Nice!! Convenience comes with cost, either the cost of equipment or safety. It's the responsible thing to do, we know the level of competency in the climbers that will be on open systems is low.
All levels of experience can enjoy the ease of using open systems, and not having to untie when cleaning the anchor. Adding additional security to open systems also brings benefits too, yes, maybe at some more cost, or a few more seconds putting the rope in. It's just the direction some are moving towards for single pitch routes.
Is your primary concern the lower-off after cleaning a TR temp anchor (decreasing wear on the fixed gear) or a lower-off following a sport or trad send?
I understand how doing something funky at the anchor when transitioning from a TR anchor to the 2 anchor carabiners with gates facing the same way (mussy hooks in the case of the recent accident in Alabama) is problematic for a climber that isn't sure what the rope should look like in the anchor before taking (or coming off whatever PAS system they choose). With a lower off after a send, there really isn't any addition to the anchor to complicate things. However with some forms of open anchor systems, they are not as forgiving if a climber were to climb above the anchors. Or if they were clipped from above then the climber decides to go below them to set-up a toprope. And if they were situated lower (like waist level) rather than eye-level. (As outlined in this ASCA article: safeclimbing.org/lower-off-initiative ) Weird stuff can happen then. Things like double-clipping or being unthreaded from a single ram's horn. So yes, in reality user-error. But there is a growing trend and inclination as reflected in innovation and practices towards more security and backups in some things we use. The content I create won't resonate with everybody, but everyone could learn something from someone else. But in terms of putting things into practice, well, that's more complicated.
@@climbingtaiwan Fair enough. Teaching people to not z-clip when leading is unfortunately a minor art for a reason-yet teaching them that continuing above an anchor just doesn't register as being the same hazard for some reason. The organization I'm part of mostly uses "old fashioned" rings at the anchors of areas we maintain, generally only putting more "sporty" things like Mussy Hooks up upon (frequently repeated) request.
Kevin - I think these are great but if they were to made the standard I would be so frustrated. Lower offs are meant to be quick, simple solutions to cleaning. I appreciate the thought you put into this but my personal take is that I don't see this as the future.
Thanks for sharing your feedback. Sometimes adding more safety features comes at a cost of convenience/or cost. The content I make isn't quite to convince the masses. It's just to show others who might already be looking for something different to equip their anchors with some other options. For me here in Asia, a lot of DIY configurations is way cheaper than premade/preassembled ones. I got some new stuff I'm working on in terms of open anchors that ticks a lot of boxes in terms of ease-of-use for open systems, and plan to eventually get into sourcing price-competive hardware. Places outside of North America have been interested too. (But to be frank about Mussy Hooks, very little innovation has gone into them. They're quite inexpensive, but there's a bunch of wasted metal on them that could be piled up on the wear-points instead. And the open-lip gap that easily invites a double clip has gotta go too).
@@climbingtaiwan What makes Mussy Hooks cheap is that they are quite literally a variant of an already commercially available product (designed for a completely different use).
@@DrewNorthup True. And they have great value. With what Climbtech sold them for(cheaper wholesale) before discontinuing them, and now what sportbolting.com is selling them for (cheaper wholesale too), it's hard to choose something else that gets tons of mileage for the money. I'll just copy and paste my follow -up comments in mountainproject here specifically talking about 2 mussy hooks: The fact that multiple threads & posts in social media reflect differing comments in them shows some out there are looking for alternatives, (or even better) improvements, ones that can still tick many boxes of what a majority wants in an open anchor system. No question, 2 "mussy hooks" offer great value and ease on an anchor, and at $8 or so (a few bucks cheaper wholesale), they get a lot of mileage. However, other than going with a beefier one and ditching the factory gate in favor of a wiregate now, there's been little innovation with them. Imagine repurposing the metal on the backside of the hook and loading it up on the bottom where it only sees wear, you'd get WAY more mileage on a single hook using the same amount of metal. --Yes, a new cast needs to be made. But other adjustments can be made too where there isn't a big lip (gap) where the gate is that is inviting for double-clips. +Other modifications that can add more security while maintaining the ease of "dropping the rope in". And if anyone is interested, hoist hooks are also available in 304 and 316 stainless steel. Cost for R&D costs less for me here in Asia. So is getting factories to make stuff. So I'm see things differently.
Those wiregates, even opposed, wear over time exposed to the elements. These are all good and well when they're brand new, but really just have rap rings and people take two lockers. If that's too complicated they shouldn't be there.
Yes, they'll wear down, that's why in the U.S. a lot of open anchor systems have been switch to Mussy Hooks in high traffic areas, there's a lot more metal on them and they're pretty inexpensive. Switching to rings changes the anchor system to a "closed" anchor type. Which requires more steps to clean, and has its own pros and cons. If you're in the U.S., you can check out the article by the ASCA safeclimbing.org/lower-off-initiative of why they advocate for open anchor systems.
