— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee”
> That rapide I posted the pic of (mostly took the pic ’cause it was > unique that someone used an old Forest Titon as a bolt hanger…too > funny) would eat a Petzl Attache no problemo. > The biner clipped to it is a Neutrino, so, yeah, pretty small but I > tossed the pic up for reference (and fun). I figured that – I too found that humorous.
> Carabiner spine fails (remote but, a mode of failure). -yes, very very remote. 9mm of aluminum in double shear….
> Carabiner flips around and becomes unclipped. > Carabiner is oriented so rope clips back through (see Randi about > this). – never use a non locking carabiner!
> Clove hitch isn’t, and looks like it is, and fails (see Randi again). – same issue with EDK – tie and dress your knot properly!
I do see your point though. You have one more piece of hardware in the system, but any mistake with either method can have dire consequences.
-tom (w)
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “hank moon” wrote: > Brian: without (relatively) extensive canyon experience, you are coming at > this too much from the head . While I agree with the theory behind your ease > of pull argument, it’s dead in this case. That is an easy pull scenario > “regardless” of maillon size.
I think using a biner block/pull cord should be an exception and not the rule when it comes to rappelling.
Why?
For a standard rappelling situation, double rope rappels provide a higher margin of safety.
– Less chance of shredding a single rope (over an edge, etc).
– Less force on a pair of anchors (weight using a biner block is on one side of a fixed anchor).
– More friction on rappel.
– KISS : double rope rappelling is simple. A biner block has more that can go wrong with it than a standard two rope rappel. Bulkier knot/biner which could get stuck on the pull, leaving a person with only a skinny pull cord . Biner could slip through a rapide that is too large. Clove hitch could be tied wrong.
– If you do damage (or stick or otherwise loose) your main rope, a second full strength rope is better than a 6mm pull cord.
I understand (and have employed) the biner block and its advantages in certain situations. But, IMHO, there’s no reason to biner block in standard Zion canyons which don’t have running water, which don’t require a longer rappel cord (i.e. 300 feet) than is practical to carry, and where a contingency anchor is not used. For setting rope length to facilitate an easy off to avoid a swimming disconnect, a biner block can make some sense but most savvy folks can and should be able to perform a floating disconnect.
Another advantage to a biner block is the ease of ascension on a single cord, rather than dealing with a double rope. But, for folks that have done much of this, if your single rope is running over any kind of edge in Zion, you’re going to trash that rope. In some situations, might be better to consider a Prusik ascent of both ropes to spread out the wear and tear.
What I find pretty amazing are the folks that are canyoneering in Zion especially, who only employ a biner block technique. For canyons like Imlay, Mystery and Pine Creek, these were more commonly done only a few years back with one or two ropes, no pull cord, and no biner block. Now you have a flock of folks that don’t even begin to grasp the concept of a double rope rappel, which, is something that even the most rudimentary of climber learns. It does truly boggle my mind.
So, now you have folks doing community service by removing perfectly functional rappel anchors which don’t work for their biner block technique. I don’t think being critical of this situation’s “logical conclusion” would lead to anything other than folk’s consideration that another technique (double rope rappel) might be valid, that biner blocks add risk, and/or that people using blocks should carry the gear to facilitate a block.
These time saving, weight saving techniques come with a higher risk. They should be employed by people who understand their risks. What I see in canyoneering is a sport that is ready to have its own lingo, its own techniques, apart from climbing, and to purposely separate it from climbing. Too much technology at a higher risk isn’t worth it.
Its alarming to me that there has been so many close calls and accidents as of late which I attribute directly to the biner block technique. Discussion of these techniques has merit. Implying that the logical conclusion of these critiques is some callous disregard for human life is very insulting.
Then you got these same “experts” who are romanticizing and popularizing unnatural anchor techniques, speed descents of multiple canyons in a day, and removing anchors forcing use of less safe anchors. What is the logical conclusion of the canyon jihad? What is the logical conclusion of playing the no bolt game? People are going to continue to have close calls, get hurt and killed.
