Moderator: Tim White
hank moon wrote:OnRope1's Myth#11 is not a myth. Two locking carabiners provide redundancy and help safeguard against accidental unclippping from the rope. Many accidents have occurred, mostly in artificial climbing walls, in which the climber became unclipped from a single locker and fell. Arguably, these accidents might have been prevented if 2 carabiners had been used.
If a harness has a belay loop for attachment, by-pass the belay loop with a carabiner; connecting the waist belt with the leg loops.
GroundquestMSA wrote:hank moon wrote:OnRope1's Myth#11 is not a myth. Two locking carabiners provide redundancy and help safeguard against accidental unclippping from the rope. Many accidents have occurred, mostly in artificial climbing walls, in which the climber became unclipped from a single locker and fell. Arguably, these accidents might have been prevented if 2 carabiners had been used.
The argument (I assume Mr. Smith's) is that anyone using two locking carabiners should orient them identically, not opposite and opposing, as is commonly preached for non-lockers. I can't quite imagine what difference it makes. I was considering a post about some these myths myself. More in a minute.
GroundquestMSA wrote:OnRope1 Myth#2If a harness has a belay loop for attachment, by-pass the belay loop with a carabiner; connecting the waist belt with the leg loops.
Bruce goes on to say, "No one has ever advocated using a "by-pass" carabiner, replacing/supplementing the harness belay loop." --Obviously someone has, or this wouldn't be a "myth".
Next, "This engages the waist belt, engaging all the wearer’s internal organs, as a life support element instead of transferring the force to the legs like the harness’s belay loop is designed to do... Using the 'belt' for life support can damage the spleen, liver, kidneys, pancreas, appendix and breathing capacity." --The belay loop on one of my climbing harnesses has the same diameter as a large carabiner. There is no difference in weight distribution to leg loops or waist belt whether I use a biner or the belay loop. Clearly, the waist belt has to be engaged to some degree, or the belay loop wouldn't pass through it at all.
Also, "Belay loops are also affixed to the center of the harness to assist in keeping you centered on the rope in normal use or a fall. A "by-pass" carabiner can move to the side under a fall or even normal loading, causing you to dangle from the side, rather than the center." --This is curious indeed. A carabiner placed next to and bypassing the belay loop will self-orient in exactly the same way the belay loop itself will.
Personally, I don't care about this myth. I trust the belay loop (though they (old ones) have broken and hurt (killed?) climber(s?)). At the same time, I prefer the way an atc is oriented when I bypass the loop.
GroundquestMSA wrote:See Myth#4 "A High Strength Tie-off (Frictionless Hitch) needs 3 wraps around the anchor."
I won't argue the claim that two wraps is often enough, but my goodness, doesn't the Incorrect!!! caption for a perfectly fine rig seem a bit overdramatic? And the "terrible waste of resources"... Boy. That extra 2 seconds and four feet of rope used. What a tragedy.
Scott McCrea wrote:Belay loops don't just break. The only one I know of that has "failed" was damaged and knowingly used despite the damage. Belay loops are incredibly strong and durable. They are not decoration.
Scott McCrea wrote:Don't bypass the belay loop WITH A CARABINER. A carabiner attached to a harness thru the waist band and the leg loops would be tri-axially loaded
Scott McCrea wrote:More than two wraps could cause some twisting/torquing forces.
Scott McCrea wrote:As with just about all advice, it can be summed up with, "It depends."
hank moon wrote:All that said, I love the Mythbusters' general intent and hope this discussion can lead to improvement.
hank moon wrote:Here's a myth for ya: "the tensionless hitch is the best way to rig to a tree,"
GroundquestMSA wrote:I would love to learn a better way if it's really better.
Scott McCrea wrote:GroundquestMSA wrote:I would love to learn a better way if it's really better.
It depends.
Scott McCrea wrote:Congrats on 1k posts!
GroundquestMSA wrote:See Myth#4 "A High Strength Tie-off (Frictionless Hitch) needs 3 wraps around the anchor."
I won't argue the claim that two wraps is often enough, but my goodness, doesn't the Incorrect!!! caption for a perfectly fine rig seem a bit overdramatic? And the "terrible waste of resources"... Boy. That extra 2 seconds and four feet of rope used. What a tragedy.
GroundquestMSA wrote:See Myth#4 "A High Strength Tie-off (Frictionless Hitch) needs 3 wraps around the anchor."
I won't argue the claim that two wraps is often enough, but my goodness, doesn't the Incorrect!!! caption for a perfectly fine rig seem a bit overdramatic? And the "terrible waste of resources"... Boy. That extra 2 seconds and four feet of rope used. What a tragedy.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users