Using a larks foot to tie in to middle of rope?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

Hello!

Saw something pretty funky at the crag yesterday, was wondering whether anyone has seen this before and knows anything about whether it is safe or not?

I saw a climber who had tied himself on to the middle of the rope using a larks foot to the tying in points of his harness. He had done this by stepping through a big loop of rope that had been passed through the harness already.

I am aware of the safety concerns with larks-footing anything through the tying-in points of the harness, but if it was done through the abseil loop (as you would do with a cows tail for example) I can't immediately see why it would be unsafe. However my instinct tells me it is.

Thoughts?

 digby 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

You'd have some difficulty removing yourself from it in extremis! eg rope under tension... fallen 3rd

Post edited at 11:40
In reply to MJAngry:

Have seen this before, but how does it relate to the point in question?

 Offwidth 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

The Chris Tan Death knot??

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/gear/chris_tan_death_knot_condoned_by_pet...

I've sometimes used it where pitch lengths might be close on a doubled up rope length, on 30m wandering pitches (it's quick and easy to adjust the knot position) albeit not where I think a lead fall might be fairly possible (to make it safer you can tie a figure 8 in the middle of the rope with a big loop, pass the loop through the harness and loop it over you head and step through as per the CTDK, then adjust the knot closer to the harness; but that obviously negates the adjustability). Its well worth browsing Chris's website... lots of other ideas that might be a mad ...and lots of moorland information and some obscure crag information.

http://www.kakibusok.plus.com/Equipment/index.htm

 Phil79 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

I've done that a few times, usually by tying a Fig 8 on the bight first, then threading and stepping through the loop created, then shortening the loop/Fig 8 accordingly. 

I cant see that its unsafe practice, but probably hard to get out of in an emergency. 

In reply to Phil79:

Interesting method... But I think what you are suggesting is a little different to what I have seen. Usually when I tie into the middle of the rope myself I use a massive rethreaded figure of 8, however what I saw was just a plain larks foot!

In reply to elizabethporter:

The Alpine butterfly is good (either to make a loop to clip into the waist krab, or to make a loop round the waist, as it was originally used). But it's quite a difficult not to learn ... but beautiful when you have. It adjusts a bit more easily than a figure of 8, and is a lot more elegant, less bulky.

Post edited at 12:07
 jkarran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

I've done it for years, always into the belay loop, climbing on one strand or both. I didn't die but I might have got lucky.

Particularly where both strands go to the belayer it's very hard to imagine any real safety issue on route. 'Untying' at the top can be trickier in a confined space, for example where a route ends on broken ground, I imagine if you have the balance and grace of a drunken fawn (as I do) then the risk of stumbling and falling as you pass rope loops over your body is increased slightly.

With a single strand the argument goes the hitch could slip destructively. I suppose it will at a fairly modest load but I never exceeded it or much worried about it.

There's a funky bowline on the bight you can do by a very similar step-through method that looks much more conventional and secure but it always made my brain hurt so I never bothered.

jk

Post edited at 12:06
 Kevster 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

I'm struggling to see the advantages of this on a rock route over the other options available. I assume used when climbing as a 3.  Or you'd tie in at the end of your rope.

Multipitch it seems silly as you can't escape it without a good ledge to stand on. If trad, then I'd be using 2 ropes anyway and try to avoid 3s on multipitch as it doesn't work so well. 

Single pitch, single rope, that's a sport route. Normally up and down, so again no need to tie in at the mid point. 

Single pitch trad, with a single rope. If you're tying in the middle then I assume the leader has set up a belay. So its only a short pitch. Why not bring one up, then lower the rope back down for the third in the party. Or just set up a top rope?

 Will Hunt 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

I think context is important here. I'm guessing that this was at a single pitch outcrop and the route went fairly direct? The leader had led on both ends of a half rope and the second had to tie onto the middle? In these circumstances the rope is normally thin enough to treat the rope as if it were a single (hold the two strands together and treat them as one strand) and tie in with a fig-8 as usual. To save time I've seen people pull the middle of the rope through their tie in loops (not belay loop) as usual and step through the loop created (or pass it over their heads) - so it's just a lark's foot, no knots.

It seems to work fine in these circumstances, but for the reasons other people have stated I wouldn't do it on a multi-pitch or a pitch that had any significant sideways motion on it. And if the route is hard enough that it's likely that the second is going to fall off more than a couple of times I'd do something different to prevent undue wear on the rope.

 Offwidth 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Will Hunt:

I only use it on lead.  Just no point really seconding. 

6
 Phil79 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

Yes, correct. What I do I typically do is a combination of both (Fig 8 then larks-foot the loop).

What was the purpose for doing the larks foot in the middle of the rope? 

