|
charlesjmm
Mar 13, 2006, 3:42 AM
Post #76 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 75
|
Craig, a criterion being used to evaluate all the proposed anchor designs focuses on their ability to provide continuous equalization even after placement failure occurs. Craig Short is relying on the standard Cordelette to handle a failure scenario, a system which offers no equalization in any but very precise conditions…….Just a thought to complement the pros & cons analysis.
CharlesJMM
|
|
|
|
|
fingertrouble
Mar 13, 2006, 4:13 AM
Post #77 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 54
|
Good point, Charles.
I guess it's obvious that when Craig Short has a placement failure, it converts to John Long (with a placement failure).
Failure to an equalized configuration should probably be added to the criteria list, but maybe not near the top.
Keep thinkin'!
Edited to say:
I may have been uncharacteristically brief in my response, Charles, so let me offer some more thoughts.
If I were building a multi-placement anchor, I wouldn't at first focus on whether a blown placement would result in equalized forces on the remaining placements. Instead I'd zero in on the direction of forces that would result from the failure. In other words, have I somehow created an anchor that depends on opposition for its security? If I have, equalization won't save me. If I have not, then equalization isn't critical (it has been made pretty clear that a short drop--extension--onto any good anchor isn't a big deal).
I'm not saying that failing to an equalized condition is a total red herring, only that I wouldn't give up more critical benefits to achieve it. The optimum balance among lesser criteria is open to question (and politics).
|
|
|
|
|
livinonasandbar
Mar 13, 2006, 4:33 AM
Post #78 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
This matter may have been addressed somewhere... I've haven't waded through every page of posts... however:
With the equalized sliding anchor, has anyone considered the affect of/on the belayer when the anchor extends due to a factor 2 leader fall (or a falling second) and a failed piece? If he/she is tied in--say with a short piece of the rope and a clove hitch--to the equalized point of the anchor, won't they be in for a bit of an upset? Seems their body weight and relatively static tie-in would add considerable shock to the system when they fall the length of the extension... (Potentially, they might also drop the leader while trying to recover from the surprise and shock of falling, perhaps several feet, and then jolting to a halt.)
What say?
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 13, 2006, 4:34 AM
Post #79 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Craig, to repeat one last time given I really don't think your solution is remotely the best for the following reasons even though you don't appear too interested. Again, nothing about your rig accomplishes anything the equalette doesn't (and John's equalette design is the diagram at the top of Jake's list). Also, most folks in the other thread, including John, were focusing on adequate equalization, not perfect equalization; and your idea of redundancy isn't a solution so much as an abdication.
In reply to: I can't see a single advantage to using your overlaid rig over an equalette. Certainly not KISS with two complete overlayed rigs. And again the limiting mismatch at various points of deflection unavoidably transfers the load from one rig to the other and back again which I don't much care for. I'd also have serious concerns about it all becoming a tangled mess and eccentric biner loading in the process of any serious repeated wide movements of the belayer while alternately tensioning and slacking the rig. While I see where you're coming from in the attempt I personally find this rig unsatisfying on a number of grounds and almost more a capitulation to the problem than a solution I would consider viable. Still, nice try all in all as a probe of one possible boundary extreme in the overall solution set. |
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Mar 13, 2006, 5:53 AM
Post #80 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
Reading through all these posts, everyone still misses a basic question - why bother trying to get true equalization?
- if equalization is desirable AT ALL, it must be because individual pieces are known to blow out (poor placement, rock breaking, etc)
- if individual pieces may blow out, you'll get significant extension in ANY system that approaches true equalization
- therefore, it's better to NOT equalize than to risk major extension
I've been in a number of dicey anchor situations, and the number one thing I've concluded is don't get in dicey anchor situations in the first place. Learn to recognize them, downclimb to good pro if you must, climb around to find better pro, and if worst comes to worse set your anchor and position yourself so that you do a very good job of making sure that the anchor never sees any force at all.
What I'm seeing here is fancy anchoring systems, plus lots of newer trad leaders with poor situational awareness, leading to nothing but trouble. Just think of Joshua Tree top-outs. How many newer trad leaders realize that equalizing a bunch of small gear in a grainy seam near the top of the climb is far worse than simply scrambling back 50', sitting down, and body belaying?
Before you convince me to use any true equalizing system in any but totally sketch anchors, you'll have to convince me that decades of trad climbers have just been getting very lucky with non-equalizing systems.
Haven't seen any sign of that in 40 pages of posts...
