|
dymondbak37
May 20, 2004, 7:30 PM
Post #26 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2002
Posts: 212
|
Shouldn't the leg of the anchor going to the tree, be a complete piece of cordelette, without the 2 biners in the middle there?
|
|
|
|
|
elron
May 20, 2004, 7:35 PM
Post #27 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 480
|
dymondbak... that would be a looong cordelette! :) in this case the second cordelette is being used as a long sling to bring the tree into the anchor. Its attached to the anchor cordelette with two biners and looks pretty solid (with the exception of the knot under discussion)
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 20, 2004, 7:40 PM
Post #28 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Sounds like you have some educational issues to address concerning your area's rules and use traditions.
Re: the setup, the blue runner looks to be a good knot on the pic, it's certainly in fine condition, can't see the other one well, ... that setup looks fine to me. 3 solid looking pieces, the tree is bomber of course.
Yeah, I'd climb on it, no question. Now tell me, did I just step in it by saying that?
Here's wishing you the best of luck with upcoming training/area issues though, thanks for sharing here, I wonder how you can get the word out there? Copys of "rules" under windshield wipers and posted at gear shops and gyms?
Regards:
Bill :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
ropeburn
May 20, 2004, 7:45 PM
Post #29 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2003
Posts: 594
|
I don't think I'd girth hitch two trees that far apart with one piece of sling. I may just be being anal, but I would think that would possibly put unnecessary inward force on the trees as well providing the chance that the sling would move around and mess up the tree. Of course this is all moot if you’re not supposed to slinging these trees in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 7:52 PM
Post #30 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: Shouldn't the leg of the anchor going to the tree, be a complete piece of cordelette, without the 2 biners in the middle there?
Sometimes you have to extend the placements, then tie the cordalette off the extensions so that the cordalette can reach to where it's needed. Two biners, opposite and opposed, are fine. In fact, if the knot was different and they weren't anchored off the pitch pines - and, as someone pointed out, they wouldn't sling both trees like that - it'd be a very good anchor.
T
|
|
|
|
|
dfrancom
May 20, 2004, 7:59 PM
Post #31 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2004
Posts: 36
|
Looks like the rope around the tree is a larks foot with an angle of about 65 deg. I think 45 deg or less would be much stronger. Larks foots are good on a horn where there is danger of the rope slipping off. In this situation though the rope is obviously not going to slip up the tree!!
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
litedawg
May 20, 2004, 8:05 PM
Post #32 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2001
Posts: 337
|
For this I recommend a 2 1/4 inch serrated Spatha and that you help them by fixing the problem yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
kimmyt
May 20, 2004, 8:15 PM
Post #33 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 4546
|
In reply to: Sounds like you have some educational issues to address concerning your area's rules and use traditions.
Brings up something I was always curious about, Tai....why doesn't PK have any signs saying anchoring off the pines is a no-go?? I mean, when you told me about the rule, I don't recall ever seeing ANYTHING saying not to do it, which might explain why you see so many people anchoring off of them.
Not that you can do anything about them, but I was just curious if you knew the answer, or maybe I just missed the signs.....
K.
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
May 20, 2004, 8:16 PM
Post #34 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
In reply to: In reply to: you can't tell what knot it is...what, an overhand? Correct - overhand knot, with no backup. Should have been a grapevine; overhand knots like that - silimar to an EDK - have a tendency to roll unless backed up tight to the first knot. And Kimmy - damned right I was furious, especially with both of those lovely cracks right there, begging to accept pro. Crap like that can and will get PK closed. They don't have a lot of rules, there, but anchoring off of Pitch Pines is forbidden. T
Maybe I can't see it well enough in the picture, but it didn't appear that the purpose of the overhand was to join the ends of the cord around the tree. It looks like it was to shorten it (since the cord appears to be girth hitched to the tree). I don't disagree with the idea of getting it out of the biners or backing it up, but assuming that is a bight I see coming out of the end, I don't think a grapvine would be useful to shorten it.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 8:19 PM
Post #35 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sounds like you have some educational issues to address concerning your area's rules and use traditions. Brings up something I was always curious about, Tai....why doesn't PK have any signs saying anchoring off the pines is a no-go?? I mean, when you told me about the rule, I don't recall ever seeing ANYTHING saying not to do it, which might explain why you see so many people anchoring off of them. Not that you can do anything about them, but I was just curious if you knew the answer, or maybe I just missed the signs..... K.
I'm curious about that myself, Kim; there's only one place I've seen it - on a little POS pamphlet that they used to give out when they sold the day passes out of the booth instead of out of the office. They haven't handed one out in about a year. It's not in the guidebook at all. I have never gotten a straight answer when asking a ranger about it, either. *shrug*
Frankly, I'd love to have a PK 2nd Edition guide printed up, with the new routes that have been discovered, the corrected ratings instead of just an arbitrary number, and that VERY important information about the pitch pines. That's in addition to a prominent sign or several about them.
