UKC

Hello

I'm relatively new to indoor climbing, and have the above question.

I use a stopper after my F8, but a friend argues that there's no benefit, because a correctly tied F8 won't come undone, and, in the case of an incorrectly tied F8, a stopper won't save you. They also point-out that you're less likely to miss an incorrectly tied F8 if you've only got the F8 to check, rather than two knots, and any loop between the two knots could snag on something.

I've read that if there's sufficient force on a F8, then it can repeatedly invert, and thereby 'move' along the rope in the direction of the loose end, and that a stopper would stop this from happening. However, I've also read that this inversion only happens if there's significant force in opposite directions on the 'two' ropes at the base of the knot, pulling the knot apart - which would presumedly not happen when someone falls off, given that there'll just be the single downward force of the climber's weight.

Is there any evidence that a mis-tied F8 with a stopper is stronger than a mis-tied F8 alone?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

In reply to derrick_farnell:


Your friend is partially right. With a correctly tied FoE, a stopper isn't really necessary as long as there's a reasonably long tail. It's considered good practice though, and if nothing else it does ensure a nice long tail.

The second part is incorrect - a stopper will save you if the FoE is incorrectly tied. The stopper will even hold you on it's own if the FoE is completely absent.

A stopper on it's own is also called a 'barrel knot', and is often used to secure a karabiner at the end of a rope lanyard. Useful because it's a form of slip knot, so grips the krab securely preventing it from getting cross loaded, and also because it serves as a surprisingly effective shock absorber if it in untied and re-tied now and then.

In reply to derrick_farnell:


Oh, and regarding this bit - you're quite right, this is a total non-issue when tying in to a harness.

It becomes significant if you use a FoE knot to join two ropes together for an abseil. A good phrase to stick in your search engine of choice if you want to read about that is "Euro Death Knot" often abbreviated to "EDK". (Though, confusingly, the term is also sometimes used to refer to a simple overhand knot used the same way, which is *much* safer as long as the tails are nice and long.)

If where's enough rope to make a stopper knot when tail is long enough. So if unsure make a knot

To eliminate a loop between figure of 8 and stopper tie stopper directly next to eight. Like this: https://www.rockfax.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Fo8.jpg

At the end of the day I never heard of someone to die because of stopper knot, but folks die due to improperly done figure of 8 now and when.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

In many countries, figures of 8 are never backed up with a stopper knot. But in UK they usually are, so I do. I use whatever method is best served by the amount of rope left, so I don't take much care in leaving a set amount of rope (but enough).

In reply to deepsoup:

Thanks deepsoup.

Does your second paragraph apply to the double fisherman's, which is what I use for the stopper knot?

In reply to derrick_farnell:

I think you're confusing a re threaded figure of eight and a figure of eight bend.

A re threaded figure of eight is a great knot to use for tieing your rope to your harness and won't invert when used for this. The stopper knot is there to ensure adequate tail length and as a backup if you make a mistake tieing the re threaded figure of eight.

A figure of eight bend has/occasionally is talked about as being used to tie two ropes together for an abseil however it is NOT SAFE to do so. This is because of the inversion issue you mentioned.

An incorrectly tied re threaded figure of eight is NOT SAFE, an incorrectly tied re threaded figure of eight with a correctly tied stopper knot is far far safer.

Hope that helps.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

Not meaning to echo the points above, but a safe re-threaded figure of 8 should have at least hand span of tail to avoid it pulling through when fallen on... and so if you've got 20cm+ of tail flapping about at your waist, why not stick a stopper in? Tidies it up nicely, and you're extra safe.

Plus, if you choose to start leading, I find a nice tidy knot makes it much easier to clip draws.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

A couple of years ago a guide in Chamonix told me he doesn't advise his clients to tie a stopper.

Apparently there has been a lot of accidents while clipping to anchors, belaying and abseiling where climbers have clipped/belayed/abseiled from the loop of rope between the F8 and stopper.

I still tie a stopper just out of habit but it's not an impossible scenario to imagine at the end of a long tiring day.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

The stopper knot adds a safety knot, and if you can tie one then you can also be sure that you had enough tail to reduce the chance of a loose knot pulling itself undone, for example if incorrectly tied, but also if correctly tied, but left a bit loose, also referred to as not dressed properly.
Dressing a knot, means pulling each end (4 in theory.. the live end that you fall on, the dead end that you put the stopper in, and the two ends that come out the other side forming the loop through your harness. Put your stopper in after doing this.
The stopper knot should be placed as close to the fig 8 as possible, so that there is no loop between it + fig 8 that could be clipped into in error at a belay. This prevents accidents referred to in prevoius post or two. It's a common mistake, and you very regularly see it at gyms / walls, and staff don't often point out that it's a risky thing and should be done right.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

Not necessary for the integrity of the knot but a stopper ensures that you have left sufficient tail and is also a good way to tidy up the tail and stop it flapping around.

In reply to EuanM:



It's good advice. I read that there have been accidents where helicopter rescue crews had clipped the loop between the fig8 and the stopper - an honest mistake becasue they were in shit conditions and in a hurry.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

As deepsoup says, stopper would be a backup if FoE is incorrectly tied. As for whether to bother with one or not, it's a no-brainer. At the end of the day anything that will make u safer out on the rock (or at the indoor wall) should be practiced; especially something like a stopper which isn't very arduous and takes roughly an extra 6 seconds to perform. One of the best "good" habits a climber can develop IMO

In reply to deepsoup:

Have a go, reasonably near the ground, and see precisely how badly tied a follow through F8 will hold you. You might be surprised. The worst I've had actually hold (deliberately, I was demonstrating this exact point) was tying a F8 then putting just one strand through it and pulling tight. It's an incredibly good knot and really quite failsafe. So a stopper fulfilling that role is unlikely.

However, it does make sure you've got enough tail.

On a bowline, by contrast, it's part of the knot, and if you miss it you might well die.

In reply to EuanM:


Another good reason to keep the stopper snug against the fig-8...

In reply to deepsoup:


Completely agree. A few years ago I didn't finish off my FoE when at climbing wall, was talking and not paying attention. But I DID tie a stopper knot and this saved me when lowering off. Without stopper I would have fallen.

Lesson learned, tie proper stopper knot but, more importantly do buddy check before climbing!

In reply to derrick_farnell:

A figure-eight loop can roll if the loop is ring-loaded. This doesn't happen in the ordinary course of events, but a situation to be aware of is when the climber belays off the rope loop rather than the harness belay loop; see for example https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1129 . If this is part of your practice, then a backup for the figure eight to prevent possible rolling under load seems prudent.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

My general rule is if the tail ends up long enough to tie a stopper then I will, if it's not (and not too short) then I won't.

As an aside, I failed my entrance test at Harrogate wall for tying a stopper that looped around the rope twice, rather then the three times they insisted on. I hard to untie, make the tail longer and retie. I then proceeded to use a bowline anyway...

In reply to Jimbo C:

Still do the stopper but have it snug to fig8.

In reply to rgold:

While you're correct that a figure 8 can roll when it is pulled apart, rather than along it's axis. Where it is loaded along its main axis aswell (as in the above example, to the gear) the rolling problem is negated.
The issue arrises when two ropes are attached to one another and pulled apart as others have mentioned. Definitely something to be mindful of though. Cross loading of most things is indeed generally a bad idea.

