UKC

Hi guys. Can anyone give me some advice on anchor building?

My question is about anchors which have been equalised with a cordalette, or simply made from the lead line itself, with a figure-of-eight or similar knot at the 'master point'.

What I'm trying to understand is: how do you get the knot in *exactly* the right place? I'm worried that if some gear placements are attached under more tension than others, making the anchor point in slightly the wrong direction, the impact force won't be distributed evenly when the anchor is shock loaded. Is this a sensible concern?

Would I be right in thinking the first gear placement needs to go in before this knot can be tied? It obviously defines the direction in which the anchor would be tugged upwards in the event of a fall, so presumably the knot can't be tied until you at least know precisely where that is.

If it weren't for the obvious problem with extensibility, I would be much more keen to use a 'sliding X' style of equalisation. Knowing the precise direction of loading isn't necessary; and even if that direction changes slightly (the quickdraw on the first gear placement won't necessarily remain vertical), the equalisation will sort itself out. Is there some way of building a self-equalising anchor that won't extend dangerously should a single point fail?

Thanks very much in advance for your help.

19G

In reply to 19G:

There was a discussion of the sliding X type anchor on the forums earlier today. It pretty much concluded that not many people use them for main belay anchors especially with trad. You can limit the extension of sliding X anchors if you want by tying knots in each of the arms of the sliding X.

There are some very knowledgeable and experienced people on these forums that will no doubt be along to give some really top tier advice to you which is more specific to your questions. My general view (based on not a lot of experience compared to many) is that your first priority should be to get really good gear for your anchor. How you connect it up, be that with clove hitches on your rope, slings, cordalette, sliding X, whatever, is less of an issue, but still deserves a thought depending on what you are doing. Block leading? I'd personally use a big sling equalised with an overhand/fig 8. Single pitch trad? Ropes, clove hitches. Swing leading? Ropes again (just my opinion). Wanna direct belay with a rope anchor? Isolation loop! Knowing the ins and outs of different setups can prove useful.

True equalisation, in my experience as a climber and having done lots of mechanics problems, is probably never achieved. Sure, you can share the load over different pieces pretty well, but they will probably never experience equal loading. i.e. you will never get your masterpoint in *exactly* the right place.

There is a lot of stuff online to read. Dave Coley's and Andy Kirkpatrick's site is truly amazing: http://multipitchclimbing.com/

Glenmore lodge have some good videos on youtube of how to set up some anchors. Also, I think it's good to watch some of Mike Barter's youtube videos on these topics, give you the slightly different flavour of anchor building across the pond. Just get googling!

Though I feel like I've only glancingly attempted to answer a few of your questions, I hope my input helps.

In reply to 19G:

This is a subject that has been discussed at great length on this site and lots of others. Do some searching.

A short answer is that equalization is not in general obtainable with any rigging method, and nothing is going to make up for poor pieces. Get in excellent gear, put on your cordelette (you certainly can't tie the knot before all the gear is in and the cordelette is threaded through it), pull the strands in the anticipated direction of load and tie your knot. You really can't do much better than this, especially with a three-point anchor.

Two-point anchors can be rigged with an equalette, which has knots that limit extension. I don't think there is any point, but some people like it. If the two anchors are modern bolts, it is pretty pointless to worry about equalization at all and faster and easier to rig banshee-style, with the load entirely on one bolt and the other as backup. See David Coley's site at http://www.multipitchclimbing.com .

In reply to 19G:

If using the rope, maybe try clove hitches which you may find easier to adjust to get bang on (or as near as can be)?

In reply to 19G:


You can't, which is the main flaw on all non-self equalizing anchor designs....

But then again, if the pieces you've used are not bad (and they really shouldn't), it's not a valid concern.


Yes, a bunch of sliding-x'es with knots to limit the extension... But it's a real hassle, and not really worth the effort....


To be honest, unless you can't build solid anchor it ain't worth to effort... so best be climbing upwards (simul-climb, if running out of rope... also carrying a mini/micro-traxion, ropeman or tiblock might be smart (on a bomber piece)), until a solid belay can be built.

