Using SLCD's only for an anchor

[kmurray]

In the accident in Cal, before it was established that the climbers were not anchored, and the discussion centered (on Rockclimber.com) on the possible anchor failure, one post said:

========

vivalargo

Sport Climber

 

Friends,

 

In reading over the review of the anchor configuration -- although the facts are still not firmly established -- it looks like the entire anchor (which failed) was built on SLCD's (spring loaded camming devices). Opinions will pour in about the relative safety/danger of using only SLCD's for a primary anchor, and I suspect that in light of the fact that the cams were Camalot's, that brand will take some heat as well. But for whatever my opinion is worth, I believe the problem is not with Camalots, rather with rigging any primary anchor only with SLCD's. Because SLCD's can pivot under a shockload, I have always been terrified of rigging a anchor exclusively from said units. I always try and get a big taper or Hex in or better yet, a natural anchor. Not always possible, but the recent tradegy would seem to suggest we should try whenever possible.

 

JL

=============

 

I've heard discussion of such things in the past, but it was interesting to see it revisited, in the context of a recent accident.

[ketch]

KM, can you point me at any of those discussions. I have by plan not ever had an anchor that was exclusivley SLCD, mostly as I wanted to save my cams for the pitch instead of leaving them behind. I have also been fortunate enough to have never lost a piece of an anchor to start any shock load. My experience though is that with a properly equalized anchor there is less chance of the cam rotating out.

 

I am I outawack or what?

[ScottP]

I once held my partner, who was climbing with an overnight pack, on a 5.8 alpine pitch while he dicked with some gear. As he hung there, I put more weight on the anchor which consisted of two bomber Friends behind a flake (it was all I had left that would work.) As I slowly added more weight to the anchor I heard a rattling noise. Looking back, I was horrified to see the flake expanding and the two cams reaching the tipping out point. I took the weight off the anchor and asked Kevin to start climbing again.

 

In some cases, SLCD's are all you got, and even so, they aren't the best.

[Paul_detrick]

I have used just SLCD for ancors before, if there bomber. Yes I feel better if I can get a big hex in, but thats not all ways the case. I don't see what that has to do with the guys from Calif. they did not have a anchor. If your question is do people use just SLCD's I would have to say yes. But it seems misleading to me. As far as the flake goes that can happen with any piece you use. Just my 2 cents.

[kmurray]

ketch, those discussions were on this board, but I'm not sure what the right search words would be to find them. It seems like the discussions began with the topic of whether a person should learn anchoring first with active or passive pro.

 

Oh, and I suppose I should expose my little joke. The poster that made that assertion that I quoted was John Long, who is a frequent contributor to Rockclimbing.com. It was interesting to see his take on the issue.

[ketch]

KM, Thanks for the info I'll search around a little. I think that your onto something though with the learning to anchor bit. I was building anchors a bit when nuts were nuts with a piece of cord. By the time I started with the cams I was better at placing them and equalizing. That helps a lot in keepin the cams in place if you jerk them around. I'm still not perfect at it, I wonder how much validity in some of these other arguments.

[mattp]

I don't know where Murray is coming from. Yes, cams can rotate and walk and sometimes they get out of position this way, but in most cracks they are if anything MORE resistent to being pulled out of position if the force upon them comes from directions other than the one anticipated, aren't they? How many times have you "kicked out" a nut or just had the rope movement cause it to fail when it was perfectly good for the fall anticipated when you placed it? I often prefer a camelot for a belay anchor specifically for that reason.

 

In certain types of rock, such as the andesite cracks at Tieton, nuts are sometimes more reliable then cams in this respect. But in most granite cracks, for example, I'd say no. In most sandstone cracks, absolutely not. If you aren't careful to place the anchors at a belay station in opposition and tension them correctly, and even some times if you are, a plain old fashioned nut is much more apt to fail when cross-loaded or whipped about.

[kmurray]

Matt, where I am coming from is that anchoring is a complex subject, and simplistic approaches are probably not reasonable. I, like you, see astonishingly poor practices on the crags. I think that discussion of these things can be enlightening for people. None of us like to see accidents, and I think the people newer to the sport benefit from sophisticated comments on anchors, such as yours.

[lummox]

kmurray said:

it was interesting to see it revisited, in the context of a recent accident.

 

not.

it is was and will forever be lame to make gross simplifications about what may or may not be safe in a given situation.

[minx]

lummox said:

kmurray said:

it was interesting to see it revisited, in the context of a recent accident.

 

not.

it is was and will forever be lame to make gross simplifications about what may or may not be safe in a given situation.

 

isn't there some value in attempting to learn from things that happened? it's tragedy and that should not be forgotten but should we not use whatever information we can to learn and maybe prevent out own tragedy?

 

i had a nasty little accident earlier this year. the good news is that none of my pieces failed or it would've been worse. maybe i learned good placement from practice. and maybe just maybe something i read about someone else contributed to that knowledge base.