But as you said, there's no harm in adding a stopper. Just make sure it's flush upto the figure 8 so there's no extra loop to be clipped by mistake.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

Yes, that's the one. The 'barrel knot' I mentioned is that stopper knot on it's own - take a bight of rope and then tie half of a double fisherman's knot with the tail around the standing part of the rope.

In reply to James Malloch:

No way. Really!? Do they still insist on a triple stopper knot? That's bonkers.

I'd struggle to even fit that in to the nice neat little loop of my bowline.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

You could always learn to tie a bowline, a stopper knot is essential with that knot. IMO it's an easier knot to learn. I was teaching some people to tie a bowline recently because one young girl, after taking several longish practice falls indoors, could not get her F8 undone and marvelled at how easily I could free myself in similar situations.

Al

In reply to deepsoup:

I still maintain that a double stopper is pretty bonkers. I've always used a single stopper with my bowline and in several decades of using it as my primary tying in knot I've never once had that single stopper come undone.

In reply to the OP, there's no need whatsoever to use any stopper knot with a fig-8 tie-in. When I used to do competitions the only tie-in knot permitted was a fig-8 and it wasn't permitted to add a stopper or any other knot in addition.

One thing nobody has mentioned is that if you have a tail that's too long (maybe 30cm or more) you run the risk of mistaking the tail for the main rope when clipping - particularly in awkward situations when you're clipping very close to your waist. A 15cm tail should be plenty if the knot is tied firmly.

In reply to john arran:

I also get a little concerned when I see people tying the stopper half way up the rope, sometimes as much as a foot away from the main knot. If it's not snug against the main knot it's worse than not having one at all.

Al

In reply to derrick_farnell:

Yes of course you must tie a stopper knot. Absolutely 100% essential if you want to climb. Otherwise you get kicked out of my climbing wall by a spotty 18 year old. FACT

In reply to derrick_farnell:

I climbed in Canada last year and was told by the instructor not to use a stopper knot as it obstructed your partner's view of the figure of 8 knot when checking each other's knot and belay device (as in the buddy system). When I later did use a stopper knot (out of habit) I was told to undo it!

In reply to KS132:

That would have to be one big stopper knot.

In reply to Jimbo C:

I've done this lowering off after tying off a F8 on the bight. Didn't have a stopper, but luckily the rope was so well worn there was enough friction for it not to slip. I always tie a stopper now.

I climb on a double bowline though.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

This thread gets repeated quite frequently. It always follows the same path - some people say you should add a stopper, then others say you don't need to. Someone says that the stopper makes it safer, and someone else says that it wastes time and rope. Then the ring-loading issue is brought up. It's like clockwork

But the OP actually asked a rather more interesting question:

>Is there any evidence that a mis-tied F8 with a stopper is stronger than a mis-tied F8 alone?

I'm not at all sure there is.

There are two reasons the fig 8 has become so ubiquitous - it's easy to spot if it's tied wrong (I am far happier assessing a fig 8 from a few feet away than I am a bowline) and it's very resilient against mis-tying. I can back Neil W's anecdote up with my own - I watched an instructor deliberately make only one pass of the three, and then demonstrate it held not just bodyweight but pretty vigorous bouncing.

I think what's happened is that the advice that a bowline must have a stopper (absolutely so) has morphed into 'all tie-in knots must have a stopper'.

I'd be interested to know - does anyone know of actual test data that shows that a badly tied fig 8 is any stronger with a stopper on it? It's all very well saying 'my badly tied 8 held because I'd put a stopper on it' but that doesn't prove that the stopper did anything, but might just indicate that the fig 8 is actually really good even when tied badly.

Until I see those data, I'm going to stick with my current stance, which is that the stopper adds nothing at all, and actually distracts from the critical part, which is tying the fig 8 in the first place. Look at accident statistics and you'll find that people don't deck because they tied an 8 badly - they deck because they forgot to tie it at all. So adding an extra phase to the tying in process, just making it longer, simply increases the chance that you get distracted halfway. I don't have it to hand but I'm sure I read an article in Professional Mountaineer a while ago that argued this point.

Added to that the possibility of creating an extra loop between fig 8 and stopper, which *is* known to have caused problems, and it seems to me the stopper adds nothing proven in terms of safety and actually creates a new way for things to go wrong.

In reply to derrick_farnell:
I would be interested to hear people's views on this way of finishing the figure of 8
http://www.roadtoelcap.com/uploads/1/6/8/9/16895140/8173948.jpg?737
It appears to add an additional element that stregthens the knot plus it hides the tail quite nicely.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I've done that accidentally (just poked the end through the knot once to start the rethread). I toproped a long overhanging sport route and lowered off on it safely. The knot seems to have a vast amount of redundancy in it. I never use a stopper knot unless instructing!

In reply to Slarti B:


Why do you think that?

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

That is exactly what I used to do. I found it much tidier and easier to undo than the standard method. I've just got used to using the simpler bowline now.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I find it really hard to believe you only popped it through once on the rethread (and it held on a lower off)!.... surely it must have been twice, ... Once could not hold you?...
But Neil Williams says the same higher up... It must have been pulled pretty tight first?
Lowering off can be quite bouncey... you must both have been quite shocked to see what you got away with.
I've gotta test that.. ground level, above a mat.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

Derrick. No. It is not necessary. However it is a good idea to make sure that you have sufficient 'tail' when you tie that life-saving figure of eight knot. A stopper ensures that you have and stops a loose end constantly whipping you in the privates. You need to decide if that is something you wish to avoid.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


It did. I tested it afterwards and it was bomber. I suppose a shiny new rope might not bite do well though.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


Well, three people have all reported that it does! It's remarkably good at holding when poorly tied - which is why I have strong doubts that any stopper ever adds any value.

Robert, I'm interested; why do you feel you have to add the stopper whilst instructing?

In reply to Robert Durran:


You tease! Between......?

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:


Because it is 'good practice'. Whatever that means......

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


I was a bit. If I had noticed it while climbing completely pumped, I would have probably shat myself...... I would not have believed it was safe.

In reply to Andy Say:

Sorry, it was a joke which I decided wasn't funny and I thought I'd deleted. I have now.

In reply to john arran:

I'm sure you're right. The humble overhand is a seriously under-appreciated knot in many ways.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Just because you got away with it doesn't mean it was safe.

In reply to GrahamD:
It was offered as an alternative finish to the stopper knot and I adopted it while I was on the course that recommended it then continued to use it afterwards in my own climing. On returning to climbing many years later after a break I went to a wall and my method was not recognised so I was told to use the stopper knot. I conformed and continue to do so but I would like to revive the Yosemite Finish as an acceptable knot. Can anyone suggest why knot?

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


It can, and it did. If there's enough tail, which there would be if you'd just failed to complete the follow-through, the whole knot tightens as you load it and it does eventually catch...probably! Try it (when only a foot or two off the ground)

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:


The bowline with a Yosemite finish is simply dangerous - or do you mean something else?

In reply to springfall2008:


I don't use it (not least because I don't know how to tie it) but I have seen others use it - what's dangerous about it?