In reply to 19G:

Don't overthink trad anchors, especially at the top of routes where your sat down... I.e not a hanging belay.

In reality you excerpt barely any force on them as long as your sat in a sensible position, the ropes (or cord) is tight and the anchors are directional. Probably way less than 1kn per piece. You could honestly catch a normal weight person on bum and rope friction alone (but don't obviously :] ). Two good pieces, or one tree. Equalised to an extent. more important isyour body position in all this.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I'd second that. Instead of creating a 'master point' with the rope bring it back from each anchor to a clove hitch on an HMS attached to your harness/tie-in knot. Far easier to adjust and you are attached to all anchors whilst adjusting the system. Obviously the more anchors you have the more of a pain it can be.

You'll never get it as 'perfectly equalised' as the purists would seem to like but it will be near as damn it.

In reply to 19G:


You can't, and as long as you get it roughly right and your pieces are decent, it doesn't matter.

In reply to 19G:

Don't use sliding X, especially not with nuts/cams, etc. The whole point of using multiple anchors is to provide redundancy, and you've seriously compromised that if one piece fails and you shock load the other. With sliding x, if one piece fails the extension in the sling is significant.

When you tie off anchors to form a power point, you should a) do your best to anticipate direction of loading, and b) do your best to keep all parts of the rope or cordalette under tension in your chosen belay position. You won't always achieve perfection, but you should be able to limit the potential extension to just a few cm.

In reply to 19G:

It's not a technical tip but it's worth saying, an important part of getting equalised anchors is take your time and do everything carefully!
It may seem like a faff (and it can be) but re-adjusting things to shorten or length something by an inch or so can make all the difference to your equalisation, there can be a temptation to just go "sod it, it's good enough", especially after you've adjusted things once or even twice already but you'll know if it's right so take the time and re-do it if it isn't.

Of course you don't always need perfectly equalised anchors, often "sod it, it's good enough" really is good enough but if your anchors are good you may not have more than one or two in anyway so you shouldn't have an issue with equalisation.

In reply to MeMeMe:


It's normally not a major concern in the UK, but if I'm on say a 20 pitch route in the Dolomites and spend an extra couple of minutes per pitch tidying up my anchor, that half an hour to an hour might make a significant difference to where i am when the thunderstorm comes.

In reply to 19G:

Usually slight repositioning of your body is enough to equalise the direction of load on the anchors. In the event of a fall though, the resolution of the forces betwee you, the live rope and the anchors are what matters.

Guys, thanks very much for all your help with this. It's nice to be able to get expert advice on topics like this - I appreciate your input.

In reply to AlanLittle:


Yup. It all comes down to judgement of the particular situation.
I was more imagining the OP at the top of a route at Stanage but I don't really know what kind of routes he climbs!

In reply to 19G:

I started out in the mid sixties and we had never heard of equalisation never mind attempting to do it. We relied on backing up what we had and using both ropes when we had doubles. Many years later and to some extent because of articles in magazines and on this forum I attempted to equalise on every belay I took. I tried all the recommended methods and found that the "sliding X" seemed to be the best way of achieving it but and it's a big but at a price i.e. increased load on the second anchor if the first one fails. I then tried using a Grivel Daisy Chain which made setting up less of a faff but it's just something else to carry. I'm back to doing what I did in the first place because in reality I discovered that true equalising is almost impossible to achieve. Keeping it simple is the way to go.

Al

In reply to snoop6060:



BUT... you do need to make sure your are tight up against the anchors. So many times you see people with slack ropes to far-away anchors who, if they had to suddenly catch an unexpected fall, would find themselves over the edge on rope stretch...

If you are still learning trad, it is probably a good idea to get your second to fully weight the rope at some point each climb. That way you will get much better at making sure you account for rope stretch and sit in a sensible position so the load goes straight through to the anchors instead of crushing your leg (or worse). I would say only do this providing the anchors are bomber - but of course the anchors should be bomber, otherwise you are Doing It Wrong (while learning, at least) :P

In reply to 19G:



Don't worry about it too much, just make sure the anchors are really good and it is all lashed together in a sensible way that won't be disrupted too much it a piece did blow.