If, for example, you were using to 'half' a rope to then lead on (like you would with double ropes) you could potentially take a hard fall on one rope only, and maybe get some friction issues with the larks foot/harness (melting etc from one sided force pulling the knot)? Unlikely I know!

That was my thinking for using another knot first, to prevent any rope slippage in the event of a fall (I have typically used it where we only had a single rope and I wanted to lead on a double). 

Post edited at 12:29
In reply to Offwidth:

> I only use it on lead.  Just no point really seconding. 

Really?

I have used a larks foot quite a bit when climbing on a doubled over half rope. This has always been when single pitch outcrop climbing. I always tie into both ends for leading and larks foot through the middle when seconding. I don’t think leading on a larks foot is a particularly smart idea, as it could slip, especially if you feel onto one runner only. 

1
cb294 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

Standard alpine practise when climbing/scrambling as a three on easier ground. Wouldn't normally use it for proper pitched climbing or glacier travel. Safer to pull a bight through you harness, tie a standard, singe bowline using both strands of the bight, and clip the end to your harness using a screwgate crab.

CB

1
 nniff 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

I prefer to tie a double bowline and step though that loop.  Far more of a knot than a lark's foot which doesn't offer much if only one rope is taking the strain (and in this regard it is very different to a cow's tail in which  both sides take the strain)

In reply to elizabethporter:

Thanks for all the responses! 

For clarification: I am not looking for advice on how I could otherwise tie in to the middle of the rope; I know of several other techniques and am happy and comfortable using them. I am just looking specifically for advice on whether this method is safe or not. 

Also the context was: he was leading single-pitch routes at stanage, climbing on the middle of the rope and using either end of the rope as a half to climb on and then bring up two seconds. 

Post edited at 12:58
cb294 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

Perfectly safe.

CB

1
In reply to Offwidth:

Yes it was this! Thanks for the info, why would you not want to use it for lead falls?

In reply to cb294:

Confused :S didn't you just say you wouldn't use it for pitched climbing?

In reply to Will Hunt:

Yes to the single pitch crag but the leader was tied in to the middle with the larks foot and the seconds were tied in to one end each.

 guisboro andy 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

If one side of rope was cut (unlikely but) then the end may pull through.

 Alkis 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Phil79:

In that context, I prefer tying with a bowline on a bight and then passing the loop over head and around my waist, rather than doing a stopper knot.

 Will Hunt 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

OK. I doubt you'll get a definitive answer as to whether it's safe as it's unlikely to have been tested, but there's a number of ways in which this method introduces undue risk for no good reason. A better way of thinking about it would be to wonder why they haven't done something simple to mitigate these risks - like tying in with a fig-8. No slippage of the rope then.

And then you might ask, if there's three people in the party and they're at a single pitch crag, is there really a good reason that they haven't brought two ropes? One can carry the rack and the other two take a rope each.

Post edited at 13:34
cb294 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

Sorry, I was talking about an Alpine context, where I do indeed use it for the middle person during scrambling and easy simul-climbing, just because it is fast and adjustable, but not for actual pitched climbing (where escaping the system may be important).

Stanage single pitch is entirely different.  If I have a single rope and want to bring up two seconds I would tie in differently, but to directly answer your original question, it seems perfectly safe. 

CB

 Offwidth 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

For what I use it for yes (never anything hard for me). There are many ways to tie in to the middle but I more rarely  worry about rope length and never needed to move a knot when seconding, so I've always use a different method.

1
 Mike Stretford 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Will Hunt:

> OK. I doubt you'll get a definitive answer as to whether it's safe as it's unlikely to have been tested,

I've seen someone test it, it was ok.

> but there's a number of ways in which this method introduces undue risk for no good reason. A better way of thinking about it would be to wonder why they haven't done something simple to mitigate these risks - like tying in with a fig-8. No slippage of the rope then.

It has to be a big bulky figure of eight. I'd go for a bowline on the blight.

> And then you might ask, if there's three people in the party and they're at a single pitch crag, is there really a good reason that they haven't brought two ropes? One can carry the rack and the other two take a rope each.

As with most things, it's risk versus benefit. I've only ever seen it used on short single pitch where the leader is climbing well within their ability. In that scenario, if our group only has 1 double rope, stopping off in Hathersage to spend £100 on another one probably isn't worth it.

 nniff 02 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

> Yes it was this! Thanks for the info, why would you not want to use it for lead falls?

Because if you're leading on double ropes, you're going to fall on one strand held by something that is not a knot but just a hitch.  Ask yourself why you don't tie in normally at the end of the rope like that - it would be dead easy, after all.   Your only security really comes from a very, very long loose end and the hope that nothing melts though and that it all tightens up before you hit the ground

Post edited at 13:49
 Mike Stretford 02 Sep 2019
In reply to nniff: The belayer would be holding the other end, or loose end as you put it. Having seen this tested, the scenario you are imaging just wouldn't happen. I'd challenge anyone to try and slide a load down a rope in this way, and that would be through a metal krab where you'd have a better chance.

