would be down the stake to the ground, minimising the leverage.
I think the word IF there is awfully well chosen!
1
In reply to Andy Long:
Jim Titt (on his Bolt Products website) makes the argument that stakes should be placed vertically, not angled back. This is based partly on recommendations from the marquee industry; the logic is that most of the strength of a stake comes from friction rather than angle, and an angled stake can pull a slot through the ground and so lose 50% of contact (or something like that)? A bit like ice screws being stronger if they are angled slightly up (so more parallel with the direction of load). I'm not giving a very good defence of the argument so argue with the Bolt Products website rather than me
Jim Titt (on his Bolt Products website) makes the argument that stakes should be placed vertically, not angled back. This is based partly on recommendations from the marquee industry; the logic is that most of the strength of a stake comes from friction rather than angle, and an angled stake can pull a slot through the ground and so lose 50% of contact (or something like that)? A bit like ice screws being stronger if they are angled slightly up (so more parallel with the direction of load). I'm not giving a very good defence of the argument so argue with the Bolt Products website rather than me
1
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Fair point. They do take some pulling out.
Almost all my climbing is on sea cliffs these days and we do a lot of stake-banging. We normally use 2" angle iron and I get some funny looks when I put them in with the point of the "V" facing in the direction of the load, this being the inherently stable attitude. Put them in the other way and inevitably one of the edges will start to cut into the ground so that the whole thing will rotate, cutting out a cone of earth and ending up leaning well downhill. It takes a hell of a load to do it admittedly, but it's another of those counter-intuitive things which prompted my initial point about the clove-hitch.
Fair point. They do take some pulling out.
Almost all my climbing is on sea cliffs these days and we do a lot of stake-banging. We normally use 2" angle iron and I get some funny looks when I put them in with the point of the "V" facing in the direction of the load, this being the inherently stable attitude. Put them in the other way and inevitably one of the edges will start to cut into the ground so that the whole thing will rotate, cutting out a cone of earth and ending up leaning well downhill. It takes a hell of a load to do it admittedly, but it's another of those counter-intuitive things which prompted my initial point about the clove-hitch.
2
In reply to andrewmcleod:
It doesn't actually matter or make any difference though does it. I don't think that your clove hitch will magically become loose, or affect your snapgates orientation so much that their strength is compromised just because you've used back to back snapgates. It's something people (myself included) do all the time and I've never heard of, or experienced an issue.
I've definitely used a clove hitch on back to back snappers, I don't think it's a bad idea if it's necessary.
It doesn't actually matter or make any difference though does it. I don't think that your clove hitch will magically become loose, or affect your snapgates orientation so much that their strength is compromised just because you've used back to back snapgates. It's something people (myself included) do all the time and I've never heard of, or experienced an issue.
I've definitely used a clove hitch on back to back snappers, I don't think it's a bad idea if it's necessary.
In reply to Mike Nolan:
Fair enough - but when is it necessary?
> I've definitely used a clove hitch on back to back snappers, I don't think it's a bad idea if it's necessary.
Fair enough - but when is it necessary?
In reply to Mike Nolan:
But then you can tie directly in, as described (at length) in this thread So it's just an option if you decide it is acceptable (I remain unconvinced it would qualify as best practice but I won't hunt you down on the crag and try and convince you of this!).
> When you've run out of screwgates.
But then you can tie directly in, as described (at length) in this thread So it's just an option if you decide it is acceptable (I remain unconvinced it would qualify as best practice but I won't hunt you down on the crag and try and convince you of this!).
Post edited at 13:49
1
1
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I don't like the phrase 'best practice'. I much prefer 'safe practice', as I don't think it's a good idea to label certain things as the best way of doing something, when there are other equally good and safe ways.
I think both the ways described are safe practice and are therefore acceptable - I don't believe you genuinely think that a clove hitch on back to back snappers will compromise their strength.
There will be situations in climbing where one way is more efficient than the other. One of the ways that you can improve your climbing is to recognise when it's appropriate to use these different ways of doing things.
I don't like the phrase 'best practice'. I much prefer 'safe practice', as I don't think it's a good idea to label certain things as the best way of doing something, when there are other equally good and safe ways.
I think both the ways described are safe practice and are therefore acceptable - I don't believe you genuinely think that a clove hitch on back to back snappers will compromise their strength.
There will be situations in climbing where one way is more efficient than the other. One of the ways that you can improve your climbing is to recognise when it's appropriate to use these different ways of doing things.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...