Look at the close calls. Simul rappel that wasn’t? Loss of control of rappel on a single line? Pushing canyon exploration with a bad weather forecast? Natural anchor failure? Is it almost so common that it’s becoming accepted? I hope not. I worry about you people. I really don’t want to go to another friend’s funeral where a lack of judgment, a momentary lapse, causes a fatality.
Yeah, sitting back and hearing about friends having close calls is personal. Hard to detach from that. I certainly won’t apologize for it.
Can anyone explain any reason for using anything but double rope technique in Mystery or Pine Creek?
Cheers,
-Brian in SLC
hank moon
Hey, I want to make something clear:
The discussion about the M-rapide is interesting, appropriate, etc. I think it’s a dead horse, but others clearly do not. May it go on (if necessary). What will not go on is a personal battle between Brian and Tom. Both of you guys owe the group an apology for y’day’s mess. It’s evident this is personal…has little to do with canyoneering, and won’t be resolved by discussing maillons. Work it out privately, then come back and tell us all how you’re friends again.
Brian: without (relatively) extensive canyon experience, you are coming at this too much from the head . While I agree with the theory behind your ease of pull argument, it’s dead in this case. That is an easy pull scenario “regardless” of maillon size.
hank
tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
> The removal of a perfectly good and robust rap anchor is cause for some > alarm, especially in canyons which do not require the use of a pull > cord (a dubious technique and way unsafer than just employing two fully > functional ropes). Folks that need to rely on a biner block, would be > well served to carry gear to facilitate that technique, not change the > landscape in Zion to suit ONLY their technique.
Brian,
The removal of a perfectly good rap anchor and replacement with another perfectly good rap anchor is not a crime. Trying to reduce the chance that an accident occurs is not a crime, its philanthropic. Unless you simply refuse to pull your rope over anything less than 1/2″ in diameter, then your comment that people are changing the landscape to suit “ONLY” single rope technique is totally false. There are rapides in 3/8 diameter which a medium sized locking carabiner will not pass through – you say you use 3/8 – If you email me with an address I will snail you several (free).
I have no problem with double rope technique, or those who promote it, but I do take issue with definitive (false) statements against another valid technique. When properly employed both techniques work well.
Ok I’ll go to my corner and play cards with Shane.
-tom (w)
bruce silliman
Actually that large biner was in Mystery as early as August of 2005 when that was my third canyon I ever did. The individual who I was with going to attempt to put a biner block on the large rapide, but despite my inexperience I asked him if he felt that his method was a good one. We talked about it and then used the small one.
While I’m not the brightest light in the universe it was evident that the large rapide offered so many ways that could jeopardize one’s life that I was unwilling to use it. Now if you do carry two 125′ ropes (I’ve never seen anyone carry even one at this length) the tying them together, rapping and pulling is an option. But a 9mm rope will pull easily through the smaller rapides also.
Whoops, wasn’t going to comment anymore but thought I would throw in that date thing.
Great day yesterday in a new canyon and off to Spry this morning. Wife returns from her trip to Japan so can’t go out every weekend now. Back to every other week.
Cheers and have a ‘canyon’ day.
bruce from bryce
>From: “millcreek3640” swl1515@gmail.com
Reply-To: Yahoo Canyons Group
To: Yahoo Canyons Group
Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Why Smart People Make Double Entendres >Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 03:39:11 -0000
Speak up BEFORE, aye? Wasn’t till some of us RECENTLY saw the discussion, >and then very >RECENTLY learned that an “agent of change” had jerked the LARGE link on the >last rap in >Mystery…that the instance to comment was even imagined.
And I should note – with wet 9mm ropes, watch out when pulling through >tiny/small quick >links – in some circumstances (it’s my view) that it CAN make a difference. >(rapped >thousands of times aye? and link size makes no difference?)
For those that have not been through Mystery recently. The last rap still >bears the two >bolts and chain above the watercourse. Attached to the chain was/is a 5/16 >or 3/8 link in >fairly good shape. Recently (late spring?) someone attached a LARGE link >(not aware of the >exact size) to the 3/8 link, that an attache in turn, would easily pass >through. The day we >were there, the large link caught us by surprise, and after having no >success at dis- >attaching it, we/I merely set the block on the 3/8 (or so) link that was >above the LARGE >link. (Had I known previously about the LARGE link, I’d have carried a much >larger biner or >device that a block could have been rigged from; or alternatively made >certain there were >two adequate length ropes along that could have been tied together – and >alleviated the >need for a block – but the recent ACA grads were in tow and wanted/demanded >single >strand that day.)
