UKH

Building on the post by Chris Craggs.

On routes that have fixed lower offs, for example staples, without replaceable parts. Would the following be sensible general advice?

"If you have the time and money, please whenever you find a fixed non-replaceable anchor, add two quick links in series to each staple/bolt and do them up hard with a spanner."

Or is it more complex? Although top roping does unnecessarily wear stables, I can't see how it does this much faster per climber than lowering, so in the end even if people got the message, please don't top rope through staples, we would still have to replace the staples in the end?

It seems to me that having fixed anchors without replaceable parts doesn't really tick the sustainable box for the sport. And therefore by extension, whenever any of us lowers off through a staple or equivalent we are not acting in a sustainable way, as a cheap, quick, more sustainable alternative exists - add a quick link. Others went to great expensive and put a lot of time into creating the routes we all use. Surely we have a duty to preserve their work.

I can see people being nervous about re equipping routes - the only bolts I've placed have been hand drilled, and I'd probably glue my fingers to the wall. But adding a few quicklinks is within the skill set of most of us.

Are there potential issues with any of the following, or anything else:

1. people using mank from ebay, not certified quick links?

2. the links coming undone over time?

3. dissimilar metals? (would the recommendation be stainless steel or mild steel?)

4. the whole thing might increase the numbers top roping through the kit "as it is replaceable" leading to a faster replacement cycle

5. more top roping through anchors that had not been up graded, as it has then become the norm

6. worn sharp-edged death quick links all over the place because no one has replaced them (which might be harder than adding them in the first place).

7. ?? anything else

It just seems to me that through some combination of local enthusiasm and not using fixed anchors without replaceable parts, many other nations do this a little better than us. Back in the day, I think I remember the advice when climbing on the bolted routes in Spain was to try and leave a quick link per visit, or maybe it was per day (Chris, did you put that in an article or guidebook?). I for one must have left over one hundred. I sure others did the same.

If this isn't a mad or dangerous suggestion, might a further suggestion be: if no replaceable parts and you aren't planning on adding any, please abseil, not lower, to make the anchors last longer. I'm guessing that would be enough of a pain to generate enough quick links, quite quickly. Surely we should be using the most sustainable option where practicable. I've even thought of a slogan "Add or Ab". Sorry.

Broadly, unless there was an issue with a specific anchor wearing out I'd stick to the old "top rope through your draws, then lower off the bolts after your last go".

My understanding is that this is quite a tricky issue in corrosive environments e.g. close to the sea. As I understand it even fairly small differences in materials can cause galvanic corrosion issues e.g. even different stainless alloys could cause problems, so you want to be fairly confident in what the bolts are made from and what your maillons are made from before you start adding them on. Working out what's what is not necessarily an easy task.

The trouble with 'quick links' (I assume you mean maillons?) is that if it is two bolts and two links and the orientation isn't correct, it can really twist the rope badly.

The French sorted this years ago - two bolts > chains > ring (or two bolts > chains > maillons > ring). The ring is free to rotate and lasts years longer than a fixed krab (or staple) - I can't believe this set-up isn't universal. Of course, it is way more expensive than old krabs or homemade staples!

Chris

Unfortunately, the cheap ones, which people are understandably happier about donating, aren't stainless; they tend to corrode and get seized in place, and eventually (hopefully) somebody then has to cut them off. For the same reason, they're not a great choice for bailing off a route - they do tend to become permanent "litter". A leaver crab is better.

But at least the wear is confined to the lower-off, so it's about half. That's assuming a straightforward top rope ascent, and not resting/practising/dogging the route, in which case the wear is significantly greater.

Hi Chris,

That's why I said two maillons in series per bolt. i.e. forming a 2 link mini chain.

D

Thanks.

But is that right? I'm guessing that the vast majority of the wear is when lowering, not pulling the un-weighted rope through on the ascent?

Just copy what the BMC and bolt funds do.

A rated Stainless steel maillon rapide and ring. By all means use chains but they cost more and look fugly. Depends on location.

I'd suggest contacting the local bolt fund to source the correct kit at a good price because we buy in bulk. 

If attaching a maillon to a plate hanger ensure it is not too skinny because the sharp edge will start to etch away at it.

I love the idea of abseiling off BBs in theory but in practice I think it would cause a lot more accidents. Making sure your rope goes through the rings and you're tied in is much less complex than getting out the system, pulling your rope up and through and making sure both ends touch down, attaching a safe abseil and getting down without dropping to your doom.

A maillon and a ring is better than two maillons. The ring tends to rotate so the wear is spread.

Hi Paul, that was kind of what I was assuming. Abseiling is such a pain, people might cough up for a  few quick links.

Thanks. Excellent advice. But how do we try and make this common practice? 

The abrasion is a function of the surface stress on the contact point between rope and anchor as well as speed of rope movement and the difference in material hardness.

Think of the rope as being a piece of sandpaper on wood, if you barely load it you will barely scratch the surface, if you push down on it you will remove a visible quantity of material. Now do that really quickly and you will have a chunk of material missing (don't underestimate belt sanders!).

Some wear will occur under the low amount of load associated with someone cruising up a route without weighting the rope, much more will occur when they lower off.

If you are interested in the technical side of this start reading about tribology, cry at the maths (I did when revising for the exams) and then probably don't opt to do specific calculations about how much better pulling an unloaded rope through is than lowering.

Thanks. I quite like maths, but will leave it with your "much more will occur when they lower", for the moment!

This brings more potential problems and dangers than it solves.
 

The last thing we should be doing ins encouraging anyone to leave anything on a route. There’s nothing worse than getting the the top of a route and finding that perfectly good, stainless, smooth staples have now got a load of tatty, shaped edged, rusted shut mallions on them that are now going to run against my rope as I lower.

I’d argue the opposite, if you find an unnecessary mallion on a route, that clearly hasn’t been placed by the equipper take the bloody thing off before it’s rusted shut and put it in the bin.

When equipping routes I do not routinely add a maillon and ring to the belay. There are a number of factors to consider and the most important is likely popularity and with which user group.

As discussed in another current thread the 5's at Moss Rake are attempted by hundreds of people every season and many of them inexperienced yet a few miles away down in the dales there are much harder and stepper routes that see little or no traffic in a season which are "generally" climbed on by people who don't top rope and certainly not through the fixed gear.

I agree. However, the idea posited above about having a maillon and then a ring could be worth considering, at least if rusting due to incompatible metal types could be controlled:

• It would be clear that the equipper intended them to remain in place.
• The ring would not wear in the same place and therefore not as quickly.
• There would be no chance of a rope unscrewing the maillon.
• The whole lot could be replaced if needed without redrilling.

What are the thoughts on metal-on-metal wear of maiilon against bolt/staple? Putting aside the issue of galvanic corrosion already mentioned.

Actually yes, you're right, assuming a clean toprope ascent.  

I wonder what proportion of toprope ascents are clean in practice, though. I'm imagining why a second climber up would choose to toprope rather than lead - aren't they likely to be less experienced and/or less able, in which case lots of falling off and dogging?

I'm not sure about this - just guessing

.... also, just occurred to me, once the rope is in place, there could be lots of toprope attempts - by members of a group perhaps. In which case, the wear from climbing, as opposed to lowering, could be considerable.

Sure I get your point, but if we’re encouraging people inexperienced in equipping routes go round and start making additions to them the incompatible metal issue will arise time and time again, and we’ll end up with more mallions and other bit and bobs in circulation and junking up routes.  

We should be encouraging climbers to stop using horrible mallions whatsoever.  If you really must bail ona route and leave something on it, just use a ‘biner and suck up the cost. 

The advice as it is is fine, try to leave nowt on the route, don’t top rope through the fixed gear, leave the equipping to those who know what they’re doing.

The only tool I’d reccomend sport  climbers do carry is an adjustable spanner to do up the odd loose nut if a hanger is spinning.

If your own gear is at the top then only the last person lowers off of the fixed gear. Fairly common for a pair or group to have multiple goes on the same route on top rope. If you try it 5 times, that’s 5 lower offs and only one of them needs to be on the fixed gear. 

You’re right that it will still eventually wear out, but it’ll last a lot longer if each team only lower off the fixed gear after the final try. 

I'm now a little confused. Is best practice when equipping a new route to leave just a pair of staples, or, staples to maillions to rings? I had assumed the latter, as when abroad that or something similar is what I normally find. And hence was assuming it was fine for me to add a nice fat stainless maillion and ring pair to any anchor not carrying one. I had assumed the only reason this approach was not universal in the UK was money.

Although I’m not an equipper, I think it’s a bit more complex than that, and that there are a number of factors besides cost.

For example, it may be the landowners preference that as small and and unsightly as possible gear is left, the positioning of the belay may make it unsuitable for chains & rings, local climbers may want a variety of setups at the top to teach beginners on.

I applaud the time, money and effort you’ve put into this and good intentions, but unless you’re specifically given the go ahead to make changes by the equippers I’d say it’s best to just leave things as you found them.