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I used that method of finishing a fig 8 when I started climbing about 20 years ago. Didn't know it was called the Yosemite finish. After a long lay-off, I had forgotten about it and indeed, didn't see it again, until someone turned up at the wall, tied one during an induction and was told not to use it as it was, "dangerous, and weakened the integrity of the fig of 8."

No idea if that is true or not, but as I'd adopted the double stopper method, I didn't question it. BTW I believe a stopper of any nature to be unnecessary, other than as a means to ensure there's enough tail left over.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I am pretty sure I made a similar mistake as you described in your post at 19:17, putting the rope through once to start the re-thread.

I made the assumption that a mis-tied FoE would have pulled though without the stopper knot. From your experience that doesn't seem to be the case, but I certainly felt a lot less panicky with the stopper while I was being lowered!

In reply to springfall2008:


Really? You sure about that? I must be very lucky then.

In reply to GridNorth:

A bowline is fine, except if it gets 'ring loaded', for instance if you clip a krab in and hang from that. Then it is lethal: it will become undone in seconds; it simply slips through. Scary! A stopper knot might help against that, but I would trust my life with that.

In reply to Maarten2:


Really? You sure about that? I must be very lucky then.

In reply to springfall2008:

I was refering to the Figure of 8 with the Yosemite finish. I use bowlines when sailing but not climbing.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

The trouble with these posts is that many people consider knots they aren't familiar with to be dangerous, making comments like "A ring loaded bowline will come undone in seconds".

I normally climb on a figure of 8 with a variation of a yosemite finish, I've fallen on it hundreds of times, and held hundreds of falls on it too when it's been "ring loaded". I'm happy with it.

Does a fig 8 need a stopper? No. Does that mean a stopper is pointless? No.

In reply to Robert Durran:
To be clear, you say you never use a stopper knot unless instructing,... in this instance where you just popped the rethread in the knot but didn't rethread, i presume you pulled a length through sufficeint to complete the rethread, but forgot, and i presume that was it, as if you had added the stopper you would have (been more likely to have...) noticed the incomplete fig 8 ?
Was that with / without a stopper?

(Neil Williams was clear that just pulling the rope through the 1st hole of rethreading, it held without a stoppper.

Slarti B has said the incomplete rethread held, but with a stopper knot.)

I think the potentially life saving bonus of adding a stopper knot paying attention to the important detail of it being tight up against your fig 8, is that you can't help looking at the fig 8 whilst adding the stopper, and are therefore very likely to spot that you tied / didn't tie / complete the rethread of the fig 8 correctly.

I know that i have noticed before that my fig 8 wasn't right because i saw so whilst adding an adjacent stopper.

In reply to deepsoup:


Out if interest, i wonder what test data is available to demonstrate this, tieing into a harness with no fig 8, just a stopper knot, comparing a single turn of a stopper knot by itself, ( with some tail, say 10“ to be able to measure any slippage), with a double turn (that being like one half of a fishermans knot), and with a tripple turn.

Average fall factor and fall factor 1, and 2. No doubt one turn would perhaps hold an average fall, but show slippage, and maybe pull through on Ff1 + 2.
I guess 2 turns like half of a fishermans, will also hold ff1 + 2 with virtually no slippage.
3 turns must be bomber, especially with some tail.
Perhaps hard to undo 2 or 3 turns after a fall though, but maybe only as hard as a fig 8?

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:


Climbing walls are often staffed by young people with limited experience looking after a large number of clients. It therefore makes sense for walls to insist on a level of conformity which makes inspection-at-a-glance easier for them. It doesn't make their preferred method inherently better than the one you proposed, though. In fact, to me as an individual its worse as there is the danger of the inadvertent loop left to clip and the tail isn't tidied away.

In reply to Oceanrower:

No, I expect you are quite skilled in tying it correctly. The problem is if you dress the knot wrongly it collapses, and your knot shouldn't depend on dressing alone.

What's wrong with a double bowline with a double stopper if you want something secure?

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


And yet, Slarti B reports that s/he did just that - concentrated on tying the stopper and missed the fact that the fig 8 wasn't done properly. Which backs my point up, that the stopper just displaces attention from the important part of the job to a superfluous one. I'd rather people thought there WAS no extra back-up to their fig 8, so they concentrated on it more.

I agree with your following post, though, that we could really do with data on this. These threads usually get to about this point, and someone says we should ask Dan Middleton at the BMC or DMM to do some tests on their rig. And then, nothing...

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I use that method (was taught in the late 80's.). I think some people don't like it because people have been known to poke the end back through the wrong part of the knot, and it makes it significantly harder to tell at a glance if it's tied correctly.
If I were an 'instructor' managing a group of novices I'd want to see everyone use the same knot that's easy to check at a glance - a re-threaded 8 with no form of stopper does this perfectly. For what it's worth, In Germany they teach you to use a re-threaded 8 with a handspan of tail and no stopper.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
Slarti B doesn't say how close the stopper was put to the fig 8.

If you don't have enough tail, e.g., its only 2 or 3 inches, in which you couldn't place a stopper anyway, i don't know, but i think a poorly tied fig 8 (not dressed by pulling tight) has a good chance of the loose end pulling through,.... at a certain fall factor.

Not doing a stopper knot if you have 8 to 10" of tail and tightened the knot is ok.

Doing a stopper on your tail being in the always habbit of having it snug to your fig 8 is ok.

It's personal choice then ( outside the wall) ... Whatever you want to be your safety habits.
What do you feel safer with 100 (or 20) feet up a crag, i'm happy either way, but my habbit is i will add the stopper.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


Yes, that's correct. More than once, too. I did it as a demo of precisely how good a knot the Fig 8 actually is - if I recall rightly it was to allay the fears of someone who asked me "what if the knot comes undone" and wouldn't take "it won't" as an answer.

I wouldn't trust my life to it, nor would I rely on it, but it is good to know - try it (again I emphasize - very low down and ready to land expecting it to fail at any point until your feet are back on the floor).

In reply to Rock to Fakey:

Every time someone weights a prussik such that the knot is tensioned? Or abs on two ropes joined with a double fishermans? A double fisherman's is just two stopper knots back to back. Or amusingly, a stopper knot is half a double fisherman's knot (not a single fisherman's knot, that's two overhands back to back).

The main reason (other than lack of redundancy if mistied/not tied) not to use a stopper on its own is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to undo it after you took a lead fall on it.

In reply to Neil Williams:
I suppose so yes, with two turns its the same as a double fishy joining 2 ropes or joining a prusik loop, ... Using a a double barrelled stopper just to tie in, would create a slipknot and loop that would be pulled in tight to your Harness when weighted (perhaps hard to undo), but its not identical to two double barrell turns sitting up next to each other, as in a full fishermans.
In a full fishermans, all ends have been pulled to dress it, there is little movement / slippage left available (also because of the high frictional forces created by rope against rope by the snugness of this knot).

But the comparison i wondered about, was just a single barrel stopper vs double and tripple, (as the only knot, with no fig 8, i know u get this bracketed bit)

In reply to Rock to Fakey:

None I imagine, I can't think why anyone would bother to be honest.

