mattp Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 That's the thing, Boatski: my shameful misreading of your post aside, we'll go round and round about this because you are totally into this "anchor is the only thing between you and the ground" idea. I disagree completely with the premise that anchor building is more important than gear placement. I know I may be in the minority school, but hey - I'd much rather fall on a good piece of gear with a shitty belay anchor at the ledge below me than the other way around. MUCH RATHER. If somebody knows how to place solid gear, I could explain to them what is needed to build a SRENE anchor in, like, a half hour at the crag. If they know all about SRENE but not how to place gear, it would take several days' with them before I'd trust their gear placement skills. Quote
chelle Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 I agree with Mattp that if you have 3 pieces of good gear placed in more than one crack at the belay, how you hook them together shouldn't be the focus of whether it is a solid anchor. New leaders (and any climber) can make anchor building easy for themselves if they carry a cordellete and just connect the pieces and tie a knot in it to equalize the anchor. Â What is important is that each piece be well placed and able to withstand a fall on it's own. Better still would be to have at least one multidirectional piece or a piece rigged for an upward pull. Not whether they are connected with clove hitches, individual slings, or a cordelette. This is what I think Matt is talking about (correct me if I am wrong). The pieces need to be placed well and the leader should be able to evaluate if the nut or cam is a good placement. Also everyleader should be careful to protect the belay by placing gear at the beginning of the pitch. Â When I started climbing it took a few clinics about placing gear before I understood all the factors that might cause gear to fail. I was also advised to spend some time following leaders who know what they are doing. I knew how to build a decent anchor when I started leading, and a couple hours with a friend who is a guide made me solid on how to build tricky anchors with limited gear. Â Today, it seems like people just hand their friend who can climb a rack of gear and say go to it. I've heard some people talk about how they started leading trad the second or third time out with a buddy. It's worked out for them, but it seems dangerous to me. But maybe I'm just more conservative. Quote
RuMR Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 mattp said: That's the thing, Boatski: my shameful misreading of your post aside, we'll go round and round about this because you are totally into this "anchor is the only thing between you and the ground" idea. I disagree completely with the premise that anchor building is more important than gear placement. I know I may be in the minority school, but hey - I'd much rather fall on a good piece of gear with a shitty belay anchor at the ledge below me than the other way around. MUCH RATHER. If somebody knows how to place solid gear, I could explain to them what is needed to build a SRENE anchor in, like, a half hour at the crag. If they know all about SRENE but not how to place gear, it would take several days' with them before I'd trust their gear placement skills. Â Matt is absolutely 100% right here...thissiz the same principle between simul climbing w/ bombproof pieces between the climbers and NO anchor at all...if the high piece holds, there is no need for an anchor at all... Quote
boatskiclimbsail Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 Different climbers, different focus. You are free to your (aparently majority) opinion. Perhaps we started climbing in different environments. My impression of the situation is that the purpose of the anchor is to deal with a catostrophic mistake or accident, and keep the rope attached to the rock. I feel that individual pieces in most cases are a convenience to the leader should he or she fall, and not a reliable method of keeping onesself alive. I am not disputing that they are important; they are what makes trad trad, obviously piece placement is the most valuable skill a trad climber (perhaps the only one specific to trad climbing?) can learn. My arena is day+ long, moderate trad routes where the leader isn't gripped more than once or twice on the whole climb. My "pushing the trad limits" days ended long ago I think this is where my opinions are formed. Anyway, back to this phenomenon called work... Quote
troubleski Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 I am not sure if they both don't have a place for the beginning climber.... Â Top roping?... ya need to build good multi-directional anchors... Â practicing trad on single pitches to bolts? ... anchors won't help you... Â Anna's Fall? (yeah... I have been lurking that long)... probably wouldn't have happened if she would have built an anchor before being lowered.... Â or her placements were better.... Â I have been on many climbs where I figured I would be dead from bouncing off things long before I reached the belay.... good pro a must... Â no gear right off the belay?... anchor better be bomber..... Â Plenty of reason to approach it from both sides.... Â Â Â Quote
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 The polemical nature of this discussion gives the appearance that some think anchors the the most important factor whereas others think pro on lead is more important. The reality as troubleski has pointed out is that the redundancy which results from the combination of good pro and good anchors is what decreases one's chances of accident and injury. An experienced climber like a good gambler, or a good engineer tries to minimize chance of failure at each an every opportunity. Quote
mattp Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 Nobody here is suggesting that you learn one without the other, troubleski -- the discussion started with a statement that sounded like the point was that "passive gear is safer for omnidirectional purposes than cams" (completely incorrect in my view) and then we turned to the question of whether it is more important for a beginning climber to learn how to set a "SRENE" anchor or how to actually place gear. I say emphasizing "SRENE" before learning how to put in the gear in the first place is putting the cart before the horse, and I'd perfectly happily climb just about any crag route around with someone who knew how to place gear but had no knowledge of "proper" SRENE techniques. Quote
