mattp Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Actually, Lammy, you can take that blank for my having hit the wrong key when I took a phone call. As you obviously know, I don't teach climbing and I haven't taken a class recently. That is why I used the word "apparently." Earlier in this thread it was stated that anchor building is a "complex" topic. It has also been argued that it is more important to learn to build an anchor than to learn to place gear -- flat out. In another thread, about two months ago, we had a similar debate when somebody stated that they knew how to place good solid gear but they didn't think they were qualified to climb Moscow at Smith Rock because they hadn't been trained in how to "build an anchor." We keep hearing how important learning to place a "SRENE" anchor is - probably on average twice a month on this site. If this focus on anchor-building isn't coming from the Mountaineers and the Mazama's, perhaps it is coming from the climbing magazines. Or maybe it is all John Long's fault. You, in your ultimate knowledge of all things climbing, are probably qualified to tell me where the idea comes from. But the point is, it is like worrying about giving a trad climber a dynamic belay (remember our past over this? We can argue about it until we turn blue but I'm going to stick to my guns here until I get bored or I get another phone call - and I DO have to get some work done this afternoon). I believe there is some disinformation out there when it comes to the importance of SRENE anchors and the potential for SRENE anchor construction to mitigate the danger of not knowing how to place gear. For just about any TRADITIONAL rock climbing situation I can think of - learning to place gear is FAR FAR FAR more important than learning the best way to equalize everything at a belay station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 catbirdseat said: You can tell a placement is shit from looking at it, but the converse is not always true. 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. Uhhh...i hate to disagree w/ you...you'd better be able to tell...or go back to school... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 "You, in your ultimate knowledge of all things climbing, are probably qualified to tell me where the idea comes from." Easy there buddy... "It has also been argued that it is more important to learn to build an anchor than to learn to place gear -- flat out. " Which comes to my "duh" point of how can you build aan anchor if you don't know how to place gear, and vise versa... I think that the importance of building good anchors is taught in instructional settings because... most instructors, as far as I am aware of, don't like to teach their students that it is ok to be "half ass" about anything in climbing. Saying, oh...one good peice with a back up is good enough...just goes against good teaching ethics. In my opinion... Also, cams work best in parrallel cracks, a cam in a nut constriction is a marginal piece....in my opinion. Every ancho I build I try to visualize the worst possible scenario, whether it be a factor 2 fall onto the belay, or needing to build a complex self-rescue rig. Simple is better, but bomber in any circumstance is the minimum if you can get it. This is the attitude I believe should be taken regarding anchors... Then again, you are allways going to run into situations like Paco's on Shucksan this weekend, where you are threading a chunk of moss.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 I have to agree with MattP. I have been in situations in alpine climbing environments I have chosen to go light with extreme limited pro. I usually place pro at 15 feet (but with big exposure) and then as needed on up. My anchor have been hip belay at the start until the second or third piece was put in. Why a hip belay at the start? If I fell, I would have less of a potential to drag my partner down with me. Good anchor placement is a great thing to know and if you have extra equipment, then definitely use it. But know the basics like a hip belay and the dangers associated with it. Kind of like a Z pulley. You should know how to do a Z pulley with one ice axe, one carabiner, and one runner (the minimum equipment). If you have more or better equipment for a Z pulley, then great!--use it, becuase the minimum amount of equipment sucks--but doable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boatskiclimbsail Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Wow, what a thread... There seems to be a second distinction between "building an anchor" and "equalizing pieces". the cnhor building skills I am referring to are not just placing a bunch of pieces and clipping them together in an equalized fasion. I'm talking about making new leaders realize the need for creativity and "making do with what youve got". The three piece cordalette anchor is fine, and is simple enough an idea you could build one while reading a JL book at the top of a climb. My goal with my students is to get them comfortable enough building anchors in regular situations that when things get hairy, they will be able to get by. The usual situation I describe when I get a "close enough, I can figure it out when I get there" answer is "OK, fine, good enough for now. Now do it with your eyes closed, using one hand that is being frozen by a -10 degree wind and snow pile with freezing, soaking wet gear as your other hand is helping to keep your injured partner concious enough to get down the next three pitches alive." They usually go and practice a few more times after that. And yes, once again, placing gear is indeed a fundamental part of making anchors. Goodness... Is it time to go home yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Pine Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 I think after reading all this stuff about the non-importance of knowing how to make an anchor, we should all follow the important maxim: The second shall not fall! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Al_Pine said: I think after reading all this stuff about the non-importance of knowing how to make an anchor, we should all follow the important maxim: The second shall not fall! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Check out RC.com for more info on the SOCal accident. PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelle Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 troubleski said: 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. Understanding the dynamics of leading on gear requires doing it A LOT, on difrent kinds of rock. you don't even really need rock to show someone what a SEReNE anchor is.... hell... bed posts work just fine... How can you teach someone who is new to trad climbing how to build a "proper" bomber anchor if they don't have the skills to place and evaluate good vs shitty gear? catbirdseat said: You can tell a placement is shit from looking at it, but the converse is not always true. I can't even figure out what you're trying to say... boatskiclimbsail said: Wow, what a thread... There seems to be a second distinction between "building an anchor" and "equalizing pieces". the cnhor building skills I am referring to are not just placing a bunch of pieces and clipping them together in an equalized fasion. I'm talking about making new leaders realize the need for creativity and "making do with what youve got". The three piece cordalette anchor is fine, and is simple enough an idea you could build one while reading a JL book at the top of a climb. My goal with my students is to get them comfortable enough building anchors in regular situations that when things get hairy, they will be able to get by. The usual situation I describe when I get a "close enough, I can figure it out when I get there" answer is "OK, fine, good enough for now. Now do it with your eyes closed, using one hand that is being frozen by a -10 degree wind and snow pile with freezing, soaking wet gear as your other hand is helping to keep your injured partner concious enough to get down the next three pitches alive." They usually go and practice a few more times after that. And yes, once again, placing gear is indeed a fundamental part of making anchors. Goodness... Is it time to go home yet? Assuming you are mostly teaching newer climbers who have little trad experience... How much do you really think throwing the odd extreme situation at them is going to prepare them for the average day out multiclimbing with their buddies? They need to know how to place good gear and to build a SRENE anchor. The foundation of which is GOOD GEAR! If they can't get that down, who cares about the SRENE part. Yeah, they may feel they achomplished more in your class because they got to play with cordelettes and slings and determine if the anchor fit the cool new acronym they learned...BUT if they still place their cams in with the stems sticking out parallel to the ground, and they select the wrong nut sizes they have not really LEARNED something of value. They just had a fun experience and maybe heard some scenarios about extreme situations on a climb or some of your horror stories from accidents you've been involved with. But they haven't been prepared to do it themselves safely, which is what a class is for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 ehmmic said: catbirdseat said: You can tell a placement is shit from looking at it, but the converse is not always true. I can't even figure out what you're trying to say... You can't placement a shit just by looking at it...duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 i don't know anything about the accident discussed so the following is of a more general nature. besides the issue of slcd's pivoting when shock loaded, the main difference between a passive piece and a cam is the importance of friction. friction is needed for cams to bite and expand. however, rock friction is ultimately not very relevant for a passive piece to work as it becomes wedged further into a constriction. in coarse rock slcd's are usually fine (great) although sometimes i feel there is still a concern with smaller cams notably with regard to contact area and local rock roughness (how large is the contact area relative to the spacing of roughness elements). to address these concerns, i have to agree with what was said especially the use of mixed anchors (especially on fine grained rock such as limestone and basalt). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 just take a power-drill and place 3 half inch bolts anytime you need an anchor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Dru said: just take a power-drill and place 3 half inch bolts anytime you need an anchor is it what you'd tell largo when he mentions his avoidance of all slcd anchors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Then again, you are allways going to run into situations like Paco's on Shucksan this weekend, where you are threading a chunk of moss.... I personally think that it's high time that we extended the parameters of this debate to include the relative merits of and technique relating to the proper use of frozen moss as protection for the leader and in anchor construction. The root structure of some species of moss is known to be more diffuse and fibrous than others, and hence more resistant to fracture under dynamic loading when frozen, while others have a more mat-like root structure which provides greater density for pick placements on lead. One cannot overstimate the importance of knowing one's moss IMO, and it should be noted that both F.O.T.H. and the Mountaineers Advanced course stress the importance of girth hitching at least two distinct species at the belay anchor when possible for maximum safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmurray Posted November 11, 2003 Author Share Posted November 11, 2003 MattP wrote:"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." But in a previous post said: " 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." So.....that is *exactly* what it sounds like you are advocating. However, I think that you started off with an incorrect premise about what the opening statement was about, and John Long's take on it. The advocacy was, it seemed to me, that the best anchors