Not sure what you mean by slippage - you know it's a slip knot right? So there would be some slippage in every case, you wouldn't deliberately choose to tie in to a harness that way.

There's some data in this report regarding the barrel knot though: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01364.pdf
(It's a bit of an old chestnut on UKC this one - looking a wee bit dated now but still contains much good information.)

In reply to Neil Williams:

Also being a slip knot it would cinch the leg-loops and waist belt of the harness together as it tightens, which would be rather uncomfortable (to say the least, possibly) and may damage the harness as the increasingly loaded rope moves across it.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

Hi.

I always use a stopper knit with a rethreaded Fig8 knot but I have never lead indoors nor out.

Sav

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:


Being someone who was trained & used to advise/sell IRATA gear/general climbing gear/Arb gear etc.

Adding a stopper knot to tie up the lose end of a fig8, DOES NOT increase or decrease the strength of the fig8 knot. I have done this on a test rig at Lyon. The fig 8 will lock up & break before the stopper can have any affect. It is there to tied any lose tail & IF the fig8 is not tied tight the stopper will not allow the tail to walk into the fig8 under loading.

However Lyon did a nice big report for the HSE for IRATA (report number 364/2001...yes done in 2001). Loads of gear, knots, prussiks, etc was tested.

There was a strength difference found in which way the live end entered the knot.

Test on Beal semi static 10.5mm
18.42kN both knots tied same way, live rope on top at it entered the knot.
18.86kN one tied as above one knot tied with live rope on bottom as it entered the knot
20.58kN both tied with live rope on bottom as it entered the knot.

Figure 9 knot, even stronger, but opposite to above, strongest result is with live rope on top as it entered the knot = 22.34kN

figure 10 knot strongest way as per figure8 = 23.22kN

In reply to deepsoup:
By slippage i meant the slip that happens in any knot, like when you dress it /pull it tight / load it... Same as the kind of slippage you see in test vids of knots tied loosely, not dressesd, but also that you see as slippage that still happens in a dressed knot that is heavily or shock loaded ( i wasn't referring to the slip of a slip knot that slides down the main line tightening its loop)

I just wondered on test data, to know how safe a stopper would be as the only knot, as an example of how much extra safety you get by adding it, right next to your fig 8, especially if you hadn't checked the fig 8 and it wasn't right.

It seems like it adds safety, when in the habbit of putting against the fig 8, leaving no loop gap.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


As I stated above it won't add strength to an existing knot just safety....

Test data on barrel knot which is a half fishermans back in it's self & which locks its loop around a krab...19.06kN to 20.32kN which was stronger than bowline in test

In reply to Oceanrower:

Yes. Try it. Make a biggish bowline. Grab the loop with two hands and wiggle the loop in & out a couple of times. As said, a stopper know should help, but the bowline simply is not designed for 'ring-loading'. The bowline only works when the load is on the 'long end' of the rope, then it's fine, because that load tightens the knot. If there's only ring-loading it works itself loose . You may indeed be lucky....

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


It happened because I'd just top roped the route once and thought my partner was also going to do so and had already mostly untied the F8 when he said he wouldn't bother, so I jumped back on for another lap without retying properly. A stopper would have made no difference.

In reply to Robert Durran:

A stopper might not have made any difference in your situation, lowering off a top rope, but would have done if taking lead falls though?

In reply to Snowdave:

That was an interesting read - thanks. Do you happen to know if Lyon (or anyone else) has done any testing on imperfectly tied knots? The really interesting thing to know would be if a badly tied fig 8 (passes missed, or threaded wrongly) WITH a stopper is significantly stronger then the same mistied 8 without.

That's the claim made so often - that the stopper protects against the mistied fig 8 by making it stronger - that I've never seen any data to back up.

Rock to Fakey - I can't really see the value of knowing the breaking strength of a stopper with no fig 8 at all. It's not at all realistic - I cannot imagine anyone could forget to tie the first stage of the 8, then thread through the harness, and then tie the stopper wthout spotting that they'd not rethreaded their 8. And I see no reason that the strength of a stopper alone would be a good proxy for the extra strength it might add to a mistied fig 8.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


My point was that a stopper knot would not have prevented the mistake I made.

Whether the rope just poked once through would be sufficient for lead falls would need testing, but I see no reason why it wouldn't. But if it was not sufficient then I suppose the stopper might save the day, but it would seem.unlikely that you would forget to tie most of the F8 but remember the stopper.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Indeed. The only time I've ever climbed with an incomplete knot because I got distracted while changing my mind and deciding to do another route on that panel/have another go involved the stopper knot being missing, not any of the rest of the F8.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
I can only suggest you read this whole thread a bit more thoroughly.
You posted saying that 3 people had posted saying there incomplete fig 8's held without a stopper, when it was 2, (S'b had used a stopper).
Now you're saying that realistically no - one is going to not notice that they didn't complete the fig 8 if they add a stopper. Obviously S'b did not notice after adding a stopper.

I understand that a stopper does not make the fig 8 itself stronger, i don't think anyone has posted meaning actually that, but a stopper by itself is an extra knot, with its own strength (quite strong as single turn, very very strong as a double turn/barrel) which backs up a fig 8, is safest when upagainst the fig 8(no loop/gap that can be clipped in error), and protects you from missing checking fig 8 is correct by being absent minded / blasé about the fact your about to ascend 20 - 300 ft> above ground after chatting and normal banter whilst at the base of crag/ still waking up from the night before, all that stuff., although not in every case, some will still miss it, at least once it enabled me to spot it.

The stopper knot has X strength by itself.
This figure is important / valuable to know, that if you mess up your fig 8, that even if you missed it out altogether (we all know this is highly unlikely), or just didn't rethread in full), you still have an excellent backup, especially if double barrelled stopper, but single seems like it might do.

If you took a lead fall, on a fig 8, where your rethread stopped at popping it through just one hole, but had a stopper, i'm sure the rope will be pulled tight in the fig 8, but at X fall factor it will also slip, and then the stopper becomes the knot that is saving you..... That is pretty realistic and important as it saved your life , so the value, kN, of that knots strength is highly relevant.

When people say the stopper makes the fig 8 stronger, this is incorrect, but i'm sure what is meant is with a backup knot there is added safety.
Because the rope would break first in the correctly tied fig 8,
Strength A(F8) + strength B (stopper) still equals strength A because B doesn't get a chance to operate.
But if fig 8 is incomplete, then a + B = something still very strong., B now being the main component? probably.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Slarti B did.

In reply to Rock to Fakey


What reason for you have to make that assumption?

In reply to Robert Durran:
So you have a single fig 8, you put the dead end through both belay loops, you then start the rethread... You said you put it through only one hole, that's the first "threading" where you stopped, had finished tying the knot, because you got distracted.

(if u continued, you would have wrapped around the live end and then, then followed to 2nd "rethread" around the loop going into/out of harness, and then followed into 3rd rethread back out parallel to live end, ( then add / ommit stopper) )

If you weighted what you described, a rethread in only the first hole in the fig 8, that's hardly anything holding you, ... indeed I am just assuming this won't hold much weight, or falling force, it just doesn't seem likely at all, i would expect the single hole rethread to be whipped out quite easily, i'll be amazed if i'm wrong, at lead fall factors.