Prior to the Mystery visit and weeks later – while in the zion area – I saw >a few of these >LARGE links at rap stations, and made the assumption (?) they were now the >NEW DEFACTO >device offered by the “keepers of the canyons” in Zion. It was news to me >”later” that they >were apparently bad karma and “a problem.”
So many NEW bolts in trade canyons of Zion – and in other corridors bolts >are regulary >jerked and long strands of rope/webbing required/used to rig stations?
Park planning officials suggest that resource protection and visitor >experience (along with >safety?) should guide backcountry planning?
Still find it interesting, amazing, that the “morality” trump card and >”I’ve got it right” >positions abound on this matter. How can this be so black and white when >other touchy >canyon rigging style matters are sometimes so gray?
I know Brian, Bill and of course Tom & Hank. I respect all very much and >appreciate their >views. And Bruce, who I’ve not had the pleasure of meeting yet, I respect >and appreciate >his view(s) likewise. And to them and other posters, what does it matter if >some of us have >a slightly different voice, view – or at least take or slant – on the issue >of what is >happening to the technical canyons of Zion and how to spin words like maybe >”safety.”
The death on the last perch in Heaps was/is a most tragic event. I agree, >it need not be >repeated and regardless of the training, skill level or technique of >participants, safety in >almost all circumstances should be the “guide” and heady mindset of most >travelers.
I learn from (some of) these commentaries. Isn’t it enough to suggest that >the LARGE links >are beneficial in some circumstances and NOT in others? The removal of the >LARGE link in >Mystery was laudatory – in some corners, and questionable – in maybe >others? How many >points of view allowed in this BIG (or maybe not so big) CANYONEERING TENT >of ours?
SL in SLC
> As for not being able to do a pull, again timing is everything.
I’ve gone off single strand and double strand thousands of times off
different sized rapides, and don’t find the rapide size much of a
difference. Most pull problems are from locations or if ropes get
crossed. If you feel differently, then again, timing is
everything. Speak up BEFORE someone does the hard work to remove
the rapide…
_______________ http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote: > I stand by my question, and expect you to answer nay, which you > apparantly have. And I ask it not in all seriousness, but it seems > the logical conclusion to your objection to the removal of a > potential hazard in a trade-route canyon. Please explain why this > is not the logical conclusion?
Maybe you need help with your reading comprehension. Did I ever infer in any post on this thread even the most remote indication of a casual regard for anyone’s safety or life? I think NOT.
The removal of a perfectly good and robust rap anchor is cause for some alarm, especially in canyons which do not require the use of a pull cord (a dubious technique and way unsafer than just employing two fully functional ropes). Folks that need to rely on a biner block, would be well served to carry gear to facilitate that technique, not change the landscape in Zion to suit ONLY their technique.
> Perhaps you believe that people that use the “variant” technique, > really should be well-trained and awake enough that they would not > use the giant rapide in a dangerous manner. I believe this too. > But I also know there are plenty of people out there, using whatever > method, that really are not that awake, and I think it is a GOOD > THING to remove potential hazards for the less trained amongst us.
Chopped any bolts lately, Mr. Madboltchopper?
You’ll have blood on your hands way sooner than I will, Mr. Senior Canyoneering expert.
My prediction is that you’ll soon know the true meaning of “deadman”.
-Brian in SLC
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote:
Apparantly, some people feel that a hazard to people that use
the other method, well, it’s just their own darn fault for using
the wrong method. If they die, who cares? Is this the position
claimed by our buddy bee dee cee?
Did you really ask that in all seriousness?
Because if you did, well, then fuck you.
Cheers, asshole.
-Brian in SLC > I stand by my question, and expect you to answer nay, which you apparantly have. And I ask it not in all seriousness, but it seems the logical conclusion to your objection to the removal of a potential hazard in a trade-route canyon. Please explain why this is not the logical conclusion?