would combine different kinds of pieces, rather than just relying on SLCD's. Of course, you feel that a single SLCD is an acceptable anchor, backed up (apparently), but not equalized. The great thing about climbing is that you can do whatever you want. However, in this matter, you are clearly outside the mainstream of what is taught by every professional, everywhere in the world that I know of. It is true that experience teaches where you can "cut the margin", but that can only be learned through experience, not from *other* people's experience. It seems like there is some confusion as to what the climber is doing. Obviously, the concept of a "belay anchor" implies Trad, and that is how I took it. Personally, I think that any climber who starts their climbing career climbing Trad is foolish beyond comprehension. The route for most, is top-roping, sport (neither of which *requires* the ability to place pro), then finally to Trad. This seems a safe path for learning sequential skills. So, in the ideal world, a climber who is starting Trad would already be proficient with knots, belaying, ropework, equipment care.....and anchoring systems, as that generally *is* required to climb on TR, unless you have someone doing it for you. Hey, Jay, I wonder if you know that what apparently happened in SoCal, was that the lead climber slipped on moss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelle Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 JayB said: Then again, you are allways going to run into situations like Paco's on Shucksan this weekend, where you are threading a chunk of moss.... I personally think that it's high time that we extended the parameters of this debate to include the relative merits of and technique relating to the proper use of frozen moss as protection for the leader and in anchor construction. The root structure of some species of moss is known to be more diffuse and fibrous than others, and hence more resistant to fracture under dynamic loading when frozen, while others have a more mat-like root structure which provides greater density for pick placements on lead. One cannot overstimate the importance of knowing one's moss IMO, and iit should be noted that both F.O.T.H. and the Mountaineers Advanced course stress the importance of girth hitching at least two distinct species at the belay anchor when possible for maximum safety. kmurray, I think that JayB was referring to an anchor that was used at a belay on his climb last weekend and didn't intend to say anything about the accident that started this discussion. That aside, his post is funny given his climb's circumstance and the fact that all of us are pretty much advocating the same thing... safe climbing technique. But we're so bored that we're arguing semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 i'm not arguing semantics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 I'm confused. I think I'll stick to soloing from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schlangeschmecker Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Lambone said: Also, cams work best in parrallel cracks, a cam in a nut constriction is a marginal piece....in my opinion. Bullshit, Privat Pile. A cam may fail in a parallel-sided crack. A cam will never fail (unless it walks out of position) when placed behind a constriction. At a belay, a bomber nut is always better than a cam in a parallel-sided crack. This just seems obvious. But then, who is going to avoid a bomber nut placement in favor of an all-cam belay? I also think three pages of opinion and emotion have been devoted to the wrong question. What I see as an extremely hazardous and all too common practice is when climbers belay directly off of the anchor, regardless of its quality. I think the importance of the belayer's stance should be discussed instead of this gear-freak discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmurray Posted November 11, 2003 Author Share Posted November 11, 2003 BTW, it now looks as though the accident in SoCal *was* caused by a failed belay anchor. Three pieces, equalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 schlangeschmecker said: Lambone said: Also, cams work best in parrallel cracks, a cam in a nut constriction is a marginal piece....in my opinion. Bullshit, Privat Pile. A cam may fail in a parallel-sided crack. A cam will never fail (unless it walks out of position) when placed behind a constriction. At a belay, a bomber nut is always better than a cam in a parallel-sided crack. This just seems obvious. But then, who is going to avoid a bomber nut placement in favor of an all-cam belay? I also think three pages of opinion and emotion have been devoted to the wrong question. What I see as an extremely hazardous and all too common practice is when climbers belay directly off of the anchor, regardless of its quality. I think the importance of the belayer's stance should be discussed instead of this gear-freak discussion. Dammit, SlangSmackTalker! Our whole culture is based on the externalizing of problems. And you...you! Come along talking about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY , Mr. High 'n Mighty. What kinda hippy commune you runnin' over there, Dammit? What with Rat, Rolf, FeralPig. Jeez, who knows what goes on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schlangeschmecker Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 MisterE said: schlangeschmecker said: Lambone said: Also, cams work best in parrallel cracks, a cam in a nut constriction is a marginal piece....in my opinion. Bullshit, Privat Pile. A cam may fail in a parallel-sided crack. A cam will never fail (unless it walks out of position) when placed behind a constriction. At a belay, a bomber nut is always better than a cam in a parallel-sided crack. This just seems obvious. But then, who is going to avoid a bomber nut placement in favor of an all-cam belay? I also think three pages of opinion and emotion have been devoted to the wrong question. What I see as an extremely hazardous and all too common practice is when climbers belay directly off of the anchor, regardless of its quality. I think the importance of the belayer's stance should be discussed instead of this gear-freak discussion. Dammit, SlangSmackTalker! Our whole culture is based on the externalizing of problems. And you...you! Come along talking about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY , Mr. High 'n Mighty. What kinda hippy commune you runnin' over there, Dammit? What with Rat, Rolf, FeralPig. Jeez, who knows what goes on... I mean it, Mister E W. If the belay anchor is so marinal that it can't hold a few hundred pounds, maybe a hip belay can relax the anchor strain. Maybe a c-4-Stealth-enhanced stance offers more security than nexted Aliens. Rat....Rolf......hippie communes.....you don't know who you're talking to (but I know who I'm talking to). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Murray, you apparently suffer from the same reading comprehension problem that I accused Lammy of. I did not say one need not learn to build a proper anchor, nor did I say that one should not address that subject of belay anchors until AFTER they know how to place gear, and I did not advocate teaching your students that "a single SLCD is an acceptable anchor, backed up." We're talking about emphasis here, and I believe it is indeed putting the cart before the horse to teach someone how to sling pieces together and equalize them before they know how to place those pieces in the first place. As has been stated by others in this thread: yes, they may learn how to tie a doorknob to a chair leg and equalize it, but what use is that in the real world of the crag? In addition to reading comprehension, you may need to brush up on logic: where I said emphasizing anchor construction before placement of anchors would be putting the cart before the horse, I was not necessarily saying that one cannot learn anything about anchor construction before they are an expert in placement of gear. And indeed, slinging doorknobs to chairs is kind of fun. You are correct that an instructor needs to present the "right" way of doing things and that it takes experience for a climber to learn where they can "cut the margin." I would always show any beginner how to equalize their anchors and I'd suggest that they ought to learn how to build a SRENE anchor before they head up a multipitch route. But I'd also tell them there is no mystery about it. Put in two or preferably three pieces, sling them together so that all two or three slings are snug and pointing in roughly the direction of an anticipated downward pull, and converge right at your waist when you sit down. If at all possible, set an anchor so that you are tied down to the belay ledge as well. On any popular beginners' rock climb that I know of , that is truly all you need to do. And Schlanschmecker is right: much more important is for them to get in the habit of picking a belay ledge that is big and roomy and where they aren't going to be pulled off the edge if there is an extra 6" of stretch in their chain. But again, where I say "A is not true" I am not necessarily saying that "not A is true." Where I say it is imbalanced to tell new climbers that they have to attend multiple anchor-building clinics and read John Long's book and practice building mock anchors on the ground and analyze them for days before they can lead - IF THEY KNOW HOW TO PLACE SOLID GEAR - I am NOT saying that you can't teach them what a SRENE anchor is until they can pass Mattp's test for gear placement acceptability. The reason I think this is an important point is that I see lots of new climbers who build elaborate SRENE anchor set ups when they are belaying off of three 3/8" brand new bolts. Just this past weekend, I saw where someone didn't feel safe with two brand new bolts on a slab, but ran an extra eight feet of bright colored webbing up to the first pro bolt on the pitch above so that they could safely rappel. WTF? I have a buddy who spends twenty minutes at every belay, clipping and reclipping and analyzing the thing before he can belay me up a 5.4 pitch when he is sitting next to a 6" tree. And I've seen way too many beginners at Castle Rock who have read the speed climbing tips in Climbing Magazine and who pass right by the belay ledge because they want to climb to the end of their 60 meter rope, and then set some rediculous hanging belay from three pieces put in the sand behind a pile of loose blocks. The guy who hangs in space from three pieces of choss is probably the same guy who thought they had to leave eight feet of bright colored webbing behind because he's been taught about SRENE but he doesn't know what a strong gear placement looks like. Learning to place solid gear is key - and far more important than learning to build some beautiful macrame. I'm not "in the mainstream" as you put it, and I disagree with a lot of what the "mainstream" has to say on many things. I wear cotton in the mountains, and I in fact would advocate learning to trad climb before going to the gym (I believe climbers learn some bad habits using the gris gris and learning to pull on overhanging plastic). Again, I can hear the alarms going off in your head because you may think I am saying that you should tell your students not to wear anything but cotton in the mountains or that you should not let them go to the gym: I'm not. I realize there are many different means to the same ends. As to my interpretation of the premise of the initial post, I think I interpreted it correctly: you said that you thought the fact that SLCD's can pivot makes them less trustworthy for an anchor. when you wrote that "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." In my opinion, the ability of an SLCD to pivot and still hold securely is exactly the reason why they are preferable in some situations. Like others, I like "bomber" nut placements because they are as strong as the rock itself and not reliant upon springs at all, but SLCD's have their advantages and one of them is that in average placements they are more omnidirectional than a nut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 a makes a poor anchor when shock loaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.