I am just assuming it because it looks like there's not much holding you.

Exactly what fall factor it slips at, would be very interesting .

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


The bigger the load, the tighter the knot will grip the end poking through, so I see no obvious reason why it shouldn't hold for much larger loads rather than just body weight. It would depend on whether the grip increases at least in proportion to the load and how quickly the grip is generated under load.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


I beg your pardon?

Three people on this thread have reported observing a fig 8 holding with one pass made - Robert, Neil and me. Not Slarti.


>Now you're saying that realistically no - one is going to not notice that they didn't complete the fig 8 if they add a stopper.

No, I didn't. I said that it's not realistic that anyone could end up with nothing but a stopper. The only way that could happen is if you failed to make the original part of the know, then threaded your harness, then failed to notice you hadn't done any rethreading at all, then tied a stopper. That is why data on the strength of a stopper alone is not of any real value.


>and protects you from missing checking fig 8 is correct by being absent minded ... at least once it enabled me to spot it.

Well, here we will have to disagree. Quite a few people think that having to tie a stopper as well distracts from making sure the original fig 8 is correct, me included, and it's been reported on in the industry magazine too. I can think of a number of times I've watched a climber spend effort on getting their stopper nice and snug up to the fig 8... not noticing that they've messed the fig 8 up.


>i'm sure the rope will be pulled tight in the fig 8, but at X fall factor it will also slip

Will it? We have no data to suggest this.



No - and this is the whole point I am trying to make. The scenario I give a damn about is a poorly tied fig 8 (missed threads, or wrong threads made) PLUS stopper. It won't be one knot or the other, it will be the combination that either holds or fails. Knots don't operate in series in this sort of situation - there is no good reason whatsoever to assume that the fig 8 will have no effect at all and then the stopper will step in and take over. They will interact as the stopper comes up against the fig 8.

So the data I would very much like to see is the strength of variously poorly tied fig 8s, with and without a snug stopper. That's the only information* that would persuade me to change my practice and teaching.

At the end of the day, I strongly suspect the change in safety margin with or without a stopper is pretty minimal. We don't see endless reports about people falling off the ends of their ropes, suggesting it's not a huge problem. But if we are going to teach this extra bit of process, there needs to be evidence that it actually helps. At the moment I view stoppers on fig 8s in the same way as I view those plug socket covers - at first glance they seem to be safer, but in actual fact they add nothing and actually introduce extra problems.

* actually, the point that rgold made about whether a stopper helps prevent the ring load issue when belaying from the central loop is a good one and I'd also love to see good test data on that. I thought it had been shown that it was impossible to invert the fig 8 in this scenario with realistic belay forces, even in large falls, but I'm very ready to listen to views to the contrary.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:

Just tried first half fig8, then passed end through harness and back just through only first hole in the half fig8. Rope tied to tree in garden, leaned back...it does hold (even if the half fig8 is not pulled tight) and the greater the force the tighter it is.
So it does appear safe without a stopper.
However if one ties back from a main belay to the rope loop at the harness (as many do) on the end passed through the harness, ie away from the half fig 8, then then the rope end can be pulled out by this angular force which would be pretty bad when outdoor climbing. A close tied barrel/stopper knot essentially acts as a separate slipknot onto the harness and prevents this.
Incidentally I often only use a stopper for neatening an overlong tail myself.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Apologies, i need to read the thread properly, somehow i didn't clock that you posted saying you too have observed it holding, my error, and apologies for coming across rudely,
I still believe the stopper against the mistied fig 8 would be the main holding knot, at or above a certain fall factor, i am not claiming i am right, it's possible test data when done / found, will prove me wrong, but common sense, which is not always right, my feeling is that mistied fig 8, only one rethread, no stopper fails at say 7kN (wild guess), but same with single stopper / double (from above data), fails at around 20kN.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:

No worries.

It's a frustrating debate, this one, because it always goes over the same ground, and then we end up at the same point. Without data on the relative strengths we are just guessing.

If I saw test rig data that showed a poorly tied fig 8 failing at 7kN, and the same poorly tied fig 8 with a stopper holding at 20kN, I'd change my practice in a heartbeat. My guess is that those numbers are much closer to each other, and both above 15kN, but that's just as much a guess as yours.

The really annoying thing is that an afternoon with a test rig and 50m of rope would solve all this. I can't imagine why it's not been done.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

Wasn't there a fatality on a Zip Wire which was thought at the inquest to be due to the person being clipped into a 'redundant' loop (created by a stopper knot)?

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:


From my experience of test rigs etc I will extrapolate the following:-

A badly or part tied fig 8 etc with a properly tied two turn (double) stopper knot. .
..the fig 8 will not lock up & loose rope from the tail will walk/slid in. The stopper knot will now be pulled down & against the bad fig 8. The stopper knot will tighten up against the bad fig 8 & the fig 8 will deform due to this. How much & breaking strengths will depend on the exacts of "bad part tied" fig 8 knot.

However as the loose tail from the fig 8 is the "lock" the bad/part tied fig8 acts as just a bad random twist etc .....eg if you set out to tie a proper barrel & tighten it against a krab but got a carp knot in the loop....this is the point of failure....too many variables, but as a proper stopper is around the 20kN that won't fail, the failure point will be a hot spot/friction point/too sharp a bend in the bad fig8....

just tie the fig8 correctly in the first place...stoppers are there to TIDY excess tail only!

In reply to HardenClimber:

The well-publicised one in Snowdonia a few years ago was a loop caused by taping the tail of the fig 8 down with electricians' tape. But I do recall Jim Titt pointing out that the DAV actively discourage the stopper on the fig 8, because of a death caused by clipping into that loop.

In reply to Maarten2:


I have tried it...in a more realistic way. Bowline with Yosemite finish and stopper knot, which is the way I always tie in. I've bounce tested it with extremely vigorous jumping in the ring loaded configuration, and it is totally solid.

In reply to rgold:

What you you expect from a bowline? Knot of the Gods.

Whilst I am at it, I feel sorry for folk who

.use a figure 8 knot.
.underclip gear to their harness.
.dismiss the advantages of a bandolier and head/shoulders and clip everything to their harness.
.think cams are the be all and end all.
.dont like jamming.

Forgot to mention, have a like and thanks for all the informative posts you patiently provide.

In reply to Snowdave:
It would also be good to see test data for... If you tie any knot to your harness and then add a stopper knot, not adjacent to the Harness tie in knot but around 6 inches up the live rope, so you have left the potentially fatal loop you could erroneously clip into at a belay, and test this loop with a single barrel stopper ( the test is what you call ring loading? , but its the loop that is being ring loaded or does that still count as ring loading the stopper?), which should produce low strength test results, (accidents confirm this already) and doing the same test for a double barrel pulled from this loop too. Is a double barrel strong enough to save you, if your stopper is 6 inch up the live rope, and you clip the "loop" between the stopper knot + tie in knot., or will only a tripple knot save you? ( depends on loading... Holding the fall of yourself weighting the loop / holding a falling second climber below you, / holding a leading climber above you... Lots of variables each way, but one test model could reveal alot)

That's worth knowing too, for me.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:

I've read that three times now and I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

In reply to rgold:


Fair do. I tried just a bowline, and it loosens alarmingly quickly. I guess the Yosemite finish stops the 'short end' from working loose. Would be interesting to try: 1) bowline on its own; 2) bowline + Yosemite its own; 3) and 4) both with a stopper.