Nice!! Convenience comes with cost, either the cost of equipment or safety. It's the responsible thing to do, we know the level of competency in the climbers that will be on open systems is low.
All levels of experience can enjoy the ease of using open systems, and not having to untie when cleaning the anchor. Adding additional security to open systems also brings benefits too, yes, maybe at some more cost, or a few more seconds putting the rope in. It's just the direction some are moving towards for single pitch routes.
Is your primary concern the lower-off after cleaning a TR temp anchor (decreasing wear on the fixed gear) or a lower-off following a sport or trad send?
I understand how doing something funky at the anchor when transitioning from a TR anchor to the 2 anchor carabiners with gates facing the same way (mussy hooks in the case of the recent accident in Alabama) is problematic for a climber that isn't sure what the rope should look like in the anchor before taking (or coming off whatever PAS system they choose). With a lower off after a send, there really isn't any addition to the anchor to complicate things. However with some forms of open anchor systems, they are not as forgiving if a climber were to climb above the anchors. Or if they were clipped from above then the climber decides to go below them to set-up a toprope. And if they were situated lower (like waist level) rather than eye-level. (As outlined in this ASCA article: safeclimbing.org/lower-off-initiative ) Weird stuff can happen then. Things like double-clipping or being unthreaded from a single ram's horn. So yes, in reality user-error. But there is a growing trend and inclination as reflected in innovation and practices towards more security and backups in some things we use.
The content I create won't resonate with everybody, but everyone could learn something from someone else. But in terms of putting things into practice, well, that's more complicated.
@@climbingtaiwan Fair enough. Teaching people to not z-clip when leading is unfortunately a minor art for a reason-yet teaching them that continuing above an anchor just doesn't register as being the same hazard for some reason.
The organization I'm part of mostly uses "old fashioned" rings at the anchors of areas we maintain, generally only putting more "sporty" things like Mussy Hooks up upon (frequently repeated) request.
Kevin - I think these are great but if they were to made the standard I would be so frustrated. Lower offs are meant to be quick, simple solutions to cleaning. I appreciate the thought you put into this but my personal take is that I don't see this as the future.
Thanks for sharing your feedback. Sometimes adding more safety features comes at a cost of convenience/or cost. The content I make isn't quite to convince the masses. It's just to show others who might already be looking for something different to equip their anchors with some other options. For me here in Asia, a lot of DIY configurations is way cheaper than premade/preassembled ones. I got some new stuff I'm working on in terms of open anchors that ticks a lot of boxes in terms of ease-of-use for open systems, and plan to eventually get into sourcing price-competive hardware. Places outside of North America have been interested too. (But to be frank about Mussy Hooks, very little innovation has gone into them. They're quite inexpensive, but there's a bunch of wasted metal on them that could be piled up on the wear-points instead. And the open-lip gap that easily invites a double clip has gotta go too).
@@climbingtaiwan 100% agree with your last few points about mussy hooks!
@@climbingtaiwan What makes Mussy Hooks cheap is that they are quite literally a variant of an already commercially available product (designed for a completely different use).
@@DrewNorthup True. And they have great value. With what Climbtech sold them for(cheaper wholesale) before discontinuing them, and now what sportbolting.com is selling them for (cheaper wholesale too), it's hard to choose something else that gets tons of mileage for the money. I'll just copy and paste my follow -up comments in mountainproject here specifically talking about 2 mussy hooks:
The fact that multiple threads & posts in social media reflect differing comments in them shows some out there are looking for alternatives, (or even better) improvements, ones that can still tick many boxes of what a majority wants in an open anchor system.
No question, 2 "mussy hooks" offer great value and ease on an anchor, and at $8 or so (a few bucks cheaper wholesale), they get a lot of mileage. However, other than going with a beefier one and ditching the factory gate in favor of a wiregate now, there's been little innovation with them.
Imagine repurposing the metal on the backside of the hook and loading it up on the bottom where it only sees wear, you'd get WAY more mileage on a single hook using the same amount of metal. --Yes, a new cast needs to be made. But other adjustments can be made too where there isn't a big lip (gap) where the gate is that is inviting for double-clips. +Other modifications that can add more security while maintaining the ease of "dropping the rope in".
And if anyone is interested, hoist hooks are also available in 304 and 316 stainless steel.
Cost for R&D costs less for me here in Asia. So is getting factories to make stuff. So I'm see things differently.
Those wiregates, even opposed, wear over time exposed to the elements. These are all good and well when they're brand new, but really just have rap rings and people take two lockers. If that's too complicated they shouldn't be there.
Yes, they'll wear down, that's why in the U.S. a lot of open anchor systems have been switch to Mussy Hooks in high traffic areas, there's a lot more metal on them and they're pretty inexpensive. Switching to rings changes the anchor system to a "closed" anchor type. Which requires more steps to clean, and has its own pros and cons. If you're in the U.S., you can check out the article by the ASCA safeclimbing.org/lower-off-initiative of why they advocate for open anchor systems.