T
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 8:28 PM
Post #36 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: you can't tell what knot it is...what, an overhand? Correct - overhand knot, with no backup. Should have been a grapevine; overhand knots like that - silimar to an EDK - have a tendency to roll unless backed up tight to the first knot. And Kimmy - damned right I was furious, especially with both of those lovely cracks right there, begging to accept pro. Crap like that can and will get PK closed. They don't have a lot of rules, there, but anchoring off of Pitch Pines is forbidden. T Maybe I can't see it well enough in the picture, but it didn't appear that the purpose of the overhand was to join the ends of the cord around the tree. It looks like it was to shorten it (since the cord appears to be girth hitched to the tree). I don't disagree with the idea of getting it out of the biners or backing it up, but assuming that is a bight I see coming out of the end, I don't think a grapvine would be useful to shorten it.
Good point, and yes it definitely looks that way. However, you can tie a grapevine at any point on a rope - making a very small loop in an otherwise very long piece of rope if needs-be. There are also other ways to fix the situation, such as tying the accessory cord in a loop around both trees, then making a two-point cordalette out of it by pulling the middle through and tying the ends into a fig8-bight (therefore splitting the load on the trees instead of increasing it). You could also tie a re-threaded figure8 around the trees and a figure8-bight for the biners, or a re-threaded fig8 around the trees and a clove-hitch for the biners, or a double- or triple-fisherman's knot in a loop around the trees with either of the two other options above for the other end, etc. *shrug* Of those options, the first has the best redundancy and causes the least pressure on the trees.
T
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
May 20, 2004, 8:32 PM
Post #37 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
In reply to: not an optimal set-up with the thin trees and the knot in the biners, but certainly not nearly as bad as the other pic that's going around. for you guys, what diameter tree is the minimum that you would anchor to? that one looks small, but i might still use it if it's better than any other cracks or rocks around. |
|
|
|
|
meataxe
May 20, 2004, 8:42 PM
Post #38 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
In reply to: Maybe I can't see it well enough in the picture, but it didn't appear that the purpose of the overhand was to join the ends of the cord around the tree. It looks like it was to shorten it (since the cord appears to be girth hitched to the tree). I don't disagree with the idea of getting it out of the biners or backing it up, but assuming that is a bight I see coming out of the end, I don't think a grapvine would be useful to shorten it.
There would be no need to shorten the cord around the tree. Since a cordalette is used to equalize, the loop would not need to be exact.
When I looked at the knot, I thought it was the 8 version of the euro death knot, which is known to loosen when it rolls--the overhand version will tighten. I would use neither version of the EDK since they will roll. Double fishermans would be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
May 20, 2004, 8:43 PM
Post #39 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: Size-wise those trees look perfectly bomber to me. Of course bigger is always better. :wink:
I don't think it has anything to do with how big the trees are, but that constant slinging will wear away the bark and allow disease to set in. No? I know there's a fine for slinging treeas at Pilot Mnt., NC. Isn't there one at PK?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 20, 2004, 8:46 PM
Post #40 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: you can't tell what knot it is...what, an overhand? Correct - overhand knot, with no backup. Should have been a grapevine; overhand knots like that - silimar to an EDK - have a tendency to roll unless backed up tight to the first knot. And Kimmy - damned right I was furious, especially with both of those lovely cracks right there, begging to accept pro. Crap like that can and will get PK closed. They don't have a lot of rules, there, but anchoring off of Pitch Pines is forbidden. T Maybe I can't see it well enough in the picture, but it didn't appear that the purpose of the overhand was to join the ends of the cord around the tree. It looks like it was to shorten it (since the cord appears to be girth hitched to the tree). I don't disagree with the idea of getting it out of the biners or backing it up, but assuming that is a bight I see coming out of the end, I don't think a grapvine would be useful to shorten it. Good point, and yes it definitely looks that way. However, you can tie a grapevine at any point on a rope - making a very small loop in an otherwise very long piece of rope if needs-be.
Yes, but ususally you're dealing with an already tied cordelette, and you'd have to untie the existing knot to retie a grapevine to shorten the cordelette. My cordelettes were tied like 5 years ago. I don't know if could untie them without using plyers. Plus a grapevine is difficult to adjust. The overhand knot is probably ok, since it's a TR set up and the arm with the knot sharing the load with two other arms of the anchor. My preference, however, is to shorten a cordellette by tying it to the biner with a double clove hitch (ie, one clove hitch tied while holding both strands of the cordelette together).
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
antigrav
May 20, 2004, 8:47 PM
Post #41 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2003
Posts: 215
|
Since the anchor is for toproping (so presumably there is plenty of time and opportunity to make a "perfect" anchor), wouldn't it be an idea to use something else than camming devices for pro? I've been told to avoid them in these circumstances, because of the walking tendencies... :?
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 8:48 PM
Post #42 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: In reply to: Size-wise those trees look perfectly bomber to me. Of course bigger is always better. :wink: I don't think it has anything to do with how big the trees are, but that constant slinging will wear away the bark and allow disease to set in. No? I know there's a fine for slinging treeas at Pilot Mnt., NC. Isn't there one at PK?