In reply to Maarten2:

The bowline on its own should not be considered a climbing knot---a backup knot has to be an integral part and then the knot is perfectly fine. Let's call it, say, a babowline and be done with it. A bowline that hasn't been backed up is terrible for ring loading, as you've noted. The variously named Cowboy bowline, Dutch Navy bowline, or left-handed bowline are all better. But none of them can be considered appropriate for climbing without a backup.

In reply to rgold:

See video for ring-loading: vimeo.com/40767916. I can't understand the units.....but seems to show that bowline without a stopper is really no good (as I suspected); but with a stopper looks pretty good? So stopper knot looks crucial for the bowline.

For normal loading: http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/03_Cordage_Institute_Tests.pd... . Figure of 8 slightly stronger than bowline, but not much difference.

In reply to rgold:
More on the bowline + Yosemite finish:
youtube.com/watch?v=1dj5Y3h1AEI&
youtube.com/watch?v=Jj42B8eCOzc&

Scary! Can't really see the difference, which is most worrying... I'm simple-minded, so stick with a nice figure of 8. Love the bowline for tying off a rowing boat....

In reply to Maarten2:

I'm aware of the potential collapse with the Yosemite finish. It isn't any kind of problem for me---I've been using babowlines for 60 years now---but I'm not going to argue what anyone else should do.

In order to get the Yosemite finish problem, you have to tie the original bowline loosely and, after putting in the "Yosemite finish" turn, tighten that part up before anything else, and in the process of doing that, manage to pull the Yosemite finish turn under the nipping turn of the bowline proper. As far as I know, no bowline with the Yosemite finish has ever failed, this after years of tying them before the problem was known, because what you have to do to cause the failure is so unnatural.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I don't know which bit you don't understand, but perhaps all of it? Sorry if i haven't explained it well, ...
When people have put a stopper knot on, not snug to the fig 8, maybe a few inches up the live end anywhere upto about a foot away, as can sometimes be observed at climbing walls, but more commonly about 6 inches away.
This creates a "loop" between the stopper and the fig 8.
People have climbed routes, crag / alpine /mountaineering, got to a belay stance, not concentrating / fatigued / etc, and clipped into this loop to connect themselves to their anchors, leaned back / held a fall, the stopper knot came undone as it was pulled in a way that unities it, tragic consequences.
Would the double or tripple barrel stopper knot have saved them, even when holding a high fall factor fall?
What is the strength of the douuble or tripple barrel when pulled like this?

Forget my query as to whether it is an example of ringloading, i don't think it is.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:

I am out of the industry so no current access to test rigs, but from prior usage of test rigs etc, I hypothesise:-

tie bad fig fig8...tie proper two turn (double stopper) say 6inch or 10 inch away from fig8. now load in different ways:-

way1:- load from live & bad fig 8 = loose in bad fig8 will pull tail in increasing "harness" loop size until stopper is pulled upto the bad fig8, then fig8 will distort & failure in fig8.

way2:- load from live & "dead tail of bad fig8" which is between the fig8 & double stopper = the badfig8 is now not really in the load situation. The load is effectively on a piece of rope captured between on bad fixed knot (bad fig8) & one sliding knot (stopper). The main problem is that a stopper knot requires to tighten up under load, ie the loop to capture a krab whatever, gets smaller as more load is applied. In this situation it cannot as the stopper live goes into the bad fig8, & this rope will not slid out of the bad fig 8 properly via the live going into the bad fig8.

Basically way too many variables, & you would have to do tests on various diameters of dynamic rope etc.

KISS...Keep It Simple Stupid, is the way it needs to be, learn do a proper fig8 even in a rush, less to go wrong, no "loop" to clip into. If you have too much tail & can't be bothered feeding it back through do a double stopper close up to the fig8, therefore no loop.

No KISS = FUBAR via SNAFU & TARFUN FISHMO

I sorry to be so blunt but having advised various people from climber to IRITA to Arb etc & having actually done stuff for real too many people just do things with out checking & too many people do not get the auto response to be second nature ie tying a fig8 perfect. So to make up for this they usually add other back ups or complexities which causes other problems...& if that doesn't work they blame the equipment which in reality it's user error...

FFS you are climbing up a cliff/tree/building & the worst case scenario is a fall & the sudden stop at the end is the killer...how you use your gear is what will stop that sudden stop at the end...you need to learn how to use your gear fully & properly BEFORE you can climb....

In reply to Snowdave:
Know what Snafu meant but can't remember, Fubar, Tarfun + fishmo... U lost me!

The problem is, many people are learning to climb at walls, or have got back into it there, and it seems everyone has to do a fig 8 with stopper.
Not many wall staff will ever go over to you and say that's a dangerous way to add a stopper, because of the gap you left, it should be snug up to your fig 8.
Some of these people adopt this as their must do tie in method, then go out to a crag or mountain and are at risk of clipping into this loop, and dying.

Appreciate you posting test data etc, probably not needed now, i have tried it out, (not on a test rig, no data!)...
there are two ways to load this "loop", but either way, the stopper knot can pop through the carabiner and load the other side instead.
When you clip a quickdraw / sling + carabiner to this loop and lean on it, The carabiner tends to sit right behind the stopper, and deceptively "looks snug and safe there, but can pop through the clipped biner to put load on the live or dead line.

If it pulls on the live line, depending on how tight the stopper was pulled, and how heavy the load force is, a tight stopper seems go be gripping the live rope a little, (it is, but still not safe! ), but with a loosish stopper, as many are, the live end, which if you just finished seconding starts to pull through and you fall backwards, and if your partner has taken you off belay, the rope will pull right through if you are high up, until you hit the ground or a ledge, if still on belay you fall upto half the length of the rope, both likely to be fatal. The single stopper can be seen to be slightly unravelling too, the double doesn't, but you still fall.
If you clipped the dead end side of the loop, in which you tied the stopper, then even a single stopper holds you leaning back, and a some bouncing on it, but a double stopper seems to hold quite stongly, however it only needs the stopper knot to push through the carabiner, load the live line, then you could well be fatally falling again.

If you use a stopper, (preferably a double barrelled stopper, but not actually necessary) put it right up against the tie in knot (Fig 8 / bowline etc), so there are no potentially fatal loops you can clip.

SWALK.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


FUBAR = F***ed Up Beyond All Recognition

TARFUN = Things Are Really F***ed Up Now,

FISHMO = F*** It, S*** Happens, Move On

I think in your explanation you got it, the two strands of rope between a fig8 & Stopper..One strand is the live rope coming into the fig8 & the stopper just loops around this strand. The stopper might grip it depending on how tight it is tied. However if you clip to this live rope you will just pull a big loop through (between the fig8 & stopper) & the rope will continue to feed until whatever the far end of the live rope is connected to stops it.