All pieces go in before ANY knots are tied. If you might slip off the ledge whilst placing the gear, clip the lead line through the first piece you placed.

In reply to andrewmcleod:


That's precisely what my post says:

In reply to David Coley:


Thanks very much for your reassurance, David. It's very helpful - I'll bear it in mind.


I was referring to what I believe you call the 'Jesus piece' in your book (which is really helpful btw), not to the anchor placements. I was just wondering if it's necessary to get the first gear placement above the anchor in, or at least to know where it will be, before the master-point knot can be tied. I was thinking the exact direction of upward pull on the anchor, and the ideal location for the master point, can't really be determined until the first gear placement *above* the anchor is in place. I was also concerned that - as this placement will be extended by a quickdraw that is unlikely to remain perfectly vertical when the second placement goes in - it will be even harder to get the direction of the anchor and its equalisation perfect.

The general consensus on the thread seems to be that it was never going to be perfect anyway, and it's more important that it should be inextensible, and that it is equalised in a roughly sensible place.

Thanks again for the book btw - I'm finding it really fascinating to read this stuff. 'High - Advanced Multi-Pitch Climbing' might be a bit above my level for now, but there are a lot of interesting ideas in there I will bear in mind as I progress.

In reply to 19G:
There's too much to say about this to fit in a forum comment.

If you aren't sure how to equalise anchors safely you should probably spend some time with a professional instructor. There are lots of ways to do this sort of thing which are suitable in different circumstances.

Apart from that, try the instructional videos from Glenmore Lodge. The top two in this search are good.

Edit: UKC garbled the link. Try this one. http://tinyurl.com/grmkg5j

In reply to 19G:


'if it's necessary to get the first gear placement above the anchor in' - you won't necessarily know where that will be.

If you are on a multi-pitch, leading through, you will inevitably find that an anchor system designed to hold a falling second won't be appropriate for holding a falling a falling leader unless a) it's a factor 2 fall and they fly past you on your stance or b) you are lucky enough to be clipped in to a couple of bolts/pegs like you might find in somewhere like the Dolomites.

You will have to adjust your anchors, if you are concerned about it, to take a force in a different direction (i.e. upwards). I vividly recall being hauled up off a stance on Gogarth and watching my nut placements rotating as I flew past them.....

In reply to Andy Say:

I read that as "Watching my nuts rotate as I flew past them"

Al

In reply to James_Kendal:

I'm partly replying to this thread as I'm confused and i want to be able to come back and see how it develops.

Part of my confusion is that a belay has three functions which all seemed to have got mixed up in the above discussion

Belay functions

1. Bringing up a second. As has been said above if sat correctly with tension to the anchors loading here is minimal. I'm big and heavy but I have never been pulled out of place by a second. Of course never say never, 2 people lives depend on the belay. I also think that it is worth reflecting that a belay can be added to or modified once both climbers are present. There will be more gear to hand and 2 brains are better than one

2. Enduring a factor 2 fall. We all know this is the big one. Forces could be really big. So we need everything set up to spread the load from a large downward fall. I assume this what we are all equalizing for

3. A leader fall after runner(s) have been placed. Oh and assuming the runners don't fail. The forces here will be smaller as the fall factor will be less than 2. Friction will also reduce the load in the rope at the belay end and assuming the belay is off the harness then the belayers weight will act to reduce the load on the anchors. But adding gear to resist the lift of the second isn't easy. Back in the day i never bothered but now i climb with seconds much lighter than me I have used them, but only a single piece.

So a couple questions about scenario 3

Do you place a runner for an upwards pull in your belays. If so how do you tie them in?

Am i correct in thinking that attaching a belay plate direct to 2 wires equalised for a downward pull is a potential disaster. The pull of the rope will try and lift the wires out

In reply to GridNorth:



A fairly similar sensation I will agree.

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):

Rarely. In what scenario(s) are you going to see enough upward force to launch the belayer? Leader much heavier than the belayer, sure. Or solid gear at the start of the pitch but then a hard runout - that would give a high fall factor but isn't a particularly common situation.

