Thanks for the videos. Just to be clear, please will you explain the reason for moving to the nearest part of the loop after the initial ascent rather than just doing the transfer to the far side directly from the ropes you've initially ascended (after changing out from your croll into the ID)? Therefore skipping 1 step. Thanks again.
Great question. Typically a large re-anchor is rigged to avoid a hazard underneath it. Otherwise you would just do a large rope to rope transfer. The idea behind leaving the standing ropes behind you and getting fully into the loop is to maintain access on either side in case of rescue, and not to drag your standing lines through the hazard underneath. That said, if there's no hazard underneath, and no access issues, I don't see any reason why you couldn't just go straight to the far side of the loop and treat it like a small re-anchor.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for the videos. Just to be clear, please will you explain the reason for moving to the nearest part of the loop after the initial ascent rather than just doing the transfer to the far side directly from the ropes you've initially ascended (after changing out from your croll into the ID)? Therefore skipping 1 step. Thanks again.
Great question. Typically a large re-anchor is rigged to avoid a hazard underneath it. Otherwise you would just do a large rope to rope transfer.
The idea behind leaving the standing ropes behind you and getting fully into the loop is to maintain access on either side in case of rescue, and not to drag your standing lines through the hazard underneath.
That said, if there's no hazard underneath, and no access issues, I don't see any reason why you couldn't just go straight to the far side of the loop and treat it like a small re-anchor.
@@Pacificropes Great answer. Thanks!
Good techniques
Thank you! Cheers!