Clip into the "dead tail" strand of the fig8 knot which use to form the stopper & load it & it will pull the stopper down to the fig8. A loop will be formed & will only be as long as the rope strand between the two knots. This is the strongest of the bad scenarios, however failure is when the loop strand is bent out of each knot to form the loop- these two knots are also compressed together resulting in these bends being tighter than they are meant to be...

In reply to Snowdave:

But like i said, the stopper can very easily pop through the clipping crab, and so you then load the death strand = the live end, try it, (at ground level) i know no-one is suggesting clip either side of the loop, but its like, but not exactly the same as a continous loop, clip either side, and the risk is there.

In reply to derrick_farnell:

It's all about the Yosemite finish.

In reply to ROSP:


Not picking on you as others have mentioned this knot, however I have seen this in the past & don't like it. You are making a basic fig8 more complex...if you can't remember how to tie a basic fig8 then you have no chance with this!

http://blog.alpineinstitute.com/2008/11/figure-eight-follow-through.html

QUOTE:- "Some climbers like to finish their figure-eight with a "Yosemite tuck" or "Yosemite finish." This is common technique is accomplished by tucking the end of the rope back into the knot. The upside of this is that it can clean up the knot.

Note this part of quote:- "The downside is that this technique may seriously weaken the knot if you use the inside of the knot as a belay loop. If you load the loop of the knot it is possible that it will invert, after which you will only have part of the figure-eight remaining. Some people cure this problem by passing the rope around itself before going through the hole, but that makes the knot a little bigger."

KISS...learn to tie a basic fig8 knot properly so it becomes second nature.......

In reply to Snowdave:

It's really not that hard and after falling on this knot many times and used it on hanging belays I have confidence in it and I'm certainly not the only one who does! When do you have to belay using the rope loop? My harness has a belay loop for this purpose and have never found the need to use the rope loop!

In reply to ROSP:


I prefer to belay of the fig8 knot & never the belay loop......escaping the system is easier if you DO NOT use the harness belay loop...

I only use my belay loop for "positioning" myself if setting up external anchors at belay, all main loading is done via the fig8 knot.....basically depending on belay system & anchors, belay might be done via anchors at mid point, I will secure myself via my harness fig8 knot & QD to anchors.

If however a simple belay I will clip everything direct to fig8 knot in harness

In reply to ROSP:


Belaying from this loop (the central loop, as it's often described) is common practice, for several good reasons. Not to be combined with using the Yosemite finish for your fig 8, though.

In reply to ROSP:


I only use the harness belay loop for rappelling, almost never for belaying. I always use the rope loop for belaying. The reason is, if you arrange your anchor so that the tie-in is snug, that the belay load goes straight from the belay device to the anchor by way of the belayer's tie-in. This keeps twisting and pinching forces off the harness and makes it more comfortable to stop leader falls and hold hanging seconds.

In reply to derrick_farnell:
Here's the UkC aricle on how to tie in...

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=4755

SWALK
KISS

In reply to Snowdave:


How? Surely if you're belayed off the rope loop you can't undo it to remove your harness from the system?

In reply to Toerag:

As far as escape is concerned, I don't see any difference between belaying on the harness belay loop or the rope tie-in loop.

If you are rigging your anchor entirely with the rope, what you do is tie a butterfly knot power point on the rope at a convenient level past the tie-in knot and anchor all the rigging arms to the butterfly. As in any escape scenario, the loaded rope ends up attached (typically via a Munter Mule) to the power point. At that point, the belayer can untie from the rope if needed.

If slings and or cordelettes are the anchor rigging, you transfer the load to the power point as usual and then untying is possible.

In reply to Toerag:

Yes you can, I was taught it about 20yrs ago when I did an advanced lead climbing course at PYB...

Basically if the leader falls & you are belaying the leader of the fig8 loop in your harness there is a way to escape the system safely...it is explained in some of the technical climbing books that they recommend..

"short rough explanation:-"

Basically the dead rope from the belay device which is under load you pass bite through belay krab, up & around main rope (back to leader) & do a couple of tight overhands to lock this main load rope off & clip a krab in the new end loop to anchors or belay krab. This locks of the leader allowing you to let go of the rope for the next part.

Now using prussiks tie around the main rope to the leader & clip back to belay anchors, pull prussiks tight. This now will take the load of the leader back to the anchors totally bypassing the belay device.

Clip yourself into the anchors via belay loop, I use a quick draw, this allows you to totally bypass the fig8

Now you can undo the fig8 knot in your harness slowly to allow the load to seat on the anchors. You have now escaped the system & now start rescue..

In reply to Snowdave:


It makes no difference. I've never understood where this myth comes from.

In reply to rgold:


This is precisely the reason I do use the belay loop for belaying - it incorporates my body into the system, often helping direct the forces more appropriately onto the anchors and significantly protecting any dodgy anchors. I consider the occasional discomfort worth it. Swings and roundabouts though and obviously no advantage if the anchors are totally bombproof (eg bolts or big thread).

In reply to rgold:

A possible source of confusion to some people reading this: the Yosemite bowline is completely different from a Yosemite-finished figure-of-eight. There was a long thread on the Yosemite bowline in 2012:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=513200&v=1#x6950948

The figure-of-eight might seem more topologically convincing, but the test reported at the above link found that a "collapsing" Yosemite bowline formed a stable hitch rather than a straight piece of rope.

I can reliably tie a Yosemite bowline (plus close-fitted double fisherman's as a stopper) with my eyes shut, but I can't do the same with a figure-of-eight. I wouldn't want to tie in blind for real, but the eyes-shut test makes me think that I'm less likely to make a mistake if I stick to the Yosemite bowline. The rethreaded bowline has its merits too.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I don't buy the force direction argument, but if the belayer can get a well-braced position and so hold the load without help from the anchor, then clearly that would be the way to go for bad anchors. If the belayer can't brace, then the load is going on the anchor anyway; the body isn't really an intermediary. The load goes from belay loop to harness tie-in points to the belay tie-in. During this process it tries to pull the tie-in points apart and creates an (admittedly small) moment arm that tends to spin the belayer. Any slack in that system just drops the climber slightly and so increases the anchor load, and the belayer's weight is going to be pulled onto the anchor along with the second's weight, which is hardly what you want if the anchor is bad.

In any case, no one says you have to use the rope loop belay when the anchors are bad and bracing is available. That is a tiny minority of cases in my climbing experience, but the UK is probably different in that regard. Meanwhile, most of the time, the rope loop belay seems to me to be far more comfortable and far better if the second ends up hanging.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Easy, history...

When the early "modern" harnesses were developed the belay loop was designed to just hold the two pieces of the harness together. The manufacturers only allowed abseiling from the loop nothing else, as it was just taking the weight of one person. (I only started climbing back to the mid/late 80's)

If you belay someone off the belay loop with anchors clipped in also then that loop (potentially) is taking the weight of both climbers which it was NOT designed to do!

Yes most climbing harness now have stronger (marked) belay loops, but they are still (generally) not as strong as the rope, krabs, slings etc!

Also from a practical view when belaying, depending on belay configuration, you are more likely to twist the belay loop to align the belay device, compared to using the rope. this is because the rope is round & the belay loop is flat tape. Also using the fig8 knot gives you a bit more room to manoeuvre, & shuffle the device, krabs around. This can allow more comfort at the belay stance, & thus escaping the system easier.