I think so, or you might be asked to leave. As I don't use the trees, I've never had to deal with the consequences.
I'll try to find out the next time I'm up there.
T
|
|
|
|
|
coclimber26
May 20, 2004, 8:52 PM
Post #44 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 928
|
If I were to girth the two small tree's I would put the bar of the girth to the right so it ratchets tight when loaded or better yet make several wraps of the tree then girth...really not a big deal here because the pull is mostly horizontal. Even though the double barrel is prefered the over hand could work in this case. In the unlikely even that the EDK rolled there apears to be more than enough tail for a roll. When the EDK rolls once it becomes much stronger and has less of a chance of rolling again...From what I've read about EKD rolls it happens with around 5-7kn of force. Not likely on this toprope unless both cams blew and the knot was shockloaded by a 300lb climber. Don't like the knot weighted on the biner though..If loaded and the knot shifts it will weight the two cams and leave some slack in the line to the trees if the cordelete was equalized correctly that is...No need for the two biners on each piece but again it doesn't hurt. The cams look like good placements but can't say about the rock quality. I would bet that the lower cam is placed in less than optimal rock and that flake may expand. I would probably use some tubular around the cordalete strands running over the edge......but I'd ride it just like it is.
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
May 20, 2004, 9:26 PM
Post #45 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
OK OK with the pitch pine thing but shouldn't that be posted in some regional forum; and OK, the other thread has a really BAD TR anchor; but in regards to this thread, technically at least, I have two words:
ANCHOR NAZIS.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 9:30 PM
Post #46 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: OK OK with the pitch pine thing but shouldn't that be posted in some regional forum; and OK, the other thread has a really BAD TR anchor; but in regards to this thread, technically at least, I have two words: ANCHOR NAZIS.
While I wholeheartedly object to the incredibly negative connocations brought in by the use of the word Nazi, yes - I'm fanatic about anchors. *shrug*
T
|
|
|
|
|
brianthew
May 20, 2004, 9:39 PM
Post #47 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 1820
|
In reply to: I've been told to avoid them in these circumstances, because of the walking tendencies...
I wouldn't be concerned too much about cams as top-rope anchors walking. What causes cams to walk is typically back-and-forth movement of the rope when one is leading. When the cams are at the anchor, this sort of movement would be pretty much zero. The rope is just sliding through the anchor point, and in case of a fall, giving a straight tug on the pieces. Of course, sometimes there's more to it than that, but simple inspection of placements should nullify fears of walking anchor cams.
I climb often at Devil's Lake, WI, which is a crag comprised of the most bullet, frictionless quartzite there is. Cams will walk like crazy on lead, but I don't mind them at all as top-rope anchors provided they're put in a good placement.
In reply to: I have two words: ANCHOR NAZIS.
Though this isn't a horrible or crazy unsafe anchor, with the only major technical problem being the knot, being an anchor nazi in the case of top-rope setups, I think, is completely justified. You're not climbing while setting up the anchor, so spending a bit more effort inspecting things and getting your anchor as close to "perfect" as possible is a good thing. Remember, when you're top-roping, all you have is the anchor. Should that single element fail, you will be freesoloing.
|
|
|
|
|
corpse
May 20, 2004, 9:51 PM
Post #48 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 822
|
It is so much NOT an issue of being a safety nazi or anchor nazi - I feel it's purely about education. And more things you SEE wrong, is hopefully one less thing you DO wrong.. I've come up with the idea before (in the suggestions thread), of having a picture category simply called Anchors; this way everyone could leave comments on pros/cons/flames :roll: whatever on the design of the anchor. Only problem with that of course, is you are limited to 1 photo, and in this case its good to see multiple photos.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
May 20, 2004, 9:55 PM
Post #49 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Excellent discussion.
What I saw when I first clicked on the pics was the knot at the biners, that for me was the most glaringly obvious mistake. I wouldn`t use an overhand in this situation nor would I ever girth hitch a tree. I would always simply sling the tree and clip both ends of the sling/cordalette to a biner and extend down from there. If I was ever to girth hitch anything I would always go a second wrap which becomes a 95% rope strength knot as opposed to the single wrap girth hitch at 60% rope strength. Doubling the sling/cordalette will in fact be 2x rope strength and also be much kinder to the tree. Yes I am talking about single trees here.
The other thing I observed with this setup is in relation to the cams. Those cracks are horizontal and very close to the top of the cliff, how good are those plates that the cams are under. Would the plates lift under camming pressure. They probably would not as the plates are pretty huge but it is something to consider when placing cams.
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
May 20, 2004, 10:01 PM
Post #50 of 70
(7534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
about those cams -- the top one looks undercammed and that's a shallow placement. the bottom one looks like a black TCU, which, in my opinion (this has been heavily debated elsewhere) is almost always a marginal piece -- the camming range is so small it needs to be placed exactly right -- and this rock seems to have lots of irregularities.
Would this hold, definitly. But I'm not super happy about either cam (or the tree).
|
|
|
|
|
|