In reply to 19G:

There's many ways to do this, the way I find easiest is as follows:

0. Make sure you are still on belay - you don't want to fall off the edge right!
1. Place first bit of gear for the belay, clip one of your ropes to this piece (use a screwgate if you are paranoid)
2. Place second bit of gear, clip the other rope to this piece
[If it's a bomber like a massive tree I'd still use a different sling/clip for 1 & 2 for redundancy]
3. If you need a third piece then place that, clip the rope that is nearest to it to that one two
* Sometimes if two bits of gear are close together I'll equalize the two bits with a sling first and then clip that sling to the rope.
4. With an HMS crab clip both your fig-8 rope loops on your harness
5. If you have 3 or more pieces then clip the middle loop(s) of the rope to your HMS
6. Walk back until you are where you will belay from, sit down or stand there
7. Clove hitch each of the rope loops to your HMS (two if you just placed two bits of gear or three if you have a third)
8. Call down safe
9. Adjust the clove hitches if you need two until equalized.

Of course if you want to switch leads or escape the belay then you might not want to do this with the rope, but I certainly think this is the quickest/easiest way.

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):

Yes, you should think of your belay in the same way as your treat your first bits of gear, allow for upward and outward pull potential.

That said, the sort of multi-pitch I tend to climb has belay ledges big enough that really the gear is more to stop you falling backward off the ledge when belaying and mostly if the lead climber falls there is enough friction that you won't actually get lifted off your feet (but never say never).

In reply to treforsouthwell:

Thanks Trefor, sounds like sound advice.

In reply to 19G:



In reality, no. Just ensure good placements and a sensible organisation of knots.

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):


Either to the powerpoint, if you are trying the keep the pieces in place; or to the belayer if you are trying to keep him in place.


Not sure what you are hinting at here. Is this for bringing up the second or belaying the leader?

In reply to snoop6060:

>> BUT... you do need to make sure your are tight up against the anchors. So many times you see people with slack ropes to far-away anchors who, if they had to suddenly catch an unexpected fall, would find themselves over the edge on rope stretch...

>That's precisely what my post says:

>>> In reality you excerpt barely any force on them as long as your sat in a sensible position, the ropes (or cord) is tight...

Actually I think we are saying the opposite thing (assuming 'excerpt' == 'exert') except for agreeing that the rope should be tight? It sounds like you are using bracing and body position so that you don't really put any load on the anchors, whereas I am using body position and tension on the rope so that all of the force goes directly onto the anchors, and none of it goes onto your harness. There are obvious advantages to the first method if the anchors are suspect, but the latter is more comfortable IMO if you actually end up holding someone (and it is a lot easier to escape the system should you need to).

In reply to David Coley:

"> Am i correct in thinking that attaching a belay plate direct to 2 wires equalised for a downward pull is a potential disaster. The pull of the rope will try and lift the wires out

Not sure what you are hinting at here. Is this for bringing up the second or belaying the leader?"

I wasn't clear here

I was thinking back to previous threads and bringing up a second direct from the belay anchors. What I hadn't realised at that point was that what is good for bringing up a second could be poor for belaying a leader

In reply to 19G:

If you really want to understand this stuff I'd recommend the book 'Climbing Anchors' by John Long - all the details on building and equalising anchors you'll ever need.

In reply to AlanLittle:


Gogarth Upper Tier. Central Park. Pitch two. 12/04/1982. Morning. Sunny; slight breeze
I was a bit skinnier then but so was my mate Dave. Not sure what he was on but he just grinned as he took a 40-footer from near the top. I finished up about a metre above the stance with my anchors rotating in the crack.

Honest!

In reply to treforsouthwell:

Trefor: a beautifully detailed exposition of what I said above - 'Instead of creating a 'master point' with the rope bring it back from each anchor to a clove hitch on an HMS attached to your harness/tie-in knot. Far easier to adjust and you are attached to all anchors whilst adjusting the system.'

In reply to 19G:

Use the rope, the stretch and knots settling help equalise reasonably well even if you get it wrong. Apart from that don't rely on bad gear in a belay, find better or move on then when you have a couple of good bits don't worry about the minutaie, you'll be fine.
Jk

In reply to Andy Say:

Saw that on a BMC video recently, and like so many good ideas it just seems so obvious when somebody explains it to you. So much better than faffing with the clove hitches at the gear end.

