UKC

3 days climbing on Portland and sadly I’ve whitnessed an alarming number of groups top roping directly off anchors.

To make matters worse, a good few of those have been at Neddyfields Main Cliff, with anchors being very accessible from the top.

Anyone unsure on how or what to do, please just ask, I’m confident most people will be more than happy to explain the problems, reasons and solutions.

A place to start would be your guidebook that you’ve likely paid for, carried and refer to everytime you climb, there’s some good information in there about good practice. It’s page 32 in the 2012 Dorset guide by ROCKFAX.

I hope this doesn’t apply to the majority of folks here, in which case I kindly ask you to bring people up on bad practices and educate them where possible. Thank you if you already do. 

In reply to Emilio Bachini:

I noticed the wear on the staples at the Darkness Wall (Intake) a few day ago.

How about a promt BMC initiative to add  maillons and rings to all staples before they are ruined and need replacing?

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

If they are organised groups shouldn’t they asked to comply with good practice -and the organisers asked to contribute to the local Bolt fund?

In reply to Emilio Bachini:

The person in charge of the group needs a good bollocking. Explain that such behaviour is not acceptable, if they do not immediately change ask for names, name and shame here. If they are working for a company, find out the name of the company, if it is a club, find out which one. (If they will not say who they are, photograph and post  on here.) Having found out who they are get someone official to write to their organisation explaining why such practice is unacceptable. The obvious person to do this would be the local BMC area secretary (me for the southwest which covers Portland).

In reply to Emilio Bachini:

Oh go on then, I suppose I'll ask:

What do you mean by directly off of anchors?

In reply to Removed User:

The rope running straight through the anchor bolts or krab, depending on the setup.

In reply to Alkis:

Thanks. I just wanted to be clear about the argument. I assume setting up a top rope anchor using a sling/slings attached to the anchor bolts is ok?

In reply to Removed User:

Absolutely - that is what these groups should have done.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Thanks

In reply to Emilio Bachini:

This sort of behaviour is pretty much de rigeur at my local crag by the largest organised group(s) - along with a bunch of other dubious practices (hogging areas of the crag (on one occasion even taping off some of it), beginners scrabbling around limestone rock in dusty trainers, beginners urged to have speed competitions on the routes, playing of music, constant swearing ( usually at least one member of the group that can't express themselves without chucking in at least one *uck per sentence), tramping around the (loose) top of the crag setting up top ropes above people leading the routes, etc, etc).  

What is particularly annoying is that they all belong to a particular UK organisation, operating as guests in a foreign country, paid for by the UK tax-payer.  They don't offer to contribute to the cost of equipping routes - which is paid for and maintained by a small set of locals (despite being asked regularly, and despite them being the biggest single users of the crag by far).  They have their  own private crags which would be, in many ways, more suitable to their purposes, but seem reluctant to use them. 

I've occasionally  had words concerning all this, once almost to the point of coming to blows.  The problem is that their leaders are replaced regularly, so even if I do manage to train one set, they are replaced a few months later and the hassle starts again, so I've more or less given up.  

 

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

Well? Who is it? 

In reply to deacondeacon:

Considering the 'Private crags' and 'Government funded' comments it sounds like the MOD... Not sure about the rest though! 

In reply to Mark Kemball:          If they do not immediately change ask for names, name and shame here................................  'Don't tell him,pike.

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

Compltely out of order. Assuming this is the British military, then a strongly worded letter, ideally from the local mayor or similar to their commanding officer would be a good idea.

In reply to Removed User:

If the bolts are suitably spaced (which most of the Portland ones are) we tend to use a pair of opposed quickdraws rather than anything complex.  Last climber takes them down and threads the anchor.

In reply to Emilio Bachini:

The worst culprits, in my experience, are the outdoor centres/group instructor types who thread a rope through the anchors and haul paying customers in dirty shoes up routes they are incapable of even getting off the ground on. The last time I challenged one of these 'expert' instructors, I was told that the BMC put these bolts and anchors in for the enjoyment of all! He wouldn't believe that most were put in at the expense of a private individual, or that there was a bolt fund funded by climbers. He said he didn't need to put money into the bolts as the BMC did it all! 

In reply to johncook:

My dislike above is for the individual's behaviour not your post. Name and shame, post photos etc. 

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Did consider this, but they tend to be reluctant to disclose exactly which bit they are from, even denying that they are military on occasion (which they for sure are).  Tried contacting one or two likely candidate bodies, such as JSATC (?) but they don't respond to emails or FB messages.  I know some of a recent crop of leaders use UKC, so maybe they'll see this.....

In reply to johncook:

Next time ask them how much their BMC membership cost this year

 

In reply to MischaHY:

Such a shame to hear the military is acting like this. 

My wife and myself arrived at Stanage midweek once.  The army was there and had set up about 5 top faultless top ropes and were all having a great time. We were told that any routes they were using would be pulled to the top if we wished to climb or even offered the use of the top rope.  They were all recruits and seemed to be enjoying themselves.  On one occasion one of them swore and was sent on a quick punishment run to the car park and back. 

Not all MOD will be inconsiderate users.

 

 

In reply to cheeky:

Maybe not, but in my encounters with MOD groups they do tend to be inconsiderate and blessed with a strong helping of "we're better than you" attitude. For example, at Lands End a few years back, me and some friends had decided to do Land's End Long Climb to make the most of a rainy day. However, we turned up about two minutes after a large MOD (not sure which flavour) group who promptly told us that they would be using the route all morning and were more important than us. They then proceeded to send around 15 people up on a series of top ropes, in boots, for the next few hours. Why this is important for "national defence" I would love to know.

In contrast, I do have several friends in the military, who are nice, considerate people.

/off topic whinge

In reply to Neil Williams:

Hopefully not in that order  

 

In reply to AlanLittle:

Indeed not

Out of interest, does anyone know the wear rate of anchors, i.e. how many lowers they might be expected to take? I'm guessing a sandy / dirty rope will be worse.

I assume one top rope is about the same as one lower and pull the rope down action? 

Although top roping through the anchors is a poor idea, and I guess will shorten the life of the anchor considerably if (like the OP) we are talking repeated use by large groups on popular climbs, I kind of get the impression that some people think this might is more of a deadly sin leading to dramatic wear in only a few top ropes than in reality it is - if we are talking about the odd person TRing the odd route. For example, if the second can't be trusted to not screw up the threading of the anchors. Otherwise the leader has to climb it again, and lower again - which might (possibly) add up to the same amount of wear. Or if alter lowering, someone pops up and asks to have a quick go.

Please note, I'm not suggesting anyone TRs through anchors, just after some data. I think this might sometimes be more a case of "if everyone did like you, those chains are not going to last long", but some people when then make strong vocal comment at the crag seem to start almost with "you guys have just ruined the anchor". This can, shall we say, lead to a clash, as it is hard for the top roper to see why a few TRs might matter.

 

PS. I have never felt the need to top rope through an anchor. But I have paid for and placed anchors.

 

In reply to David Coley:

There is a newish route at Cheyne wears (a 5+ on the right) which is often toproped. It can't be much more than 10-15 years old and the lower off staples are 1/3 through.

In reply to David Coley:

Well it´s something I´ve been curious about for  while and always thought it would be ridiculously hard to measure but a recent discussion on the relative wear rates of titanium against stainless steel spurred me into action! I made a curious test rig which put 80kg load on the rope as I hauled it back and forth through chain links and measured the wear, the "dirty" rope was easily produced by burying the whole rig in dirt from my garden. The end result after 400 cycles (640m of rope) was four completely trashed ropes where the sheath had completely seperated, two completely destroyed lower-offs and confirmation that titanium wears twice as fast as stainless.

Exactly how one can translate this to the difference between top-roping and lowering I don´t know. Since I supply the ones at Portland I´ m not sure I want to discourage their wear anyway

In reply to Emilio Bachini:

If the wear on my belay krab is anything to go by it is almost impossible to estimate the rate of wear as it varies so much according to circumstances. Certainly a long trip to Kalymnos, where my  ropes seem to get very gritty not matter how hard I try to keep them clean, seemed to accelerate wear. Climbing walls may be a more controlled environment, Do they have a policy for how often anchors should be renewed?

In reply to jimtitt:

So how many metres of pulled rope did it actually take to destroy a lower-off in your experiment?

In reply to David Coley:

"I assume one top rope is about the same as one lower and pull the rope down action? "

Yes this is the case - this is a useful baseline of minimising impact

In my experience there are 3 types of people wearing out the anchors.

(I am eliminating those who choose to abseil from the anchors because I am guessing they have virtually no impact?)