Perhaps you believe that people that use the “variant” technique, really should be well-trained and awake enough that they would not use the giant rapide in a dangerous manner. I believe this too. But I also know there are plenty of people out there, using whatever method, that really are not that awake, and I think it is a GOOD THING to remove potential hazards for the less trained amongst us.
Tom
millcreek3640
Speak up BEFORE, aye? Wasn’t till some of us RECENTLY saw the discussion, and then very RECENTLY learned that an “agent of change” had jerked the LARGE link on the last rap in Mystery…that the instance to comment was even imagined.
And I should note – with wet 9mm ropes, watch out when pulling through tiny/small quick links – in some circumstances (it’s my view) that it CAN make a difference. (rapped thousands of times aye? and link size makes no difference?)
For those that have not been through Mystery recently. The last rap still bears the two bolts and chain above the watercourse. Attached to the chain was/is a 5/16 or 3/8 link in fairly good shape. Recently (late spring?) someone attached a LARGE link (not aware of the exact size) to the 3/8 link, that an attache in turn, would easily pass through. The day we were there, the large link caught us by surprise, and after having no success at dis- attaching it, we/I merely set the block on the 3/8 (or so) link that was above the LARGE link. (Had I known previously about the LARGE link, I’d have carried a much larger biner or device that a block could have been rigged from; or alternatively made certain there were two adequate length ropes along that could have been tied together – and alleviated the need for a block – but the recent ACA grads were in tow and wanted/demanded single strand that day.)
Prior to the Mystery visit and weeks later – while in the zion area – I saw a few of these LARGE links at rap stations, and made the assumption (?) they were now the NEW DEFACTO device offered by the “keepers of the canyons” in Zion. It was news to me “later” that they were apparently bad karma and “a problem.”
So many NEW bolts in trade canyons of Zion – and in other corridors bolts are regulary jerked and long strands of rope/webbing required/used to rig stations?
Park planning officials suggest that resource protection and visitor experience (along with safety?) should guide backcountry planning?
Still find it interesting, amazing, that the “morality” trump card and “I’ve got it right” positions abound on this matter. How can this be so black and white when other touchy canyon rigging style matters are sometimes so gray?
I know Brian, Bill and of course Tom & Hank. I respect all very much and appreciate their views. And Bruce, who I’ve not had the pleasure of meeting yet, I respect and appreciate his view(s) likewise. And to them and other posters, what does it matter if some of us have a slightly different voice, view – or at least take or slant – on the issue of what is happening to the technical canyons of Zion and how to spin words like maybe “safety.”
The death on the last perch in Heaps was/is a most tragic event. I agree, it need not be repeated and regardless of the training, skill level or technique of participants, safety in almost all circumstances should be the “guide” and heady mindset of most travelers.
I learn from (some of) these commentaries. Isn’t it enough to suggest that the LARGE links are beneficial in some circumstances and NOT in others? The removal of the LARGE link in Mystery was laudatory – in some corners, and questionable – in maybe others? How many points of view allowed in this BIG (or maybe not so big) CANYONEERING TENT of ours?
SL in SLC
> As for not being able to do a pull, again timing is everything. > I’ve gone off single strand and double strand thousands of times off > different sized rapides, and don’t find the rapide size much of a > difference. Most pull problems are from locations or if ropes get > crossed. If you feel differently, then again, timing is > everything. Speak up BEFORE someone does the hard work to remove > the rapide… >
Randi Poer
I got bored with following this thread, but just happened to “see” this, and that’s a rotten thing to say Tom!
Differences of opinion DO NOT translate into callous disregard for human life.
This is just WRONG! I believe you owe Brian an apology.
~Randi
— beadysee beadysee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” > wrote:
Apparantly, some people feel that a hazard to > people that use the
other method, well, it’s just their own darn fault > for using the
wrong method. If they die, who cares? Is this > the position claimed
by our buddy bee dee cee?
Did you really ask that in all seriousness?
Because if you did, well, then fuck you.
Cheers, asshole.
-Brian in SLC
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote: > Apparantly, some people feel that a hazard to people that use the > other method, well, it’s just their own darn fault for using the > wrong method. If they die, who cares? Is this the position claimed > by our buddy bee dee cee?
Did you really ask that in all seriousness?
