UKC

Hi all. Apologies if this has been covered before.
I'm interested in the opinions of those who have read The Mountaineering Handbook by Craig Connally.
I want to move into multi pitch climbing from grade 3 scramling so I thought I'd read a book but all this has done is cast doubt on everything I thought I knew.
I agree with and understand most things in this book with regards to anchor building and the importance of anchor 1. But, as far as I'm aware, no one really uses these methods. Why?

In reply to jollygreengiant1:
I think (95% sure) I've read that one before, last year or so. Anyway (apologies if this is obvious, or if I messed up details) - the main reason the techniques are a bit "different" is because it's delivered for an American audience. If you've been exposed to UK techniques, they will just be a bit different. One example is snow stakes - as far as I know, they're just about never used in the UK, people prefer deadmen or buried ice-axes. Another difference is that hexes don't get used as often in the US, with cams being favored.
If you want to get into multipitch climbing, I'd suggest finding an instructor, or a trainee - and just getting out there that way.
In terms of a book (I have a tendency to want to study the living daylights out of something before trying it - perhaps you are similar) - Rock Climbing by Libby Peter is probably the best I've read on the subject (intro to multipitch rock climbing in the UK), and is tailored for a UK audience. The UK equivalent (and IMO, far better) to the book you mentioned would probably be 'The Mountain Skills Training Handbook' by Pete Hill & Stuart Johnson, which is also a fantastic book (I'm on my 3rd readthrough - keep finding new stuff every time)

Hope some of that helps.

In reply to jollygreengiant1:

You'd probably do better watching Glenmore Lodge videos on YouTube.

You mention grade 3 scrambling, but have you done any single pitch lead climbing?

In reply to jollygreengiant1:

http://multipitchclimbing.com/ This is a fairly exhaustive resource for all things multi pitch (again written from UK perspective), but is no substitute for getting out with a safe and experienced partner.

Worth mentioning the above is highly detailed and covers some techniques you wont need on low grade multipitch.

In reply to jollygreengiant1:

Thanks for replies/advice everyone, much appreciated. I will definitely check out the books and websites mentioned.
I did realise that the book is American but it's only really the sections on climbing forces and anchors that has thrown me.

Scott, I have seen the Glenmore Lodge videos and i think they're great.
I have done single pitch leading it's just certain parts of multipitch that I'm now unsure about.

In particular, when belaying the leader from the start of the second pitch for example. If the leader takes a fall before the first placement has been made (or the first placement blows) then isn't that a lot of force all on the belayers anchor and quite a high factor fall?
The book I read continually stresses the importance of building a solid(sometimes multidirectional) 1st anchor for the leader and less focus on the belayers anchor.

In reply to jollygreengiant1:


Yes, the leader on a multipitch taking a fall before they've placed any gear means a factor 2 fall (because they're falling twice the length of rope they have out).


A terminology note: in the UK, "anchor" tends to be used to mean something you're belaying or lowering off, whereas I think US usage is for any gear placement.

As I understand it; both are important: the belay because it's the only thing attaching everyone to the crag while the second's being brought up and before the leader on the next pitch places their first piece of gear, and the first gear placement on a pitch because it protects the belay from a factor 2 fall (and multi-directional is good if possible to avoid the possibility of un-zippering).


Which specific methods are you thinking of?

There are some things that are much more common in the US, like using cordelettes (or complex variants like equalettes etc.) to equalize forces on anchors and construct a "power point" that everything attaches to, whereas in the UK it's much more common to use the rope to equalize and attach yourself to the anchor, especially if you're using double ropes (which is also much more common in the UK than the US).

It's not that either is "wrong"; they're just different traditions.

In reply to slab_happy:

Yes it took me a while to figure out that every placement was being referred to as an anchor.

To answer your question, the method I am thinking of is the one constantly referred to in the book of focusing on the first placement (anchor 1) as the strongest point the system.
I've never done multipitch climbing but this seems like a sound method to avoid that factor 2 fall.

I'm just hoping for clarification because the guy that wrote the book seems to be saying that all other texts and methods are wrong. He's not condemning British methods in particular and the book even describes how to build belays using the rope.

In reply to jollygreengiant1:



I am not the world's most experienced multi-pitch climber, but think about this (and maybe more experienced people can catch me in any mistaakes).

On the first pitch, once the leader is further above that first placement than the first placement is above the ground, it doesn't matter how strong it is, it's not going to keep them off the ground (short of marginal scenarios where the belayer has to sprint). In the event of a fall, it's the strength or not of other placements that will determine whether they deck.

Once the leader has finished a pitch and built a belay, the first placement continues to not matter, not least because the second's going to remove it soon after they start climbing.