I's not ideal for a number of reasons. However, I've seen it used in circumstances where I couldn't really object. It's when the leader has wanted to leave the second with the end of a rope to tie into, as that is what they are used to.

 Offwidth 02 Sep 2019
In reply to nniff:

I suspect you're over-estimating risk on a typical crag small fall factor scenario.. a more likely problem with falls would be some potential sheath damage from movement as the rope tightens over itself and the harness... more a reduction of lifetime than a breakage risk (another reason I wouldn't use it with seconds likley to fall).  I've tested the 'knot' and it self-locks very effectively with a shock load on one end.  I've never properly fallen on the knot but I'll ask Chris next time I see him if he knows anyone who has. The Petzl link from the earlier thread is now dead.

I use the Alpine Butterfly for the middle of a three on one rope in alpine or scrambling situations but a CTDK can also be used to attach the loop to the harness (better than a locking crab that risks cross loading or the rope rubbing against the gate).

1
 nniff 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.  Assume,  to make things easier, that there is one piece of gear with one rope clipped to it.  If the leader falls,  all that is holding them is one strand held by a bit of friction,  The other end is flapping in the breeze.   If that loose end were only a foot long, there is no way you would climb on it, i.e. that your standard tie-in method would be a re-threaded lark's foot with a one foot tail.

If we assume a second runner for the second rope, the lark's foot only becomes a functioning hitch after that rope comes tight, which it might do if the configuration is a 'baby bouncer'.  Alternatively, it won't come tight at all, because it's already failed.

Anyway, we look forward to seeing you climb for preference with one end of a single rope larks-footed around your harness, with a stopper knot for good form perhaps.  I can't think why it's not more popular.

PS - if you want to tie in to the middle of the rope and lead with it, use a knot, namely a double bowline, and not a hitch

Post edited at 14:34
3
 Mike Stretford 02 Sep 2019
In reply to nniff:

> I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.  Assume,  to make things easier,

I don't need anything made easier, as I said I've seen this tested with a load.

Please explain what was wrong with my post with reference to my text. Ta.

Also, please read the second paragraph of my post before making silly suggestions.

2
 nniff 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

My, aren't we touchy.  The 'easier' element was to reduce the system to its most basic parts for the purposes of visualisation, but if you're minded to read a slight into that I'll not stand in your way.

A test is not proof.  It simply shows no failure within the boundaries of the test, which may or may not be sufficient to determine suitability under other circumstances.

You are proposing that using half of the most basic of hitches is a suitable way of tying in, but you accept that it is not ideal for a number of reasons.  I am simply saying that the limitations exceed the benefits (chief of which is simplicity, which does not count for much).  The other benefit, of course, may be that people do not know how to tie a double bowline and step though.  A double bowline essentially converts a lark's foot into a proper knot by the addition and use of the 'rabbit hole'

3
 Mike Stretford 02 Sep 2019
In reply to nniff:

> My, aren't we touchy. 

No but I was thinking you are, and have overreacted to my post.

> The 'easier' element was to reduce the system to its most basic parts for the purposes of visualisation, but if you're minded to read a slight into that I'll not stand in your way.

I didn't see any slight, I was just trying to be clear.

> A test is not proof.  It simply shows no failure within the boundaries of the test, which may or may not be sufficient to determine suitability under other circumstances.

> You are proposing that using half of the most basic of hitches is a suitable way of tying in, but you accept that it is not ideal for a number of reasons.  I am simply saying that the limitations exceed the benefits (chief of which is simplicity, which does not count for much).  The other benefit, of course, may be that people do not know how to tie a double bowline and step though.  A double bowline essentially converts a lark's foot into a proper knot by the addition and use of the 'rabbit hole'

I was just trying to point out that the scenario you had in mind for failure of this system isn't feasible. It isn't a system I use, but have played around with (I have some geeky friends, but I'm cooler than the Fonz).

Post edited at 14:59
1
 nniff 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Ok - my reservation is that a lark's foot is fine up to a point if both strands are loaded.  However, just loading one strand, as in a leader fall, is ill-advised especially when an alternative knot is barely any more complex when tied in that configuration.

 Mike Stretford 02 Sep 2019
In reply to nniff:

Cool.

In reply to Offwidth:

> For what I use it for yes (never anything hard for me). 

People can and do fall off easy things, unexpectedly.

I don’t see the justification of leading on an untested hitch.

With a doubled over half rope why would you lead on a larks foot, when you could tie on to both ends, and get your second to follow on a larks foot. I’m happy seconding on a larks foots as there are smaller forces involved, and the load will always go onto both sides of the hitch.

With two seconds I’d tie on with a rethreaded overhand or a bowline on the bite.