Because if you did, well, then fuck you.
Cheers, asshole.
-Brian in SLC
Listserve.w
I wasn’t going to go on and have not sent two posts in this thread that have been more scathing but you seem to open the door to moral outrage so I’m left with a question too now that you bring it up again. I’d request that if you do not like the conversation to go on and on you do not raise the stakes and emotional level by using loaded language.
Personally I care about the safety, but really where is the responsibility?
People who are “training” and promoting the bloc method are promoting and training a method that can be dangerous with the current practices of the other, “standard”, older and previously established method. That by the way, has had a long history and established “best” practices to make the pull as easy as is reasonably possible. People who use blocs can have trouble if they do not understand that a bloc is not a block unless it actually blocks.
If rapides are available that are large diameter stock with smaller major axis that would be good to use from now on, but people really can’t understand that big things pull through small things then maybe the bloc technique is too difficult to understand for popular use and should not be encouraged or trained as a “standard” technique.
At what point do people have responsibility for their own actions? If party gets their rope stuck because of the small rapide’s friction and problems happen whose fault is it now? If they die who cares? See, I can use loaded language too. Does it help with the discussion and debate here?
There are tradeoffs inherent in many choices we make. If people don’t understand little can pull through big then, well, this ain’t Disneyland.
The code word “trade canyon” is the password for anything goes to make it “safe” for the lowest common denominator. Goodbye wilderness, hello Disneyland with dirt.
-Bill
hank moon
> 4. The Large Rapide in a trade canyon was removed. Way to go BRUCE.
Yes, a BIG way to go Bruce – thanks for getting that noxious little task off the todo list. My hero
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
Folks who leave these large rapides and rings are doing community > service too, but, I guess a portion of the community doesn’t like > anything they can’t safely biner block from. Interesting. > Jeez, you folks CAN GO ON, can’t ya. Glad I’ve been away from the infernal computa, or I would have joined in the fray.
I’m still left with a troubling moral question –
1. There are two methods in common use; 2. There are plenty of people poorly trained in each method (some even poorly trained in both methods!); 3. The “Large Rapide” represents a hazard to people that are poorly trained in one of the methods. 4. The Large Rapide in a trade canyon was removed. Way to go BRUCE.
Apparantly, some people feel that a hazard to people that use the other method, well, it’s just their own darn fault for using the wrong method. If they die, who cares? Is this the position claimed by our buddy bee dee cee?
Tom
A.J.
> Its just facinating to me how these large rapides are seen as > unsafe. Usually, bigger, thicker, stronger is better, especially > where commonly used anchors are concerned.
For people who know what they are doing, and those prepared, sure; they are safer. However, I’m sure the strength of smaller diameter rapides are never even near breaking strength. The bigger ones are overkill; as well as could have caused an accident to the less experienced people going through the canyon who set up a biner block without knowing that the biner could pull through the rapide. Mystery is a trade route/sacrificial canyon/whatever you want to call it. It’s bolted, with lots of people going through who probably should not be going through without more experience. See Pitney’s Das Boot story for an example. Bruce was doing a service to make sure an injury didn’t occur.
In the climbing realm, I agree with you. I certainly don’t mind bigger hardware. Personally, if I saw that setup, I’d just use a different rig than a biner block. However, I can certainly see the benefit of not having that hardware in that particular canyon.
Folks who leave these large rapides and rings are doing community > service too, but, I guess a portion of the community doesn’t like > anything they can’t safely biner block from. Interesting.
A.J.
There was multiple discussions prior to Bruce going and removing the large biner. You should have spoken then, not chastize now. Bruce, I appreciate your efforts. I think it may have saved a group from injury.
As for using a larger biner for a block, try it out at home. I was pretty surprised at how even a larger biner, if positioned just right, could pull through other biners. While I don’t have the same size rapide that Bruce cut, I’m sure it would have been the same situation.
As for not being able to do a pull, again timing is everything. I’ve gone off single strand and double strand thousands of times off different sized rapides, and don’t find the rapide size much of a difference. Most pull problems are from locations or if ropes get crossed. If you feel differently, then again, timing is everything. Speak up BEFORE someone does the hard work to remove the rapide…
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “millcreek3640” wrote:
My, I’m still (generally) in agreement with Brian and basically > support Bill’s view.
