Will Gadd and Fixed Point Anchor

[layton]

In a recent article, Will Gadd makes a good case for NOT clipping the anchor when leading out off the belay. I agree. However, Gadd then suggests that using the Fixed Point Anchor system is the way to go.

 

 

I have to disagree with this system. I would not trust a single piece of trad gear, biner, or especially an ice screw to take the initial force of a high factor fall. If it blows, I don't see how the next piece wouldn't be just as shock loaded and also fail. Belaying off the harness tight against the anchor (tied in with the rope) oriented in the direction of fall just seems like it would reduce some of the load. Belaying off the anchor like this totally removes any possibility of a dynmic belay. Not to mention paying out slack would be incredibly jerky and annoying for the leader. Using an ATC type device looks like an accident waiting to happen. If I was that concerned about the leader factor two falling on the anchor, I'd lower down several feet on the belay to provide more rope. Finally, if the leader did clip the anchor on a bomber piece, you could put in an upwards directional as well.

 

Thoughts?

[Rad]

They say several times that this is only intended for situations where you have a bomb-proof anchor point. So is the goal to make sure the forces are absorbed by the anchor and not by the belayer in the event of a possible long fall? I agree with you that this looks like it has potential to place high loads on the fixed anchor point.

 

Generally, the more dynamic the system is the lower the forces on all components, including the anchor point or points, the protection points en route, and the climber on the other end.

 

Things that increase dynamics and reduce these loads include:

1 - Using a dynamic climbing rope.

2 - Having a belay device that allows some rope slippage in the event of a fall (e.g. ATC or similar device or a munter hitch or this Italian hitch shown).

3 - Belaying off your harness from a stance where your body can absorb some of the energy. This may hurt in the event of a long fall, but it will definitely reduce loads on the anchor. See below for more on this.

4 - Use the rope as part of the anchor instead of a static material like dyneema.

 

If you have marginal pieces, and your goal is to minimize the chance of total anchor failure in the event of a leader fall, and you know the leader will have at least one solid piece in before falling (i.e. won't produce a downward pull on the anchor) then you might even consider lowering down below the anchor and belaying off your harness. Then when the leader falls they will pull the belayer back up to the anchor. Lifting the belayer in this way (like when Beth catches Tommy or Daila catches Chris) will absorb a significant amount of energy before the anchor is loaded at all. Equalizing the anchor pieces will also reduce the forces on each one by half depending on angles.

 

More experienced folks can chime in with ideas of correct errors I've made here.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's far more important in most cases to minimize the distance of a leader fall to avoid hitting a ledge/etc. than treating your anchor gently, unless you're in the habit of equalizing blades of grass or something. You're going to rip the leader's spleen out before getting anywhere close to the 8 - 14 KN rating of even a single properly placed cam. Adding to the length of fall by employing devices that slip, like ATCs, is an anachronism from the days of hip belays and far more static hemp ropes, when slippage was necessary. It's not anymore. Stop that fall as fast as possible! The rope and your body weight will provide the dynamic component.

 

The idea that ATCs have a 'dynamic advantage' over, say, a gri doesn't really apply in the modern world unless you've got a sheer face with no protrusions so that fall length doesn't matter much. It usually does, though. A lot.

 

I use the rope to anchor in with because its fast, quickly adjustable, requires no extra gear, and the strongest thing available, not because its dynamic. That connection is so short that the rope isn't significantly different from a static connection like Dyneema.

 

If your anchor is so shitty that failure is an option - it happens, use a body belay (belay below the anchor) and make sure the leader puts in as many bomber pieces as soon as possible and don't kid yourself about the insignificant stuff that's not really going to make a difference, like how static/dynamic your tat to the anchor is.

 

One significant disadvantage to anchoring with the rope/clove hitch is binding. If your leader takes a real screamer, it might take a Yates knife to get that clove hitch undone. If a screamer is likely without the benefit of a body belay, clipping in with a figure 8 on a bite rather than a clove hitch might be a good idea for that pitch.

 

The vid is about bolted anchors though, amarite?

 

I would not use a Munter (Italian) hitch for belaying unless I dropped my regular belay device because it snarls the rope too much. I was impressed at how much more quickly it stopped the fall, however. I'd probably opt for a gri to get that same quick action without the snarl, though. Worth the weight for the much easier rope handling.

 

Didn't catch the argument for/against clipping a runner into the anchor or not in the vid. Poor attention span, I reckon. Can anyone summarize? I usually do it until I've got a decent piece in, depending on what the pitch is like.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[genepires]

 

I have to disagree with this system. I would not trust a single piece of trad gear, biner, or especially an ice screw to take the initial force of a high factor fall. If it blows, I don't see how the next piece wouldn't be just as shock loaded and also fail. Belaying off the harness tight against the anchor (tied in with the rope) oriented in the direction of fall just seems like it would reduce some of the load. Belaying off the anchor like this totally removes any possibility of a dynmic belay. Not to mention paying out slack would be incredibly jerky and annoying for the leader. Using an ATC type device looks like an accident waiting to happen. If I was that concerned about the leader factor two falling on the anchor, I'd lower down several feet on the belay to provide more rope. Finally, if the leader did clip the anchor on a bomber piece, you could put in an upwards directional as well.