1. People who lower after a successful ascent = 1 cycle of rope wear(which depends on route length)
2. People who thread the rope after an ascent so an inexperienced second can reach the anchors without threading = 2 cycles of rope wear
3. Groups who repeatedly top-rope through the anchors = rope cycles * number of climbers

I count myself among the first group(that's how most climb routes in Dorset I think).

I have occasionally been among group 2. Mostly through absentmindedness or the sudden arrival of a latecomer to the party.

I have once been among group 3 when I forgot to bring enough karabiners on a commercial climbing day( I run commercial climbing courses in Dorset).

I don't think I would castigate anyone in group 2 unless it was obvious that they setting up for a mass-ascent(you can decide on the number that defines a 'mass').

Those in group 3 should be challenged. It is just acknowledged bad practice among commercial groups- if they deny ignorance lets name and shame. I must admit that on the occasion I was among group 3 I was challenged on it- good for them - I didn't have the nerve to tell them that as a contributor to the DBF I had placed the bolts in question!)

Rob

In reply to Rob Kennard:

 

Now if they'd been playing music far too loudly, there might have been a different result. (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

As you rightly say, Rob, it's Group 3 who do the real damage - and if it's commerical groups doing it regularly, well they should know better.

With normal climbers, a gentle word seems better than confrontation. Nat once told me a tale whereby Phil and her and a few others were playing around on Pop for the Top, with the rope threaded through the staples and they got ripped to shreds by some pillock. I didn't place those staples to encourage self-righteous pillocks, even if they were technically correct.

Last weekend, saw that a guy had lowered off just one staple. His girlfriend, top-roping, could have ended up with just one quickdraw between her and the deck. They were blissfully oblivious. Deep breath. "Err... there may be a slightly better way of doing things..."  We got there in the end, with minimal loss of face.

When you've climbed for more than a year on a dead cool blue polypropylene rope, it's kinda hard to claim the moral high ground!

Mick

 

In reply to Luke90:

About 300m for the titanium one and 640m for the stainless one. At what point a lower off is worn to the extent of requiring replacement is however debatable, my idea of trahed may not be yours!

In reply to Rob Kennard:

is a top rope twice as much wear as a lower off? 

Top rope= one weighted up and down + a pull through

lower off = one weighted down and a pull through

In reply to jimtitt:

Surely that experiment must be exaggerating the rate of wear somehow?!

Those numbers would suggest that a lower off on a decent-length route can only take 20 lead lowers, never mind top-roping. That's ludicrous!

In reply to Luke90:

Well I did write that I buried the test-rig in dirt and assumed it was obvious that I was trying to both provide a consistently dirty rope to both links AND accelerate the wear since otherwise it was going to take longer than I was prepared to experiment.

I also wrote "Exactly how one can translate this to the difference between top-roping and lowering I don´t know".

Someone else can do definitive wear tests comparing lowering to top-roping as this isn´ t a subject that interests me, all I am concerned with is the comparative wear of different types of lower-off and materials.

In reply to Mick Ward:

 

Wha?!

 

Given Jim's data, which represents a very dirty rope, if anyone from a wall has some data, we would have the clean end of the spectrum too.

 

 

In reply to jimtitt:

I'm really sorry, my post obviously came across as criticism and that wasn't my intention. I'm always really grateful for your contributions of actual data to UKC discussion.

My post was poorly worded and I'd also misread your original post about the experimental setup. I thought you'd done a clean version of the experiment as well as the buried in dirt one. When you posted the actual numbers I assumed they were the clean ones and on that basis they astonished me!

In reply to Luke90:

No problem, I guess I could have been clearer but I was in the middle of cooking dinner at the time!

The hassle doing a normal rope test is it would take ages probably so I´d need it to do it automatically though I´ ve vague plan about how to do that.

A guy called Bressan did tests with the Italian Alpine Club on the wear of ropes but never mentioned the wear on the other parts and the DAV also regarding rope wear top-roping but we don´t have any data on wear of lower-offs.

As mentioned above the venue makes the difference, we have a sandstone quarry nearby which is slabby, always dirty, a bit damp and top-roped to death, a year is good for  top ring! Other places they last 20 or 30 years.

In reply to La benya:

No, top roping, the rope should not be weighted (in theory!).

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Except on lower off, so it's just additional lower offs (and maybe the odd *bit* extra if there's a fall).