Style is an interesting matter. Get married to a partner and one finds > out real quickly that style (for whatever reason) get’s tipped upside > down (often) in favor of another view. Or jump into the political > campaign game and style can run all over the map. In canyon parlance > go to an ACA weekend training program and rope use style can easily > be “tipped” likewise. “This is the way to do it.”
When I commented earlier that the last rap ring in Mystery was “too > big”..it was in context of failing to have in ones quiver an adequate > sized biner for “that” blocking situation. The rope situation that day > dictated a biner block. I was, and am very comfortable with the larger > ring – and I understand their placement – and I’m suprised somewhat > that someone saw fit to remove it. Rope pulls are so much easier and > if folk know in advance – if they plan to do a block – they can carry > a larger biner, OR simply attach another rapide and block off that.
The larger rapides and rings are showing up more and more in the Zion > area, folk should be aware of and accept it.
My first 3-4 visits in Mystery, we packed two 50 meter ropes and > pretty much ran the whole system double strand.
But these days, with groups of 6, and folk carrying both 8 and 9mm > ropes, and some heavy or light, and some coming straight from ACA > training courses – blocking and single stranding often (mandatorily) > comes into the mix. If using 8mm ropes I basically want folk to run > double strand. If 9, I often don’t care. If some want a biner block > and single strand – then fine, for it’s quick and easy to disassemble > and then run it double strand. If folk are using a pirana, some always > want everything (both 8 & 9mm) run single strand.
I believe my normal “canyon medium sized” (???) rapides are 3/8 or > 5/16. I rarely use the smaller ones any more and for a while have > carried fixe rings. Cost more, but very functional.
Interesting – hearing these “strong views”…I’ve not been to a recent > ACA training session in Cedar City. Blocking and single stranding was – > and I think – still is the “taught” standard. Munter Mule, single > strand, lowering in case of emergency. In spite of this mantra, with > 8mm ropes, I generally try to lean toward double strand. And I accept, > there are other views on this matter. Is one guiding, taking the > scouts or rookies out, or simply crusing down canyon with an > experienced crew. Even if it’s the latter, I now find that views vary > so much and (sometimes) when I state an opinion (to maybe double > strand) it’s often quickly tipped upside down to NO, we are going to > single strand this one, like it or not! We humble humans, often a > fiesty and opinionated lot.
Seriously, thanks for the opinions of Brian and Bill and for the views > of others. Maybe, there are some viable lessons to learn when it comes > to setting (anchors and lines) and using ropes in canyon settings.
For me, in the past two years, I’ve personally had too many issues > with BW 8mm Canyon pro ropes, where when single stranding, the rope > sheath (large sections sometimes) comes loose. And the Cancord > Hercules 8mm rope (Imlay), if that gets a lot of single stranding use, > particularly in wet environments, the rope can get very unwieldy and > lumpy. 8mm ropes if you use them a lot can be “scary” and a “style” to > try and run them (mostly) double, hopefully it makes some sense. (But > I know a lot of folk that run 8mm Imlay single strand, almost all of > the time – yes, opinions vary on this and so many other matters.)
That old chestnut of honor amongst (some)esteemed rock climbers and > canyoneers? Someone cut the large link – a moral or canyon crime? Or > maybe it’s time for commutation of the sentence? >
A.J.
But as Mike stated, toss and go doesn’t work for all situations. It makes floating disconnects more complex, and can be very dangerous, even fatal in moving water canyons. Like so many other conversations we’ve had on the forum; knowledge is key. Know the different methods (single strand vs double strand, rope bag vs butterfly coil vs alpine coil, etc) and choose the one you prefer or the one that fits the current situation best…
> People screw up in the details. Why not make the details as few and > simple as possible?
-Bill >
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “bruce silliman” wrote: > It was done for one reason – SAFETY! And if that bothers anyone then you > will probably be offended if I do a canyon with you and check your setup > before you rappel. End of my discussion.
Ohh, now, I doubt that. Folks can check my harness multiple times over the course of any day and I’d be nothing but appreciative.