 

[Jens]

Personally, if given the choice and weight or gear was not an issue,I would rather use only SLCD's for an anchor than only passive pro. You can set up an anchor a couple minutes faster.

 

I like the way cams can sometimes rotate with direction of the pull. Try the same thing with passive pro and the stuff will sometime pop out (unless you've done someelaborate directional rigging). Yes, the cams will often walk or tip out when rotated, but it's better than popping a nut out or something.

 

 

[lummox]

minx said:

isn't there some value in attempting to learn from things that happened?

sure. but there is little value in perpetuating rumor or examining rhetorical situations.

[kmurray]

lummox said:

kmurray said:

it was interesting to see it revisited, in the context of a recent accident.

 

not.

it is was and will forever be lame to make gross simplifications about what may or may not be safe in a given situation.

 

What gross simplification are you referring to? The oversimplification that it is wise to know and use a variety of techniques in varying situations? That no one technique is probably as good as using combined techniques, each of which has strengths and weaknesses, to optimize the result?

To discuss what experts have said, to better understand the best way to conduct our sport?

[Bug]

To oversimplify in general, only experience will help avoid anchor failure. The most dangerous time in any climbers carreer is when that climber is starting to lead trad. I always recommend doing a few pitches of clean aid climbing with the rack you will use to lead with plus a few extras to suplement. Do it on toprope if you want to really be safe. The act of weighting a piece while you can watch it will teach you a lot. Wether or not to use "SLCD's" is a silly question to me. I would pick whichever one fit the crack best regardless.

[Lambone]

Bug said:

Wether or not to use "SLCD's" is a silly question to me. I would pick whichever one fit the crack best regardless.

 

Exactly, cams are can be just as bomber as nuts. I think they are better for achors because they are more multi directional. While a cam may swivel up and down, a nut will likely get plucked out, although it is good to know how to place nuts in opposition to avoid this.

 

Although I ussualy try to save the cams for the leader and use nut's for the anchor. But if I have the chance to plug a good multi-directional Camolot into the anchor you bet I will.

 

Sounds top me like this unfortunate accident happened because the two were simo-climbing on easy terrain with no pro in, and one fell...pulling the other off. Sad

[mattp]

Murray-

Where I'm coming from is that anchoring is NOT a complex subject. I've said this in other threads, but the simple fact is that placing pro is far more complicated and demanding, in my view. Just about any three good pieces (especially if at least one of them is a multiple directional), tied together in just about any fashion, are good enough to protect pretty much any belay. Common "complexities" here involve issues such as how many 'biners do you waste in the whole mess that you have created, or did you set your anchors and locate yourself such that you were in the direction of the line of pull from your anchor. These issues are obvious on simple visual inspection. Yes, this is an oversimplification but not much of one.

 

For protecting the leader, on the other hand, there are many much more complex issues to consider: fall forces are likely going to be much greater and I may trust a tiny wire way up toward the end of a pitch but not near the start; if not careful, I'll place a cam right where I want to step or in the way of a handhold; I may kick the pro out as I go by; rope movement may saw up and down on a sling, causing the stopper to fall out or the camelot to walk back into the crack; a loose flake or a shallow seam requiring skillful gear placement are much more likely to be the only option; the use of runners to extend the pro runs against instinct because it places the catch point lower but they may be essential to reduce rope drag or prevent the rope from running over an edge; etc. -- these are much more complex concerns.

 

Yes, anchor building is an art and a skill - but it is not in my view anywhere near as much of a mystery as is commonly suggested. Everytime I state this it is rebuffed (somebody says "what about the guys on Mt. Washington" or whatever) but in actual fact I have never heard of anybody falling off their belay ledge and falling to their death - unless their partner took a half-rope fall onto the belay or somebody dropped the haul bag on a wall climb or something. In these cases, I'd say the cause of the accident was the long leader fall taken by somebody who obviously used inadequate pro (these accidents don't tend to happen on unprotectable granite slabs) or somebody really messed up with the haul bag. These accidents would be much better avoided by having the leader place solid pro on their lead or by being more careful with the haul bag -- and the addition of a more sophisticated cordellette to tie the same three pieces together at the belay would probably not have made any difference.

 

Any new leader should spend a lot more time learning to place gear on lead, in my opinion, than learning how to build a John-Long-approved belay.

[kmurray]

Perkins, as a professional wordsmith, I appreciate that you may simply be parsing words, here. If I understand what you said, you are distinguishing between anchoring systems, and placing pro. Certainly you are correct, these are two different skillsets. And I would certainly agree, that creating a SRENE anchoring system is now, generally, a simple thing to do (although my *experience* in actually seeing what people do out at the crags continues to baffle me, as to why this cannot be done well, by a lot of people). And I would agree that placing pro is a vastly more complex undertaking.