In reply to AlanLittle:


The general 'rule' is put the clove hitch on the gear end if you can still each it from the stance, put it on the harness end if you can't (plus you will always need at least one clove on the harness end to bring the rope back into the system.

Learning to do a clove with one hand helps to speed things up.

In reply to David Coley:

The only problem with bringing everything back to the harness is how much rope you use up. If there are three anchor pieces and they are ten feet away from the belayer's position, then 60 feet of rope is going to be required. If by some misfortune both the belayer and the leader arriving at the next stance have such remote anchors, the belays would require 120 feet of rope!

Really, there is no reason you can't get perfect adjustment with clove hitches at the anchor. Begin by clipping just one of the anchors and returning to the desired belay position. Return to the anchor, hand-over-handing up the bight of rope formed and install a clove hitch. Now run the rope to the second anchor point and (with a touch of slack between the two anchor points) install a second clove hitch. Return to the belay position and clove hitch to an HMS on the harness belay loop, in the rope loop, or perhaps most effectively, on a separate overhand or butterfly loop tied in the rope above the tie-in knot. Now repeat the method used for the first anchor with the third anchor.

This results in single rather than double strands from belayer to anchor points and so uses about 2/3 the amount of rope as the method that makes all knots at the harness. David has pictures of this on multipitchclimbing.com (see DIL belay) and I've posted a picture at http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/photos/assets/1/176681-largest_34116.jpg . (Note: the "slack rope, here tied to create a redirection point" in that picture is strictly optional.)

In reply to rgold:

That's a good point if you are short on rope but it does add complexity. I must admit I haven't had the problem with 50m half ropes.

In reply to treforsouthwell:

True, but you don't know how short on rope you are until the leader has finished the next pitch. Of course, if you are at the top then there is no problem. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to consume so much rope in the belay unless I had very good information on the next pitch length.

I've found that set-ups with long anchor arms are often on big ledges where the belayer wants to be at the very edge for ease of communication and rope-handling. In those situations, one typically moves the belay back to the anchor before the leader sets off on the next pitch, thereby recovering most of the rope dedicated to the anchor for the upper belay.

In reply to rgold:




+1

In reply to rgold:


Don't you have Guide Books in the US then

Al

In reply to GridNorth:
I've heard rumors about them...

For better or worse, I often look at the guidebook on the ground and then leave it there, so as to get a little more of the feeling of finding my own way. It's part of what I enjoy about longer climbs, the majority of which I've done without lugging a guidebook along. I find the modern tendency to catalog every aspect of a climb removes some of what I enjoy about climbing, which is, among other things, operating with a certain level of uncertainty.

Of course, you can't embrace uncertainty without occasionally paying the penalties it can impose. In addition to not having precise knowledge of pitch lengths, the lack of detailed on-route beta can result in getting off-route, at which point nothing is going to help you with pitch lengths. And then, incomprehensibly, some guidebooks have errors, and even when they don't sometimes the leader thinks they can run two pitches together when it turns out that isn't the greatest idea.

So for all these reasons I prefer to economize on rope usage at the belay stance, and bringing everything back to the harness with a remote anchor seems like profligate spending. I'd guess that the extra time it takes me to rig stances the way I described is measured in seconds, so no worries about faffing about.

In reply to 19G:

Hi!

Sorry if it's been mentioned already but I've just thought of something whilst listening to comments about cordelettes etc. If making a 3 point anchor it might be both useful and prudent whenever possible to just use 2 of the 3 belay placements for the cordelette method and clip the third piece of gear with a sling direct to your harness loops(s). Building belays is also about making the gear as independent as possible and doing this makes it even safer because whilst you still have a backup if one of the cordelette placements fail, in the unlikely event that something happens to the rope Inbetween your harness and those belays then none of them will be reliable. Having another runner clipped direct to your harness would circumvent this.