Its just facinating to me how these large rapides are seen as unsafe. Usually, bigger, thicker, stronger is better, especially where commonly used anchors are concerned.
Folks who leave these large rapides and rings are doing community service too, but, I guess a portion of the community doesn’t like anything they can’t safely biner block from. Interesting.
> p.s. I won’t be cutting anymore as that vice grip, plumbers wrench and the > hacksaw added a few extra pounds to my pack. Next cutter please step up to > the plate.
Surpised it didn’t yield to a wrench. Wonder if someone super glued or loctite’d it.
Can’t imagine the size of bolt cutter required to cut one. Now, that’d be a heavy load. Uhh…mine have chipped jaws so if anyone has one that can cut 3/8″ chain and want to sell it…let me know, I’m in need.
I think folks who require biner blocks should carry rapides, rings, plates, whatever tools to facilitate a block against most any larger ID type anchor ring/rapide. Large rescue/rigging plate would seem to work perfectly.
-Brian in SLC
millcreek3640
My, I’m still (generally) in agreement with Brian and basically support Bill’s view.
Style is an interesting matter. Get married to a partner and one finds out real quickly that style (for whatever reason) get’s tipped upside down (often) in favor of another view. Or jump into the political campaign game and style can run all over the map. In canyon parlance go to an ACA weekend training program and rope use style can easily be “tipped” likewise. “This is the way to do it.”
When I commented earlier that the last rap ring in Mystery was “too big”..it was in context of failing to have in ones quiver an adequate sized biner for “that” blocking situation. The rope situation that day dictated a biner block. I was, and am very comfortable with the larger ring – and I understand their placement – and I’m suprised somewhat that someone saw fit to remove it. Rope pulls are so much easier and if folk know in advance – if they plan to do a block – they can carry a larger biner, OR simply attach another rapide and block off that.
The larger rapides and rings are showing up more and more in the Zion area, folk should be aware of and accept it.
My first 3-4 visits in Mystery, we packed two 50 meter ropes and pretty much ran the whole system double strand.
But these days, with groups of 6, and folk carrying both 8 and 9mm ropes, and some heavy or light, and some coming straight from ACA training courses – blocking and single stranding often (mandatorily) comes into the mix. If using 8mm ropes I basically want folk to run double strand. If 9, I often don’t care. If some want a biner block and single strand – then fine, for it’s quick and easy to disassemble and then run it double strand. If folk are using a pirana, some always want everything (both 8 & 9mm) run single strand.
I believe my normal “canyon medium sized” (???) rapides are 3/8 or 5/16. I rarely use the smaller ones any more and for a while have carried fixe rings. Cost more, but very functional.
Interesting – hearing these “strong views”…I’ve not been to a recent ACA training session in Cedar City. Blocking and single stranding was – and I think – still is the “taught” standard. Munter Mule, single strand, lowering in case of emergency. In spite of this mantra, with 8mm ropes, I generally try to lean toward double strand. And I accept, there are other views on this matter. Is one guiding, taking the scouts or rookies out, or simply crusing down canyon with an experienced crew. Even if it’s the latter, I now find that views vary so much and (sometimes) when I state an opinion (to maybe double strand) it’s often quickly tipped upside down to NO, we are going to single strand this one, like it or not! We humble humans, often a fiesty and opinionated lot.
Seriously, thanks for the opinions of Brian and Bill and for the views of others. Maybe, there are some viable lessons to learn when it comes to setting (anchors and lines) and using ropes in canyon settings.
For me, in the past two years, I’ve personally had too many issues with BW 8mm Canyon pro ropes, where when single stranding, the rope sheath (large sections sometimes) comes loose. And the Cancord Hercules 8mm rope (Imlay), if that gets a lot of single stranding use, particularly in wet environments, the rope can get very unwieldy and lumpy. 8mm ropes if you use them a lot can be “scary” and a “style” to try and run them (mostly) double, hopefully it makes some sense. (But I know a lot of folk that run 8mm Imlay single strand, almost all of the time – yes, opinions vary on this and so many other matters.)