I try to use a captive (to belay krab) sling through my harness (thread as fig8) to belay when at rock wall, this aligns the belay device correctly & stops wear on belay loop....however some idiot wall people/instructors come over & don't like me doing so as they state it is unsafe, ask them to explain why & they cant...I even had one state that the belay loop on the harness can take 6ton..!!...Muppets!! They don't know the gear as much as me...I had to know for my job!

In reply to Snowdave:

Yes, it is (now at least, and as nobody should be using any harness more than 5-10 years old there shouldn't be any still in use where that isn't the case, so what old ones did is irrelevant). A shock load from a large lead fall is much greater, and it's designed to do that, too.


Actually most of them are, there's a discussion on this here:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=575773

But even if yours is 15kN that's 1.5 static tonnes of force. That would kill you before it broke. That's hanging a small family car off it (carefully). There's no concern at all about hanging two climbers off it.


When belaying from the top of a crag I would agree with this, I would normally use the rope loop to belay in this situation myself too.


That is less safe than using the belay loop for indoor climbing, belaying standing at the bottom of the route, where the twisting you allege is really not an issue. Why? Because there are more points of failure/to get wrong, and it's harder for someone else to check at a glance. I wouldn't comment to anyone I saw doing that as it's up to them in my book, but I would be thinking "what on earth is he doing that for when the belay loop is perfectly adequate"?

Someone saying a belay loop would take 6 imperial tons is plain wrong, but that barely matters, as it *will* take 1.5 to 2.5 static metric tonnes, which is well in excess of any force that is ever going to be applied to a belay loop of anyone who isn't either dead or about to be dead, and in the latter case something else, e.g. your belay krab, would be just as likely to fail first.

Which reminds me, I need a new Belay Master, mine's starting to wear a visible groove.

In reply to Neil Williams:


You forget I was replying to Robert Durran: "It makes no difference. I've never understood where this myth comes from."

I was answering where the "myth" comes from, which is a historical perspective ie when the early harnesses came out & right up into 2003 years most belay loops were not as strong as they are now, which is why the manufactures stated for abseil only.

As for "more points of failure" by using a sling threaded where you would thread a fig8 & not use the belay loop if at rock wall...errr?? really?? The threaded sling is instead of the belay loop therefore belay loop is totally bypassed & not in system, so there is still the same number of items in the system as if clipping the belay krab into the belay loop..& yes there is twisting of the belay loop with most belay devices which accelerates wear on the loop, when I did a lot of wall climbing (twice a week every week & 3hrs each time), you wear the loop out fast & the rest of the harness is fine...oh & I was trained to do inspections. So a sling stops the accelerated wear.

As for "being harder for some one else to check your gear" I don't think I need someone else to check my gear, I usually end up checking everyone else's gear due to my technical knowledge of climbing gear & systems & OCD for double checking things...

In reply to Snowdave:

Correct, but you're having to manually set up one of them. That is an added human point of failure. It might not be a likely one, but it's non-zero - any place a person can make a mistake is a potential failure point.


True, though I find that the straps going through the buckles wear quite quickly as well.


I more meant peer-checking the setup, which everyone should do on every climb with their partner regardless of how experienced they may be.

I'm big into applying Cockpit Resource Management type stuff to climbing safety. At the Scout wall where I instruct (as lead instructor), I always emphasize - always cross-check what other instructors set up and comment if you think it is wrong, me included - however experienced someone is they can still make a mistake that could kill someone - and any instructor not open to that would not be welcome on our team.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes I am the first to admit I can make a mistake & like to keep things simple....however if I find a way or use equipment differently to eliminate what I consider a problem I will do so.

What I hate are people who object to it purely on the grounds of "its not the usual way"...so many times I have retorted "prove my way is weaker & more dangerous" ..they can't .

You probably won't like my climbing rack either....loads of triple lock krabs, ..reason:- don't ice up in winter & don't lock up under heat expansion in summer & auto lock. Downsides watch for rope twist on gate trying to undo, but that is only if you have bad rope management.

I was IRATA trained to advise, design, specify & sell gear for rope access, arb, rescue, etc....I have done so for MRT, rock walls, UK ski resorts, UK Arboriculture collage, various IRITA companies, numerous arb companies, MOD, etc. I first started rock climbing in late 1980's & have done loads of winter mtn stuff up here in Scotland & some ice (not much).

I have a very wide knowledge base of gear & what it can do, (did structural & mechanical engineering as part of College & Uni Courses). I prefer to always question & think of different/better ways of doing something, instead of the "we've always done it that way".

One last thing which proves my point:- A mate had prebooked a one/two day? Glenmore lodge winter skills course, I was mainly busy with work, however by chance I had a free day (before his course) so we went out for his first winter day in the Northern Corries In Cairngorm (near where I live). So I taught him what I considered the basics. He goes on course & does something that I taught him to do & gets told off by instructor, so tells the instructor that my mate told me "x" because.. instructor then states your mate is correct but I consider that "advanced" & we only teach the basic book!

What was it? When doing a ice axe arrest on soft snow the pick which is the "basic usually way" is useless, so use the adze...the snow on the slope on that day for my mate was soft snow....

In reply to Snowdave:
Interesting you mention IRATA and tree surgery, I've got a friend who is training to be a tree surgeon, and it's interesting how the approaches differ a little - things that climbers wouldn't do are normal to them, and things they wouldn't do are normal to climbers. But then so, I suppose, does caving.

FWIW I have no particular objection to triple-lock krabs if you find you like them. And a badly-run rope can unscrew a screwgate too - I've seen it happen.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Arb is adopting more IRATA stuff due to the very backward way stuff was done. 3ply ropes & LOLER yearly inspections & loads of prussic ropes & screwgates are banned as dangerous...then they had problems with 3-ways so tried to ban those & the HSE got involved. I ended up writing an article in one of the Arb trade mags on this to kill the situation as all "problems" & krab manufacturers returns & stuff I was dealing with was due to bad maintenance & use of the gear, not the design of the gear. tree sap & needles really jamb up a mech!

IRATA stuff is originally from caving as these people formed the work area/techniques in buildings etc pre- IRATA. Arb has always been it's own thing with no previous history shared with rope sports.

However for gear development & top strength has always been climbing! Helmets, krabs, harnesses etc always climbing (due to high dynamic loads which are not allowed in industry).

I have had stand up arguments with top level 3 IRATA instructors slagging of a new "whizz bang" item when the old way they were taught & the gear they use is fine. The fact that the old gear was not strictly designed to do the job & has major faults but is used as was the only gear anywhere near capable...the new "whiz bang" is purpose design for the job , & has no faults & will not kill you in a panic situation...unlike the old gear!

"we've always done it that way".....aarrrggghhhhh!!!!

If you really want to see some dangerous tree stuff look up the people who collect the pine cones for planting new saplings. the best are right at the top of a big fir...So basically in a big plantation, swinging from the top of one tree to the next & swinging the tree to get between them & attach your ropes to the top of the tree......absolute mental idiots...how else do you do it? can't get a MEWP in! I dealt with these people as well...

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Thanks very much Jamie. You've convinced me.