When scrambling as a three I create an isolation loop using an overhand in the bite, and tie folk on with a rethreaded overhand. I’m sure there are other ways to do this, but this seems a good simple way, and much safer than clipping on. 

 nniff 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Bight, not bite.  The former being a loop of rope and the latter something you do with teeth.

3
 Offwidth 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

I've said before it's only an occasional use for me but it does allows quick adjustments of the middle position on subsequent wandering routes where I know from faffing earlier with adjusting a safer knot (sometimes having to untie and pull up an end) that the rope length is very tight on the required length to reach a belay and I only have one rope (doubled up) due to inadequate guidebook info on a first visit. I think there needs to be a law on this as a form of sod's law as it seems to happen way more often than it should. On a similar subject I remember my first route last year to a new section for me at Agden where there was no stake and every extender, all slings, my hex, and spare cams were in a chain to the belay (I always take several very long slings there as you don't want to be on 20m+ of dynamic rope when on belay near enough to a loose edge to be able to communicate and to avoid any shock load raining rocks on the second).

On the risk point I might slip and fall when I often solo or roped solo as well.  I've tested shock loading the knot on one end and it locks nicely even though I have no intention of testing it with a lead fall. I can fully understand why someone being paid to instruct should avoid such practice, but hey I'm an adult and have actually chosen to climb with Chris Tan.

1
 Phil West 15 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

Chris Tan introduced me to this about 20 years ago now. The CTDK. We use it all the time on single pitch grit where the route is short. I’ve caught Chris a number of times on lead falls using it. No problems with the fall, the rope, the harness or untying the knot.

Yesterday we were climbing at Stanage and, again using the CTDK. Chris got to the top of the route, found it slimy and fell off. He was stood above his last runner and so fell around 12 feet. No problem at all.

Does this practice cause any long lasting damage to the rope middle or harness? Who knows. Is it quick and easy and does it work? Yes. Would I recommend it? No.

Phil

 Offwidth 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Phil West:

Climbing with Chris is always memorable and great fun for me. Would I recommed it to anyone, no

2
 Phil West 16 Sep 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Oh I would! Everyone could do with a little Chris in their climbing (or the pub) life

Phil

 Offwidth 16 Sep 2019
In reply to Phil West:

If only all climbers were that open. My comments are nothing against Chris who is the equivalent of a hidden gem of the world of climbing in my view.

1
 Phil West 17 Sep 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Oh I know

#bemorechris

 henwardian 17 Sep 2019
In reply to elizabethporter:

I've seen it before and I've used it before (albeit as rather more novelty than necessity). I've got a German friend who is very, very hot on the safest possible way to do all things climby as a result of him being a mixture of Germanic, an instructor and a rope access worker. He showed me this technique originally and didn't mention any safety concerns to do with it, so aside from it being hard to undo/get out of, I would be very surprised if it was unsafe in any way.

 Misha 25 Sep 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

There are two simple solutions to your problem with not having enough rope on one side. Either take two ropes or climb on one rope  without doubling it over, just using lots of extenders. The latter might not work on wandering routes of course.

Taking two ropes is a pretty standard approach in the UK with our frequently wandering routes. I see no need to create issues by reason of taking only one. I do take only one sometimes but only when I’m sure I can manage rope drag etc, if necessary by splitting pitches.

It is beyond me why people would take only one rope on grit but them double it up, other than sheer laziness or being too tight to buy a second rope. Ropes aren’t that heavy. The risk of messing up some weird rope manipulation manoeuvre required as a result of doubling up a rope is not a risk worth taking. Climbing is dangerous enough as it is. 

2
 Offwidth 26 Sep 2019
In reply to Misha:

Now you are just being silly: the risk was trivial and it seemed the best practical solution to a real but rare problem, with the benefit of being a knowing nod to a good friend (who is reported here as happily taking lead falls on the 'knot'). I share ownership of about 10 usable ropes of various types and lengths but why on earth being an old man with bunions would I always take the weight of an extra rope 'just in case'. I actually delight in problem solving my way out of a puzzle, whether the cause be unexpected or because I stupidly forgot something. Call me old fashioned but I see being able to adapt and think laterally about solutions as key skills in adventure climbing.

Post edited at 10:51
1
 Andy Long 26 Sep 2019
In reply to nniff:

That's very sound until you need to escape from the system. I simply tie a bowline with the bight and secure the end loop by clipping it to the harness with a krab.

 Misha 26 Sep 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Each to their own I suppose. If you're happy to accept the faff/risk of dealing with the issue as and when it arises, that's obviously up to you. I fully agree that it's good to be able to solve issues which may arise in climbing but personally I prefer to avoid potential issues in the first place as climbing can be hard enough without creating additional problems! At the end of the day, we all make our own judgments on what would be an appropriate approach in a given situation and there isn't necessarily a right or wrong answer in every case.

2

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...