Simplest, strong anchors

I use an alpine butterfly with a quickie for my basal. The advantage over a running bowline is that you can make the working end of your rope as long or short at you want. No need to pull 150' of rope through every crotch you climb through if you're only 40' off the deck. This also leaves the extra rope in your bag, not all over the drop zone.
 
I've never had a base tie move in a way that made a difference on any tree smooth or rough. That's any kind of choke whether an AB with Quickie or backed Running Bowline. When I'm tying to a small diameter tree I put a couple of half hitches above the RB and that grips very nicely. Theory is, the weight and load of the rope up over just one redirect point in the crown of the tree is enough to keep tension on the base anchor. You'd have to work a bit to intentionally loosen a one wrap base anchor. Speaking of which if you do two wraps crossed on the back of the trunk and then tie the RB it will hold tight to any trunk.
-AJ
 
Tony said:
I always train climbers to use a Yosemite tie off for life support.

It’s not the added 8% in breaking strength, I just think knots we use for life support, just like the equipment we use should be separate from rigging.

I like the change in mind set. Adding that extra turn and tuck for a basal anchor shlould be different than tying a log on to your rigging. Different demands different applications.

Tony
Click to expand...
Hi Tony, can’t get my head around that statement, after all, there are more than two scenarios for a Bowline (and variation). Splitting the line between ‘climbing’ and ‘rigging’ will lead one down a short alley with no exit, not a way I do it or would choose to teach it. I sometimes wonder if it’s not fallacy to add extra friction into a running bowline with our soft double braid ropes, where did this line of thought come from? I can see it with a Bowline, but that is a very different type of termination. I always use a double loop variation with mine because of the aforementioned loading cycles, but I just got into a groove with it, no real logic me thinks.
 
SoftBankHawks said:
Hi Tony, can’t get my head around that statement, after all, there are more than two scenarios for a Bowline (and variation). Splitting the line between ‘climbing’ and ‘rigging’ will lead one down a short alley with no exit, not a way I do it or would choose to teach it. I sometimes wonder if it’s not fallacy to add extra friction into a running bowline with our soft double braid ropes, where did this line of thought come from? I can see it with a Bowline, but that is a very different type of termination. I always use a double loop variation with mine because of the aforementioned loading cycles, but I just got into a groove with it, no real logic me thinks.
Click to expand...
Not adding friction, just adding the extra turn to make the Yosemite tie off. (The increased breaking strength comes from having two parts of rope in the overhand loop of the bowline)

I used to teach the bowline without regard to whether the tail ended inside or outside the formed loop. There really is no strength difference. But to from the Yosemite tie off it must be a “inside” version. So not I always teach it that way, because the step added to from the Yosemite is a natural progression.

For rigging I think the Yosemite is overly redundant And unnecessary. For climbing I like the simple elegance of it, and the extra ”effort” to tie serves as a reminder for as to the purpose.

Purely philosophical and idiosyncratic on my part, but I like the idea of one version for rigging, one for climbing. Both are perfectly secure in either situation.

Perhaps I read too much and let my philosophical background take over?

Tony
 
Tony said:
Not adding friction, just adding the extra turn to make the Yosemite tie off. (The increased breaking strength comes from having two parts of rope in the overhand loop of the bowline)

I used to teach the bowline without regard to whether the tail ended inside or outside the formed loop. There really is no strength difference. But to from the Yosemite tie off it must be a “inside” version. So not I always teach it that way, because the step added to from the Yosemite is a natural progression.

For rigging I think the Yosemite is overly redundant And unnecessary. For climbing I like the simple elegance of it, and the extra ”effort” to tie serves as a reminder for as to the purpose.

Purely philosophical and idiosyncratic on my part, but I like the idea of one version for rigging, one for climbing. Both are perfectly secure in either situation.

Perhaps I read too much and let my philosophical background take over?