You say

"Yes, anchor building is an art and a skill - but it is not in my view anywhere near as much of a mystery as is commonly suggested. Everytime I state this it is rebuffed"

Which makes me think that you might have a minority opinion. Perhaps *you* may find these subjects simple, but perhaps many people do not. This may well have to do with learning processes....for example, someone with a doctorate may have down the process of learning, solidly, any particular function, even if it involves many steps. Someone who does not have that educational background may find the *process* of learning more challenging. Most climbers do not have doctorates. Although, I find it interesting that many of the early climbers were associated with university climbing clubs, Berkeley, Harvard, etc. Perhaps there is a draw to the subject?

You also state:

"Any new leader should spend a lot more time learning to place gear on lead, in my opinion, than learning how to build a John-Long-approved belay."

Surely, you are not advocating that anyone should lead on an inadequate belay anchor? Perhaps you meant that any new leader, once they have mastered a bomber belay anchor, should spend a lot of time mastering the placement of gear.

 

However, I'd agree that there are several ways to get to the goal.

 

[erik]

kmurray said:

The poster that made that assertion that I quoted was John Long, who is a frequent contributor to Rockclimbing.com.

 

not to debate semantics...but i see he only has 61 posts...in over a year. so mayne not a frequent contributor.

 

accidents make me think twice and then after that...i resume what i know to be safe climbing technique..i am always up for learning new things...but not from the internet directly.

 

 

[lummox]

i refrain from commenting further since it would get me banned again.

[erik]

lummox said:

i refrain from commenting further since it would get me banned again.

 

WELL I CANT BAN YOU SO TRASH ME IF YOU WANT!! I COULD CARE LESS!!

 

[catbirdseat]

I think that certainly the more posts one has on CC.com, the more reliable that person's advice should be considered. NOT!

[lummox]

erik said:

lummox said:

i refrain from commenting further since it would get me banned again.

 

WELL I CANT BAN YOU SO TRASH ME IF YOU WANT!! I COULD CARE LESS!!

 

dude. this is like the rare occasion when you havent chafed me. all scool by me. especially your comment on learning fromthe internet (tho i have picked up some pointers on freakysex with chihuahuas while online ).

[boatskiclimbsail]

I believe the most important part of learning and teaching trad tecnique is anchor building. For the beginning leader who's nerves are too shaky and who's skill is not yet developed placing mid-route gear, the anchors are the only things that are keeping the team alive should they fall. This coupled with the fact that the new leaders "should" be on relatiely easy grades as per their ability, I think an anchor clinic holds far more value than placing gear on toprope. I used to make my students construct 4 or 5 anchors right off the ground, and then clip so that they hung about a foot off the ground. When I would make them jump up and down the reward for a good anchor was not falling on their ass, lol. This was the second "class" we would run, open to the kids who had gone through the toprope anchor class. I feel a lot better sending out a new leader who can make bomber anchors than one who can set gear and make questionable ones.

[mattp]

Murray -

I am NOT arguing semantics here. I'm arguing focus. I believe it is completely misguided for people to place so much emphasis on worrying about creating a "SRENE" anchor when they don't even know how to place gear. A month ago somebody told me what SRENE stands for, and I don't disagree with the fact that it is a very good idea. But it is really, in my view, just as simple as I said: place three good pieces of gear, in different cracks if possible, have at least one of them good for an upward pull, if possible, and tie the whole mess together. You DO NOT have to attend multiple anchor-building clinics to build a very safe and secure belay anchor. You DO have to attend multiple gear-placement and leadership judgment and other tecnical clinincs to be able to safely lead and place gear.

 

Boatclimbski's example only reenforces my point, I think. His students could not place gear that would hold them if they jumped on it. I bet their problem was not that they didn't know how to properly use a cordellette or that things weren't doubly redundant - their problem was that they didn't know how to place a good nut or cam!

[boatskiclimbsail]

Actually, I never said anything about the results of the classes. The point I was trying to make was the opposite of the way it has been interpereted. Obviously the only way to make a good ____ is to have experience doing ____ and an understanding of what good ____ technique is. My example applied to a limited amount of people, those who do not yet have significant experience, and are trying to go about gaining some in the safest environment possible. My point was that I feel anchors as an entire system are far more important than individual pieces put in while climbing. Most beginning trad leaders are so afraid of falling that they generally do not. The anchors are the only reliable things between you and the ground, in all but the first pitch of any climb. Take this into the ice arena for experienced climbers and it can also apply. Very few ice climbers put any real faith in a single screw placement, instead they rely on their anchors for security. I am not claiming that individual placements are not important, just my view that anchors are a more valuable skill to develop first. The point of the "falling on your ass" excercise was to get the students to have faith in their placements, by trying to make them fail. Some of them were very surprised at how well the gear held, some were shocked at how poorly their anchors were constructed, and it whipped them into shape faster than you can imagine, when I told them to imagine that they were not on the ground, but that they were 200' off the deck and their gf/bf/spouse/child was on the other end of the line and also depending on that anchor.