I know this is not always possible depending on belay location and available gear but it's something to think about. Like mentioned already the Internet is great to pick up ideas for belays with some great instructional videos, just get searching

In reply to rgold:


Yes, it helps when the individual anchors aren't too far from each other so you can equalise with slings.

In reply to David Coley:

What is the advantage of a clove hitch on the gear end (over harness end) if you can reach it?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Possibly because it reduces the need for extra screw gates.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

You can reduce the amount of rope required. Single strand to first piece of gear, clove hitch, short single strand to second piece of gear, clove hitch, single strand back to harness. Two anchors 3m away from you and 1m apart equals about 7m of rope (plus knots) instead of 12m.

Tell you what, climbing with doubles is the way to go

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Hi,
reduces the amount of rope required and slightly faster if you can tie cloves one handed. Tying a clove one handed at the harness is also a bit of a fiddle. In addition it is easier to get the tension right for a hanging belay if you tie the knot at the piece - this is easier to see than explain - but you will be hanging off the gear with one hand and tying the knot with the other.

Also less cluster at the harness - for example you might end up with 2 cloves at the gear and 2 on the krab at the harness, whereas 4 cloves at the harness is a bit of a mess and a big bundle for one krab to handle

In reply to David Coley:


That happens to you a lot does it?

You're doing the wrong routes.

In reply to Andy Say:

I wouldn't say 3m away was 'close' - still a distance it would be hard to get the length just right so would prefer to use clove hitches at the harness end. But yes, I always climb on doubles so in theory it would be 6m of each rope.

In reply to David Coley:

Thanks, yes I can see some advantage for hanging belays I suppose. I would hope in this scenario at least one piece would be bomber in it's own right so I guess would perhaps just clip into that while doing the rest.

In reply to 19G:

Andy Say and Dave Coley are the key contributers here.
My top tip to add is always asking yourself one question about everything you've done. And not just for your belays.
The question in question is - 'what if?'
IE, your belay has four bits of gear in it. You've connected them all by X method.
Look at what you have and ask yourself - if piece A fails, what happens? If piece B fails, what happens? Piece C? Piece D? Pieces A +D? If the belay is loaded in X direction, what happens?, in Y Direction? What happens?
Sample answer - If piece A fails I can see that sufficient slack will result, such that the second will pull me over the edge as I lock off to hold the fall!
What if?? That question is ALWAYS a healthy and informative one.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Sorry I was just trying to use simple maths to demonstrate the 'rope-saving potential'. If the anchors are right next to you you actually save bugger-all rope!

In reply to 19G:

Secure anchors: make each placement as good as you can.
Evaluate the likely direction of pull.
Redundancy: If any one anchor fails the remaining anchor(s) are more than up to the job.
Equalised: try to share any possibly load as equally as possible to your anchors to try to avoid 'sequential failure'.
No
Extension: If one anchor fails your system should not introduce a load of slack rope.

Do all that and you will be SERENE, my friend.

In reply to Andy Say:

I always finds it helpful to ask myself "would I abseil off this ?".

In reply to geomac:

Mad semi-tangent. Sometimes I have built an anchor that requires opposing forces to keep the gear in place - for example a pair of outward pointing horizontal spikes on my left and right, forming a wide-angled belay (I know some people get in a massive panic about wide angles but I would rather have bomber pieces at shallow angles than questionable pieces at better angles). Neither piece _should_ fail as set up - but either piece could fail if pulled directly out rather than inwards at the angles I have created. Since the failure of either piece could result in the failure of the other, both pieces need to be either unquestionable bomber, replaced or made redundant. In fact if you build say a 2 point belay on each side that has a 2% chance of failing if the other belay holds but a 100% chance of failing if the other belay fails, then the odds of the whole system failing are now 3.96% - worse than if you just hung off a single 2 point belay with a 2% failure rate.

In reply to andrewmcleod:

I think you need to improve yours maths, or your English, or just get out more

Treat pairs of opposing anchors ( that rely on each other ) as one anchor point.

In reply to andrewmcleod:




Could you explain which routes this has been necessary on. I've never encountered anything like it. I agree the angles thing can be an issue but I've never not been able to archive independent anchors.