 

Thoughts?

 

it is all just tools for the tool box. this fixed anchor idea may have it application in certain situations like a very steep or overhanging limestone sport climb that is very runout. I can see the argument that the belayer getting sucked into the anchor being a bad thing one that I admittedly do blindly.

 

Having the fall factor 2 force transmitted directly to the anchor (if it is bomber) vs catching the fall normally with a fall factor 1.74 and risking losing the belay is the question that needs to be asked.

 

Would take more research into what the tests showed, but he may have run the "belayer well below the anchor" option and it did not show enough improvement.

 

If you do not like the single point to the belay device, you could connect the belay device to a equalized point. There was some author for a strange how to book (maybe called mountaineering techniques to get you higher or something) that was proposing a similar system. belayer tied to a single separate piece of pro and the climbing rope was run through a equalized anchor for the first piece. The idea was that the first piece takes the most force so it should be the most bomber.

 

I think the video was proposing a munter instead of a atc so the brake position would be ideal for a fall onto the anchor. A ATC would be in a very bad brake position. It would be awkward to belay out and keep slack under control when belaying from the anchor. Maybe they found that the slack is the same though between the two options. (of anchor and off belay loop)

 

Will Gadd does make several comments in his blog about anchoring the belayer for a upward force, separate from the anchor, when clipping the anchor with the climbing rope.

 

If this Kirk Mauthner is as thorough and Gadd makes him sound like, (in addition to the canadian mtn guide assoc) I would bet that he has taken all the other options into account and still came up with this being a good option. (for certain situations)

 

Also, if done safely, I bet one could belay off the anchor when the FF2 is a possibility and switch over to a standard belay when the FF is lower. not that I want you doing that to me, Mikey.

 

good rainy day thoughts.

 

Edited September 7, 2013 by genepires

[genepires]

Didn't catch the argument for/against clipping a runner into the anchor or not in the vid. Poor attention span, I reckon. Can anyone summarize? I usually do it until I've got a decent piece in, depending on what the pitch is like.

 

 

 

 

that talk is in his will gadd blog posting. in that discussion comes the solution with using the fixed anchor belay.

[layton]

sure wouldn't do it off an ice screw

[layton]

here's an article...only read the 1st few pages so far, but may offer a better explanation.

 

http://www.outdoorlink.org/research-papers/part-5-belaying-lowres.pdf

[layton]

the paper states that forces never exceed 5kN in real world factor 2 fall testing (80kg mass) with a climbing rope.

[tvashtarkatena]

good thing, because 6 - 8 KN would tear you a new one.

[layton]

5kN on the top piece - the paper states that you'd never exceed 2.5kN on the belayer.

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh, I reckon certain folks might be able to rain 5KN down on their belayer on occasion.

[Rad]

The idea that ATCs have a 'dynamic advantage' over, say, a gri doesn't really apply in the modern world unless you've got a sheer face with no protrusions so that fall length doesn't matter much. It usually does, though. A lot.

 

Obviously, you don't want the leader to hit the ground or a large ledge, but slippage with an ATC is not likely to be more than 1-3 feet, unless it's a huge fall and your hand is sucked through the device. And if that distance makes the difference between hitting the ledge/deck or not then the leader needs to be prepared for that possibility or not lead the pitch.

 

Second, there is a big difference in the impact forces generated by static vs dynamic belay devices. The main thing to be concerned about is the highest piece of gear below the leader, which may be the anchor if no gear has been placed. A good basic explanation of the physics involved is here

 

Auto locking belay devices DO cause significantly higher forces on the top piece of protection, so if you're climbing a trad route with small or questionable gear this may mean the difference between having that piece hold or having it fail:

 

See R&I article on static vs dynamic belays

 

See mythbusters website

 

 

[Rad]

The article Mike posted answers Gene's and my questions about when you would want to use this fixed anchor point and why:

 

In the event of a long leader fall it eliminates risks of the belayer slamming into the wall at the belay, which might cause them to let go of their brake hand and drop the leader further or completely.

 

"Summary

Belaying a leader off a fixed point is a valid and useful technique that should be included in a guide’s “bag of tricks”. For guides, it may offer an effective way to safeguard the leader in situations where there is any doubt about a belayer’s ability to reliably or comfortably hold a hard fall. And it may protect the belayer in situations where catching a hard fall may cause injury. The technique should be taught in AMGA’s rock and alpine programs."

[layton]

I like that mythbusters link!

[tvashtarkatena]

Good points and good thread. I use a gri + body belay on walls - those belays can, um, take a while, and a gri is nice for that, but I think I might throw in a reverso for certain pitches, and a fixed anchor belay for others from now on. Lots of shaky little pro on walls.