chucK Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 Suppose you were climbing on the head of a pin. The only good protection at the "belay" and for 20 feet above is a 4" crack and you only have 1 piece that will work (#4 Camalot). Where do you place the piece? Quote
bunglehead Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 At first I thought this thread was just going to be a pissing match, but you guys are actually making sense. It is true that a great station don't matter if your pieces suck ASS. Personally, I think the SRENE concept is just a quick useful guideline while setting up a station. Easy to remember while you're stringing the pieces together, or teaching newbies. Quote
Lambone Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 mattp said: I say emphasizing "SRENE" before learning how to put in the gear in the first place is putting the cart before the horse... Â I don't see why anyone couldn't learn both at the same time. They are not mutualy exclusive skills... Quote
Lambone Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 well then whats the point of arguing one is more important than another or should be taught first or second... duh Quote
mattp Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 The point here is that, in my view, the importance of building an anchor has been overemphasized in recent climbing instructional settings. Apparently, lots of instructors out there make out like "building an anchor" is some complex thing, some teach their students that it is important to equalize and doubly redundant everthing when one piece may be a ten inch tree, and some people get the wrong idea that placing multiple anchors will make you safe when you don't know how to place gear in the first place. If you would read this thread and think about what I've been saying for even as much as thirty seconds, you wouldn't think I was advocating learning to place gear first, and only then talking about "building an anchor." Like you said: Â Quote
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 Another aspect of the discussion would be the relative importance of proper equilization versus the quality of the individual pieces that constitue the anchor. Impropery equalized pieces can blow out no matter how bomber they are, because they can fail serially. No single piece is stronger than about 16 kN. Quote
mattp Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 You lost me there, Catbird. As you know, I don't place much emphasis on kill-o-newtons but a single bomber camelot placed in a construction where a nut would fit is more than sufficient for a belay anchor in my book and the second one that I place is for a back-up. I sure as hell don't bother equalizing them at every belay -- especially if it is on a ledge rather than hanging in space somewhere. Quote
Lambone Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 matt, I am wondering what "recent climbing instructional settings" you have been involved with?  "a single bomber camelot placed in a construction where a nut would fit is more than sufficient for a belay anchor in my book ..."  whoa shocking  Quote
Dru Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 just teach them to all drop acid and free solo and to hell with sissy "anchors" Quote
RuMR Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 (edited) Catbird... Â Think about what you just said...bomber pieces...definition of bomber-->won't rip out under most circumstances, typically multidirectional...Rock failure is definitely not part of "most circumstances"...ie, building an anchor in a flake that will subsequently pop off... Â Improperly equalized anchors won't necessarily blow a "bomber" piece...also, i equalize, then knot the anchor...no selfequalizing for me! with the knot you minimize any shock loading...not that this would matter for a "bomber" piece... Â MATT IS CORRECT...YOU'D BETTER KNOW HOW TO PLACE INDIVIDUAL BOMBER PIECES...after all, that is what an anchor is built out of... Edited November 10, 2003 by RuMR Quote
mattp Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 Lambone said: matt, I am wondering what "recent climbing instructional settings" you have been involved with? Quote
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 I'm saying it is possible to blow a bomber piece under worst case scenarios like dru's hypothetical fall factor 3 fall. The other way of looking at it that sometimes a piece is less bomber than it looks. Quote
erik Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 Dru said: just teach them to all drop acid and free solo and to hell with sissy "anchors" Â i think someone should go back and find all of dru's posts where he makes this or a similar statement and then remove said # from his post count. Â Quote
Lambone Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 mattp said: Lambone said: matt, I am wondering what "recent climbing instructional settings" you have been involved with? Â I take that blank as "none" Quote
troubleski Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 maybe one of the reasons that anchor building is stressed in instructional settings is that it is more straitforward to teach, and easier for the newbie to practice. Â Understanding the dynamics of leading on gear requires doing it A LOT, on difrent kinds of rock. Â you don't even really need rock to show someone what a SEReNE anchor is.... Â hell... bed posts work just fine... Â Â Â Quote
RuMR Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 catbirdseat said: I'm saying it is possible to blow a bomber piece under worst case scenarios like dru's hypothetical fall factor 3 fall. The other way of looking at it that sometimes a piece is less bomber than it looks. Â ???? You can't tell if something is shit or good?? ??? Quote
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2003 Posted November 10, 2003 You can tell a placement is shit from looking at it, but the converse is not always true. Â W.C. Fields had an expression. "The race doesn't always go to the swift, or the fight to the strong, but that's the way to bet. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.