Rappel Racks

[lostgravity]

Most of the times I use bobbin, but I also have rack, by Petzl: http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/ ... 1_17453570
Note it has 5 bars only. Most of the time it is enough, however one can place biner on frame between 1st and second bar and use it as hyperbar.

I wonder whether anybody else is doing this 'biner = hyperbar thing and what your all's opinion on this is...

Thanks,
David

[lostgravity]

... i.e. does your rack go right on the maillon or on a carabiner and then on the maillon. That also presumes the use of a normal style caving harness and an in-line rack. You could be using a rack with a 90 degree turn in the eye, or a U rack right on the maillon. ...

I was wondering about that. SMC sells rack frames with and without the 90 degree twist. I usually attach my rack to my harness D-Ring via a carabiner/maillon. Would you consider it unsafe(r) to use an untwisted rack in this case, just because the rope would be less oriented towards your braking hand?

-David

[Scott McCrea]

I wonder whether anybody else is doing this 'biner = hyperbar thing and what your all's opinion on this is...

I've done this a few times. It works. It's a bit cumbersome and sloppy. Not as easy as a hyperbar, but it works.

[Scott McCrea]

I was wondering about that. SMC sells rack frames with and without the 90 degree twist. I usually attach my rack to my harness D-Ring via a carabiner/maillon. Would you consider it unsafe(r) to use an untwisted rack in this case, just because the rope would be less oriented towards your braking hand?

Just so we are clear, your straight-eye rack ends up the parallel orientation, right? This is not unsafe. But, I could argue that the perpendicular orientation is safer and works better.

[lostgravity]

I was wondering about that. SMC sells rack frames with and without the 90 degree twist. I usually attach my rack to my harness D-Ring via a carabiner/maillon. Would you consider it unsafe(r) to use an untwisted rack in this case, just because the rope would be less oriented towards your braking hand?

Just so we are clear, your straight-eye rack ends up the parallel orientation, right? This is not unsafe. But, I could argue that the perpendicular orientation is safer and works better.

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks.

[Princess Butterfly]

I was wondering about that. SMC sells rack frames with and without the 90 degree twist. I usually attach my rack to my harness D-Ring via a carabiner/maillon. Would you consider it unsafe(r) to use an untwisted rack in this case, just because the rope would be less oriented towards your braking hand?

Just so we are clear, your straight-eye rack ends up the parallel orientation, right? This is not unsafe. But, I could argue that the perpendicular orientation is safer and works better.

The D-ring harness was originally designed to attach everything directly to the D-ring because of a rash of carabineer accidents. This was to try to dummy proof it against improper carabineer use. You currently see people using the D-ring harness with or without carabineers, and using carabineers like your doing add a lot more flexibility. The parallel orientation is what most people are comfortable with using, the rack can be oriented perpendicularly if you plan on switching hands. Because you are referring to it as "your braking hand" I'm guess you also don't like to switch hands either and would be more comfortable in a parallel orientation. Its a lot cheaper to change biners than it is racks if you want a different orientation.

IMHO, I don't like the loss of flexibility that attaching gear directly to the D-ring harness entails. You cannot abandon a piece of gear if you need to. If you get your rack stuck in a knot and can’t work it through you sometimes need to take the rack off to get it through or abandon the piece of gear. This happened to one of our students in the back yard a couple of weeks ago, where he couldn’t get a rack out of a knot. You may also need to abandon a rack if you get it stuck in a crevice (like at a lip) and can’t dislodge it. The probability of these happing is not great, but they can happen. Being able to shed gear will make the difference between a self rescue and climbing back out or having to call out a rescue.

[Scott McCrea]

The D-ring harness was originally designed to attach everything directly to the D-ring because of a rash of carabineer accidents. This was to try to dummy proof it against improper carabineer use. You currently see people using the D-ring harness with or without carabineers.

I've never heard that before. Got a reference or more info on the development of the D-ring harness? I just love gear history. And, I didn't know about the rash of biner accidents either. Got info on those?

[Princess Butterfly]

The D-ring harness was originally designed to attach everything directly to the D-ring because of a rash of carabineer accidents. This was to try to dummy proof it against improper carabineer use. You currently see people using the D-ring harness with or without carabineers.

I've never heard that before. Got a reference or more info on the development of the D-ring harness? I just love gear history. And, I didn't know about the rash of biner accidents either. Got info on those?

The biner accidents are on the Eastern Region NCRC website.

There was also one in TAG 7-9 years ago where a girl was going over the lip and the rack became disengaged from the carabiner. She fell 133' and lived.

There have also been several instances of rock climbers gate loading biners with figure 8's so its not just a caving problem.

I don't know who invented the D-ring harness, but I do know that they were designed to be biner free.

[hank moon]

I don't know who invented the D-ring harness, but I do know that they were designed to be biner free.

What is a "D-ring harness"?

[Princess Butterfly]

D-ring / Half round attachment

I've always heard them used interchangeably. You know what I mean, even if you want to pick on my terminology.

[Scott McCrea]

Peguet, who manufactures Maillon Rapide quick links, calls them "half moon." AFAIK, no relation to Hank.

[hank moon]

D-ring / Half round attachment

I've always heard them used interchangeably. You know what I mean, even if you want to pick on my terminology.

Hey, I wasn't trying to pick...I just hadn't heard that term before. Thanks for the splain.

[Tim White]

I always assumed that the half round attachment harness was first introduced for use with the frog climbing technique. Hank?

Maybe half round attachment harness gained popularity in places like the Eastern Region due to carabiner issues.

There was also one in TAG 7-9 years ago where a girl was going over the lip and the rack became disengaged from the carabiner. She fell 133' and lived.

Part of the reason for this accident was improper carabiner attachment to a rock climbing style harness. The carabiner was attached through both the leg loops and the waist belt. It should have been attached to the rappel / belay loop. This would have allowed the carabiner to move freely, as does a half round attachment harness.

[hank moon]

I always assumed that the half round attachment harness was first introduced for use with the frog climbing technique. Hank?

That'd be my guess as well...

[NZcaver]

The D-ring harness was originally designed to attach everything directly to the D-ring because of a rash of carabineer accidents.

I'd also be interested in finding out more about the source of this information.

My impression is the "D-ring harness" (aka maillon harness) was originally conceived in Europe to compliment the Frog (aka Ded) system - the lower attachment point making for more efficient climbing strokes. I'm not convinced that carabiner accidents had anything to do with the birth of this type of harness.

A quick google search failed to yield many clues. These harnesses were definitely in regular caving use at least 25 years ago, and almost certainly long before that. Hank - does Petzl have any records on this?

IMHO, I don't like the loss of flexibility that attaching gear directly to the D-ring harness entails.

As many of us know, most carabiners are prone to catastrophic failure at comparatively low forces if they become directly loaded onto the gate. If one chooses to eliminate the attachment carabiner "factor" from ones system, it still doesn't mean the descender has to be directly clipped into the harness maillon. You could just replace that carabiner with an oval maillon, avoiding a possible improperly-loaded gate issue while still being able to disconnect the descender without removing your harness.

And as for preferred orientation... well, that's purely a matter of personal choice. (No metaphors intended.)