Andy Say

The question is not would I Ab' off it. On a multipitch route the question is "what would I happen if I say tied say 3m of rope from my anchors to my harness and then climbed until the rope went tight and then jumped into space?"

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):




Hey, don't involve me!

But there IS a well-know technique of using placements 'in opposition'. E.g. a wire that will only take a pull to the left can be coupled with a wire placement that will only take a pull to the right to produce an overall anchor point/runner that will sustain a downwards force.

And whilst your 'what would happen' criteria is undoubtedly rigorous (!) the point being made was that some anchors wouldn't even pass the 'would I abseil off it' test let alone yours. You'd be surprised at the number of folks I've seen on SPA assessments who, when asked to abseil off the anchor system that they've just happily brought a second up on will start desperately looking for more placements.

In reply to Rick Graham:

But Andrew is right, if you have a two point belay where if either point fails they both fail it's more at risk of failure than a single point.

In reply to treforsouthwell:


For sure! But unfortunately every now and again you come across situations where things are less than perfect. And in the case of anchors 'in opposition' you should, of course, consider it as just 'one' anchor. So the failure of opposed wires is exactly AS serious as the failure of a single wire placement. But, of course, you will have taken this into consideration and have other, bombproof, anchors built into the system!

In reply to treforsouthwell:

And I also found it useful to think about terminology. 'Belay' is a really messy term. 'I'm just belaying'...''Making a belay now'...'That was crap belaying'...'My belay failed'.

Lets think about 'anchors' which are brought together into an 'anchor system' from which you are enabled to use a belay device to control the rope and there is less talking at cross purposes I've found.

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):



That is being too literal IMO. Noone makes an assesment of forces involved or in most cases will make a decision 'good enough for abseil' but 'not good enough for belay'.

I know what it feels like to abseil and put all my trust in an anchor and I, like many others, will imagine all the worst failure scenarios when actually stepping off the edge. I can't imagine jumping off - I simply wouldn't do it.

In reply to Rick Graham:


I think the maths is fine? the probability of either or both of 2 things happening, each of which has an independent probability of happening of 2%, is 3.96% - because the probability of each not happening is 98%, so the probability of _both_ not happening is 0.98 * 0.98 = 0.9604, or 96.04%. And so the probability of either or both failing is 3.96%.

But yes, your rule of thumb is basically the same as what I am saying

A slightly more likely situation: you have used an pair of anchors on your left and right, both about 1m back from the edge of the crag and 2m either side of you (distinctly less than ideal - while usually you get what you look hard enough for, sometimes you get what you are given). Failure of either may not result in you plummeting to the ground, but it will result in you swinging sideways off the edge of the crag... which is not a lot better.

I have also sometimes found myself at the top of the crag, with a good anchor set back, but where the climb comes up the side of a gully or similar cut into the top of the crag such that I need to sit at the side of the gully. I could be pulled into the gulley and the distant piece will not prevent this. If I use a directional piece behind me to hold me out of the gully, and it fails, I still end up in the gully albeit not at the bottom of the crag, so it needs to be belay anchor-worthy in its own right.

Basically (to tenuously link this back to the OP) equalization isn't important, extension is.

In reply to andrewmcleod:


Actually it is a whole lot better. Not perfect, I'd agree, but a whole lot better than two of you hitting the ground; one of you from the top of the crag.


I sort of agree, with the above proviso.


a. I disagree and b. I'm not sure what you are saying - 'no extension in the system if a piece fails'?

In reply to andrewmcleod:


Do you mean the slack left if a piece fails?

Equalization is going to help stop a piece from failing to start with by spreading the load evenly.

If one bit of gear does fail then you don't want it introducing slack into the system otherwise your going to fall, and then shock load the remaining gear, which may cause you to get hurt or it to fail as well.

In reply to Andy Say:
If I go over the edge then I may end up letting go of my second, and we could both end up hitting things. Yes it is definitely better, but not really good enough for UK trad :p

When I say extension I mean not only the usual meaning of slack introduced into the system that causes a further fall and a shock load, but also a loss of directional stability which causes a swinging fall (but no shock load).