That old chestnut of honor amongst (some)esteemed rock climbers and canyoneers? Someone cut the large link – a moral or canyon crime? Or maybe it’s time for commutation of the sentence?
bruce silliman
I find this whole discussion interesting, especially those saying I should not have cut off the rapide. I posted on this site two weeks ago and heard nothing from the DO NOT camp. Guess I didn’t explain myself completely.
It was done for one reason – SAFETY! And if that bothers anyone then you will probably be offended if I do a canyon with you and check your setup before you rappel. End of my discussion.
bruce from bryce
p.s. I won’t be cutting anymore as that vice grip, plumbers wrench and the hacksaw added a few extra pounds to my pack. Next cutter please step up to the plate.
>From: “beadysee” beadysee@yahoo.com
Reply-To: Yahoo Canyons Group
To: Yahoo Canyons Group
Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Why Smart People Make Double Entendres >Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:32:03 -0000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “tom” wrote:
Did I miss something? You can get nice big rapides that aren’t long
enough to pass a carabiner (or knot). If the one which was removed >was
4″ long it was a 1/2″ diameter section. 3/8″ or 10mm is pretty >easy to
pull – on really long stuff use 2, or multiple rap rings to >increase
the diameter. I don’t think anyone was advocating using small >rapides.
I’ve got no less than 80 10mm and 3/8″ rapides at home and I could >pass a standard size carabiner through the center of any of them.
See below. Note how the biner clipped to it would fit right though >it no problemo.
http://mtncommunity.org/dc/user_files/1558.jpg
But, how exactly is creating a biner block any more
complex than tying two ropes together?
Look at the number of steps to rig. Look how many folks have had >close calls or have died in the last few weeks in Zion using a biner >block. Way more failure modes. Could you quickly inspect a biner >block and know it to be safely rigged? Versus two ropes tied >together with an EDK, double fisherman’s or flemish bend?
> In many cases, especially on short rappels, I prefer single strand
because double strand simply has more friction than I prefer.
Another advantage to rigging double is more friction, especially as >folks move to these high tech skinny rappel cords. And, less wear >on the single rope as the load on rappel is distributed over two >ropes, rather than one (thinking of rope over an edge for instance).
Anyhoo…
-Brian in SLC >
_______________ http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507
tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Listserve.w” wrote: > Tom, are you saying toss-n-go 2 strand is not easier to inspect and > set up and more fool-proof than basically any blocking/pull cord > scenario? No. Not at all. I’m saying that a biner block is only marginally more difficult to inspect than a TnG2s(tm). Both techniques must be done properly or serious consequences result. There have been many threads on rope joining methods when rapping – thus the “EDK” misnomer. I see the well dressed double EDK and the well dressed Clove to be both simple to tie, dress and inspect. The B’Block requires the additional inspection of carabiner and orientation.
> The way I see it toss-n-go is easier, simpler, almost impossible to > mis-rig at the anchor (compared to other alternatives), offers more > friction (which most people I know want), splits the force on wear > points on two real ropes instead of one, gives you another real rope > to pull down with rather than a small-diameter pull cord for those > high-friction pulls and leaves you with a good real rope in case >you damage and need to knot one of your ropes.
Valid points mostly. I don’t really agree with the first 2 points, but I agree on the mis-rigging (especially if you are not mixing single strand and TnG2s techniques), the friction point is very true, force splitting etc, again true. Rope pulling I don’t find to be difficult with a pullcord, and sure, having the extra full strength rope is nice – as long as you are the one carrying it
> Almost the only way you can screw it up is to not thread both >strands through your rappel device.
(and that isn’t a guarantee of failure either – the knot *may* block)
> you’re tired and sloppy. Maybe you are tired and sloppy because of all that extra weight in thick rope you are carrying?
> I’d hazard a guess that blocs are > inherently more hazardous than toss-n-go for still or no water…
I agree they require (slightly) more care to rig, but the fundamentals are the same. Is the anchor sound? Did I thread the rope correctly? Did I tie the knot correctly? Did I connect my rappel device correctly?
For me the benefits outweigh the (IMHO) negligible risks. I rap two strand when its convenient, like wise with SRT. Its another tool in the ol’ box. I guess I have never had a close call with either and don’t see what all the fuss is about. It would be a shame for this useful technique to be shunned because of user error, not danger inherent in the application.
-tom (w)