Tony
Click to expand...
The world needs more philosophical chaps like you. As a slight aside I have been interested in knowledge that we take for granted as rope workers, and how one can find new areas to explore. The time that we met in Augsberg I was hoping to see a big u-turn in climbers approach to rigging (rope work, Climbing/Rigging), just basic questions like: why are our ropes this diameter, why this length, why tied into this system etc etc. Scratching the surface is interesting, tracing history, and knowing where one can deviate or not. One can follow a logical thread from the 1940's to now, if the timeline was flipped on its head I'm sure that the old boy wouldn't too surprised. Well, maybe a little. But it is all there one way or another.
Back to this thread, I would suggest that any one getting into Stationary Rope consider working with two main lines when possible. The anchoring and retrieve thing is not too difficult to work out and while it may seem a headache at first it positively develops safe and efficient work positioning.
Back to history, our timeline has brought us to a place where we have a massive discourse on Safe Work Positioning, on-going, ever developing, fraught with accidents and near misses. Just like never one handing a top handle saw, cutting with a main line and lanyard is a rule that must be followed 'to be safe', but how many can truthfully say that we do it every single time we cut a branch?
Starting the climb with two mainlines lets our minds and arms get to work cutting branches QUICKER and SAFER. And that the Work Positioning Lanyard is there to suspend us in 3-dimensional work positions is a great thing, allowing us to really get into the complex shapes of trees.

I couple of years ago I ran a workshop on symmetrical and reversible climbing systems, the aesthete in me was erect. I have mellowed a little since then !
 
SoftBankHawks said:
The world needs more philosophical chaps like you. As a slight aside I have been interested in knowledge that we take for granted as rope workers, and how one can find new areas to explore. The time that we met in Augsberg I was hoping to see a big u-turn in climbers approach to rigging (rope work, Climbing/Rigging), just basic questions like: why are our ropes this diameter, why this length, why tied into this system etc etc. Scratching the surface is interesting, tracing history, and knowing where one can deviate or not. One can follow a logical thread from the 1940's to now, if the timeline was flipped on its head I'm sure that the old boy wouldn't too surprised. Well, maybe a little. But it is all there one way or another.
Back to this thread, I would suggest that any one getting into Stationary Rope consider working with two main lines when possible. The anchoring and retrieve thing is not too difficult to work out and while it may seem a headache at first it positively develops safe and efficient work positioning.
Back to history, our timeline has brought us to a place where we have a massive discourse on Safe Work Positioning, on-going, ever developing, fraught with accidents and near misses. Just like never one handing a top handle saw, cutting with a main line and lanyard is a rule that must be followed 'to be safe', but how many can truthfully say that we do it every single time we cut a branch?
Starting the climb with two mainlines lets our minds and arms get to work cutting branches QUICKER and SAFER. And that the Work Positioning Lanyard is there to suspend us in 3-dimensional work positions is a great thing, allowing us to really get into the complex shapes of trees.

I couple of years ago I ran a workshop on symmetrical and reversible climbing systems, the aesthete in me was erect. I have mellowed a little since then !
Click to expand...
It is interesting when we look at the “evolution” of all the work we do. The passing of fad, the return of the best new thing, albeit with a new twist, new application. All necessary and good, but rhythmic and repeating at a base level.

It is a perspective that takes time to appreciate, but is well worth it. I have pretty much stopped writing technical based articles when asked. I feel I have said enough in those published.

I find more interest in looking at how we use our gear, how we combine individual components to form assemblies, assemblies to systems, then deploy them and how they interact with the tree, with us, our work.

Even in a tread like this, the OP asks a valid, straight forward question about a fundamental topic. A great starting place, but just that a staring place. There are many other concerns to an anchor than just strength.

What is the nature of the work? How was the anchor established? What is the angle of loading? Does your crew agree with it and your proposed use? What is the chance of misconfiguration? Does complexity add or subtract from efficiency and safety?

These days I find myself, trying to show others that it is more than just gear and numbers, that even the simple task of choosing and tying a knot can have influence and be more than just “strong enough.”

In the end the climber will always make the gear, not the other way around.

Thanks for the conversation

Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom