Using SLCD's only for an anchor

[eric8]

 

Cotton in the mountains how dare you Mattp.

 

[kmurray]

mattp said:

......... and I did not advocate teaching your students that "a single SLCD is an acceptable anchor, backed up."

 

(No, you did not. You advocated that a single SLCD IS an acceptable anchor, backed up.

"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.)

 

 

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.

 

(But you said: "nor did I say that one should not address that subject of belay anchors until AFTER they know how to place gear" That seems to be a clear contradiction! )

 

(you state:"As you obviously know, I don't teach climbing and I haven't taken a class recently." and you state: "Where I'm coming from is that anchoring is NOT a complex subject." And further: "You DO NOT have to attend multiple anchor-building clinics to build a very safe and secure belay anchor", and " I could explain to them what is needed to build a SRENE anchor in, like, a half hour at the crag."

 

I accept your statement that you do not know WTF you are talking about, when it comes to teaching climbing, and you haven't got a clue, when you talk about how easily most people pick up the concept of anchoring systems.)

 

 

........ 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.

 

(would this be the same logic that would say "what is the real-life value at the craig, of practicing tying knots on doorknobs and chairs?"....obvious to anyone who helps people learn, that practice helps a lot, and it doesn't need to be on rock)

 

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.

 

(slam, bang, they've got it! No need to actually do it, no need to practice, no need to consider what they need, to set it up before they head up. Wow!)

 

 

.... 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.

(You say:

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"

and yet you say:

"You DO have to attend multiple gear-placement and leadership judgment and other tecnical clinincs to be able to safely lead and place gear."

So which is it?)

 

 

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?

 

(and I would ALWAYS advocate that a climber not climb on stuff that they are not confident on. Never. Beginners do NOT know where the margin of safety is, and it is idiotic for more experienced climbers to chide them into doing less, without careful explanation of why less is ok. As people gain more experience, they learn. It is VASTLY better for people to overprotect, rather than underprotect. A beginner is probably not qualified to evaluate whether a bolt is suspect, or bomber, until they've had a lot of experience, and it there is another bolt there, why not protect? Because it offends your sensibilities?)

 

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 yet you feel totally comfortable that you will not die on his belay, wonder why)

 

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.

 

( this comes from listening to much more experienced climbers....like yourself....who know how to do with less. They don't understand the margins of safety, and when they read about experienced people doing things, like the method of anchoring you described "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", they think that that is way to do all belay anchors, all the time. For an expert, it *may* be, for a beginner, it is very foolish)

 

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.

( and thus, should put in a hell of a lot)

 

( you speak, above, as though these were mutually exclusive skills, although in other posts, you state they are not. I don't understand this "back and forth". I *certainly* do not advocate one over the other, I think they are both important. You feel that anchor building skills are irrelevant , as evidenced by your statement "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. "

 

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.

 

(the funny thing is, that were any professional guide to violate any of the "mainstream" approaches, it would be fairly easy to see that you would use your primary tool, the lawsuit, to "teach them a lesson".....I can just see your deposition, reading out of John Long's books, and pointing out the violations of the "standards of the community")

 

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.

 

(wrong. 1. I didn't say that, or anything else. I was quoting someone else. 2. What that person (John Long) was saying

was that there are some problems with SLCD's as exclusive anchors, and that the inclusion of some passive pro may make a much better 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."

 

(Once again, I didn't write that. John Long wrote that. Interestingly, from the latest analysis, it appears that this problem that he mentions actually DID figure in the mechanics of the accident in question.)

 

 

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.

 

(And NO ONE, to my knowledge, has posted or advocated: 1.never use SLCD's, 2.only use nuts, 3. never place pro until you are an expert in anchoring systems. ONLY that SLCD-exclusive systems may have weaknesses that may come into play in a fall, the EXACT reason that the anchor is placed in the first place. If the philosophy is that there will be no falling, then why screw around with all this gear?)

 

(I dunno, it seems like you simple want to debate, and provoke. I'm sure that it must be entertaining to other readers, but I think we've make all our points, eh?)

[boatskiclimbsail]

kmurray said:

but I think we've make all our points, eh?)

 

Here, here! Let's end this damned battle of semantics and just go glimbing!

[kmurray]

perhaps of interest was this post this morning:

=======

dear

thank you for the attempts at in-depth analysis of the causes behind the death of our two fellow climbers, Dan and Kelly.

 

It will perhaps serve to re-assess some of the tenets of anchor-building, and make our activities safer.

 

After seing the pics of the anchor setup and the description of the state of the cams, I could not help remember a thread on

Equalized vs. Pseudo Equalized Anchors http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36371&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=0

 

which started with

oldeclimber wrote:

Let's start off by building a simple three point self equalizing anchor. Take three cams in perfect placements, and a long piece of cordelette tied end to end using a grapevine knot.

 

 

For obvious reasons, I am off to that thread to discuss anchors.

The discussion done there will be done in memory of Dave and Kelly.

[JayB]

mattp said:

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.

 

So, in summary, what you are saying Matt is that it is not important for beginning trad leaders to learn how to construct solid anchors.

[catbirdseat]

When I am building anchors using passive pro, I commonly set pieces in opposition to one another to ensure they don't pull out if the load comes from the wrong direction. Would it ever make sense to do this with SLCDs in an all-SLCD anchor?

[Thinker]

catbirdseat said:

When I am building anchors using passive pro, I commonly set pieces in opposition to one another to ensure they don't pull out if the load comes from the wrong direction. Would it ever make sense to do this with SLCDs in an all-SLCD anchor?

 

Of course it would. It's the same reason we put slings on cams (and most other pieces of gear) so they don't rotate when the rope is weighted.

 

edit: when I teach SRENE, I actually teach it SRENED...the 'D' is for directional, either left/right or up/down.

Edited November 11, 2003 by Thinker

[mattp]

kmurray said:

I dunno, it seems like you simple want to debate, and provoke. I'm sure that it must be entertaining to other readers, but I think we've make all our points, eh?

 

Actually, I was trying to make a simple point: a SRENE anchor system built by somebody who doesn't know how to place gear is a serious hazard.

 

I think the order of the terms referred to in the "SRENE" acronym is illustrative of what I am talking about: the first point in "SRENE" is "strong." In setting a belay, I look for a location where I can get a bomber piece of gear first, then I look for a way to get redundancy, then I look at how to equalize them, and the use of "no extension" is a good idea but again, of even lesser import. Do you REALLY disagree with my simple statement that strength is the most important attribute in a belay anchor?

 

JayB said:So, in summary, what you are saying Matt is that it is not important for beginning trad leaders to learn how to construct solid anchors.

 

I did not say, imply, or hint that - unless you select some part of my argument and take it out of context. I said, repeatedly, that building redundant equalized anchors is a very important skill, but that even more important is knowing how to place good nuts and cams in the first place.

[Dru]

one advantage of climbing in ireland and scotland is that there is often a sheep at the top of the crag which one can anchor oneself to whilst bringing up the second, what!

[JayB]

I did not say, imply, or hint that - unless you select some part of my argument and take it out of context. I said, repeatedly, that building redundant equalized anchors is a very important skill, but that even more important is knowing how to place good nuts and cams in the first place

 

 

I was not serious - just hoping to aggravate you by pretending to misunderstand/misrepresent what you have been saying. I have understood your point all along.

 

But as long as I am messing with you... MATTP WANTS TO KILL NEWBIE CLIMBERS BY ENCOURAGING THEM TO BUILD SKETCHY ANCHORS WHILE WEARING ALL COTTON UNITARDS IN SNOWSTORMS AND HEAD UP RANIER WITH DIME-STORE TARPS AS THEIR PRIMARY SHELTER WHILE DOWN-SOLOING LIBERTY RIDGE WITH ONE BAMBOO SHAFT TOOL AND 10-POINT CRAMPONS. MATTP IS A FALSE PROPHET OF THE OLD SCHOOL WHO MUST BE SILENCED BEFORE HE COMMITS FURTHER HERESY AND ENDANDGERS UNTOLD NUMBERS OF NEWBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dru]

wearing cotton in the mountains will silence him quick enough - COTTON KILLS!!! COTTON KILLS!!!

[lummox]

Dru said:

COTTON KILLS!!! COTTON KILLS!!!

but my prana pants look so bitchin.

[bunglehead]

I think this thread qualifies for the new

Eternal Thread Hall of Fame list.

May this thread live forever!!

[Cpt.Caveman]

I am with matt. One good piece of protection is usually good enough.

 

Here's Perkins in the hills with cotton button up shirt

 

[kmurray]

posted at rockclimbing.com:

=========

Dear Friends:

 

I never expected for any of us to nail down exactly what happened in the accident. There were simply too many variables. However there are certain indicators that suggest a general picture.

 

One climber had a belay device attached to his harness with the rope crimped in it, and that suggests he was actively belaying at the time of the accident. He was also attached to a sling/cordalette configuration tied off to three SLCD's, which on close inspection showed signs of deformation consistant with them being ripped from an anchor point by a significant shock load. Lastly, one (both ?) of the climbers tie-in knots was so tight it couldn't be untied by hand but had to cut -- and what else can this mean except that he fell onto the rope with considerable force, and that the anchor held long enough to fuse his knot.

 

While any number of scenarios are possible, the most obvious one is that someone was belaying, and someone was climbing. Someone fell, the anchor failed, and the rest we sadly know. If I'd been on hand to inspect the skid marks and impact area I highly doubt I would have put forth anything more definitive that what the RMRU said from the outset. Given all the variables, I have come to resprect and appreciate what the RMRU said in the end, that we will probably never know for sure quite how our fellow climbers died.

 

Nevertheless, I have found this conversation constructive, but my mind can come up with no more to say. There is a time following the death of every person where we are finally left with the nothing more than the loss, and I wish people grace in that process.

 

Sincerely,

John Long