During all that time, while the second's climbing, while they change over or not and rearrange things at the belay, while the leader starts climbing -- there is no first placement. If someone falls, the strength of the belay is the only thing that'll keep both people from decking.

In addition, the first placement is going to be a single piece of gear, placed while climbing. Unless there's a convenient ledge that enables the leader to stand around, it seems unlikely that it's going to be possible to build something that's as solid as a multi-piece belay.

(I feel like if there *is* a convenient ledge shortly above the belay with lots of great opportunities for gear placements that lets you stand around and build something stronger than the belay you just left, that's a strong indication that you misread the guideook and finished the pitch in the wrong place.)

And then the leader is going (hopefully) to be placing lots of pieces of gear after the first one; if any of them are bomber, it doesn't matter if the first piece is iffy, because it's not going to be weighted (though see previous note re: un-zippering).

I'd be surprised if Connolly is saying that saying that the first placement is *more* important than the belay, which is how you seem to be interpreting it (I've only read parts of his book).

It's good to emphasize the importance of a really good first placement, to avoid a factor 2 fall (John Long calls it the "Jesus Nut").

But I don't see the logic of saying it should be "the strongest point in the system", when for a lot of the time, it either doesn't exist or won't actually have any effect on what happens in the event of a fall.

In reply to slab_happy:
I think you make some good points there. Certainly things that have gone through my mind whilst trying to understand the concept.

I'd agree that on the first lead pitch and on bringing up the second that such a placement would be ineffective. The force when a second falls is apparently low. But then on every successive lead it provides extra safety when leading away from the belay.

It took me a while to understand where the first anchor would come into play. I don't think it needs to be high, it just needs to be there in case of a fall so that the belay anchor doesn't take the fall.
If the lead climber has gained height from the belay to a Ledge to build anchor 1 then surely a factor 2 fall has already been risked.

It is possible that I'm interpreting the book wrong.

In reply to slab_happy:

I think the logic is that it's more crucial not to fall at that point (I think) due to the factor 2 fall potential.

In reply to jollygreengiant1:


Yes, absolutely. John Long and Bob Gaines say: "The most critical time is when the leader is first leaving the belay and has yet to place the first piece of protection (the Jesus Nut). "


Yup. Well, sometimes you're on a nice ledge and can place your first piece while still standing at the belay. But even then, you're technically risking a factor 2 fall.

Actually, this is particularly important to keep in mind when you're doing anything at a belay while attached to it by something static, e.g. a sling. If you've secured yourself with a sling larks-footed to your harness, and you move around at the belay so you're above the point the sling's attached to (easy to do without thinking), slip and fall -- you've just had a factor 2 fall onto something with no dynamic ability to absorb the shock, and slings *can* be snapped that way.

In reply to slab_happy:

Interestingly there's a method in the second book I mentioned that seems to solve this issue (and trades it for others). Basically the leader, once arrived at the end of the pitch, places the next piece of protection for the following pitch, and clips the rope to the second through it, and then belays facing this piece of gear (a redirect anchor, like a mini bottom-rope). The second, when arriving at the belay then just needs to be tied off, take the gear, and then can carry on (without any need to re-orient the belay plate) - and with the security of a "jesus piece" already in place.

- this method relies on the security and strength of the first piece, as it will (due to the pulley effect) have to accept twice as much force as the second generates when falling (which should be very low anyway, nowhere near as bad as a lead fall).
- if the redirect piece of gear fails, the anchor will be dynamically loaded, and the second will have a "leader-like" fall. It should be obvious that the redirect piece of gear needs to be extremely bomber.

I've yet to try it, as I'd just never heard about it - but apparently it can make multipitch changeovers much quicker. I wonder what else I've missed...

In reply to SenzuBean:
That sounds like a neat method and i like the idea of using the next piece for a redirect. Belaying using a redirect seems more comfortable.
Is it the mountain skills and training book?

I've been looking on multipitchclimbing.com at the jesus piece. It's shown in a few variations: as a single piece above the the belay anchor, as a single piece that also forms part of the belay anchor and one example through the master point with anchor positioned high.
I'd say from those examples it would seem best to use the master point. Using one part of the belay anchor doesn't seem like a good idea.

In reply to jollygreengiant1:

From my limited experience multipitching (I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong) when the leader is leaving the belay of a multipitch, placing a piece of gear as soon as possible is essential to protect the belay they have just left. If there are no placements available immediatly, the leader can use the highest piece of gear that has been placed that is part of the belay as thier first runner.

Hope I explained that in a way that makes sense. Its what I've been taught but happy to be corrected!!

In reply to Gills:

Yes it makes sense. It sounds like one of the jesus piece methods I've attempted to describe above.