RRC Archives

This issue has probably been discussed before, but I was wondering if any of you had opinions on this. When possible we always try to have back ups in climbing. Climbers tie double fishermans to back up their figure eights, we build anchors out of more than one piece and equalize them just in case a piece should pull. The list can go on and on. I was taught that a good way of checking your system is to think of a knife cutting at any one place. If that happened would it lead to a failure. Why do we not hold true to this concept in regards to belay/rappel loops. I seem to be thinking about this a lot more lately each time I rappel a route, and often wish I had some kind of back up there. I started rapping/belaying by putting the biner through my tie in points, because I felt like at least I had some kind of back up there. However, I have since read that this is not a good idea because it can lead to shifting of the biner and hence loading it from the side. Any opinions on this?

I've seen people tie a second belay loop into their harness with a short piece of cord or webbing, then put the biner through both. Seems like a good idea, and would eliminate the possibility of cross-loading the biner.

Belay loops, like the actual climbing rope, isn't redundant because it is considered strong enough not to be. Many people, however, don't like the idea of not having a redundant connection at their harness (although they probably don't worry about the non-redundant rope!), so they tie a loop of cord next to their belay loop. Similar to the climbing rope, in the real world the only things you have to worry about with the belay loop are it degrading (from exposure or time), or getting worn/cut. That is why you are supposed to inspect your loop every time you put your harness on, just like you are supposed to inspect your rope every time you use it.

I guess what throws me off is that the tie in points are redundant, you go through the top and bottom of your harness and even the belay if you please. I guess the Belay loop wouldn't be submitted to as much shock loading, but still you are catching lead falls on it potentially. I guess in my mind if we have redundant tie in points we should also have redundant belay/rappel loops.

what heacocis said.....

If you should have an extra, the manufacturers would put an extra there. They don't, so you shouldn't either. End of story.

Also, the belay loop already is double strength.

njp158 wrote:I guess what throws me off is that the tie in points are redundant, you go through the top and bottom of your harness and even the belay if you please. I guess the Belay loop wouldn't be submitted to as much shock loading, but still you are catching lead falls on it potentially. I guess in my mind if we have redundant tie in points we should also have redundant belay/rappel loops.

The belay loop goes through both tie in points just as the rope does. Your logic is lacking. The analogue of the rope (which isn't redundant) is the belay loop (which isn't redundant).

and one biner and one gri gri?

pigsteak wrote:and one biner and one gri gri?

and a microphone.

There is no need for a backup on a figure 8 either. The 8 has its own back-up built in.