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
fingertrouble
Mar 13, 2006, 6:06 AM
Post #81 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 54
|
healyje, I haven't been ignoring you, I simply don't understand your reference to the "equalette." Others have made the same observation.
I appreciate your contributions, so if you'll summit a photo or link, I'd be happy to comment, as you might imagine. The drawing at the top of Jake's collection doesn't actually equalize, as flyinglow's photo and other posters have made abundantly clear. It's a non-starter in this game.
If one can get perfect equalization for cheap, why settle for "adequate" equalization, whatever that is?
In my book I don't trash the classic, 1-knot cordelette anchor outright, I just point out that it doesn't deliver as promised--same as John has since done. Use it with informed discretion.
But as for the drawing at the top of Jakes collection? That dog don't hunt.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 13, 2006, 6:08 AM
Post #82 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: How many newer trad leaders realize that equalizing a bunch of small gear in a grainy seam near the top of the climb is far worse than simply scrambling back 50', sitting down, and body belaying?
my god... I hope most of them... but given the evidence on the site... :shock:
In reply to: Before you convince me to use any true equalizing system in any but totally sketch anchors, you'll have to convince me that decades of trad climbers have just been getting very lucky with non-equalizing systems.
I hate to be contrarian, because I feel the same way you do. But in order to embrace a position, it's best to try destroying it first, and see how it fares. So here's the obvious rebuttal -- what about the guys on Tahquitz?
Only takes one anchor failure to kill a party.
|
|
|
|
|
fingertrouble
Mar 13, 2006, 7:04 AM
Post #83 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 54
|
Greg, I hate to be rude, but I have to say: you don't have both oars in the water on this.
Your observations are ones with which many would agree, but your conclusions don't ring true. Particularly the paranoia about extension, which I would have thought debunked by now. (If not for you yet, read the posts, do the math.)
If it's possible to invent a system that (in addition to being easy to teach and verify) provides perfect equalization for cheap, then why not? I don't believe, nor do I think that other thoughtful contributors think, that equalization alone is the be all and end all of anchor building. I have said so in my book and many times in these threads. But it's worth something, wouldn't you agree? Not the first thing I'd throw out. And we're searching for simple anchor systems, not fancy anchor systems (I hope).
I'd start teaching by pointing out the importance of dealing with the direction of forces that would influence the potential anchor. That should contribute to "situational awareness." I'd introduce redirection, redundancy, and force multiplication. But I'd also point out the value of equalization, even if it only actually resulted in redundancy. Why not? Here's how I would put it: "OK, students, we don't have the possibility to slot a big hex behind a skinny crack, so let's set several pieces in such a way that their optimum direction is toward where our master point will be, but let's also make sure that if any one of them blows, the others won't be compromised. Then lets equalize them all with this here simple rig, so that the force on any one placement is reduced and so that our chances are improved if something goes terribly wrong."
In reply to: you'll have to convince me that decades of trad climbers have just been getting very lucky with non-equalizing systems.
grumble, grumble....sorry to be unsympathetic....it's late...
BTW, if you're sitting 50 feet back from the edge belaying at Joshua Tree, you'll have a hell of a time hauling up rope. Not recommended.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 13, 2006, 7:21 AM
Post #84 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Craig,
As I've pointed out several times now that drawing is John's crew's "equalette" / "duoglide" solution and if you followed along with John's posts he's repeatedly and emphatically made it clear it not only "hunts", but out-hunts a cordalette by a long shot. And even though I believe throughout these threads the concepts of equalization and distribution are a bit confused, the equalette does in fact "equalize" or distribute the load exceptionally well compared to a cordalette in his crew's real-world tests.
The equalette doesn't actively or "dynamically" equalize like an AE rig so much as distribute loads across the anchor points well. Again, read John's posts for his comments on it's performance in their tests. It does allow for "adequate" dynamic play of the power point biners between the limiter knots. Your overlaid AE (CS) rig is similarly limited to "adequate" dynamic play/equalization by the underlying JL rig instead of limiter knots or biners. Of all the proposed solutions for both the extension limiting problem and the issue of single AE cord failure, your's is the least reasonable to me from the standpoint that you require an entire second rig for your "solution". Again, that's level of complexity definitely represents extreme boundary of the solution set whereas the equalette more than successfully manages "equalization", redundancy, and extension with a single cord.
------------------------------
The sliding X page where Jake gathered all the photos - A good link to use as a signature in all posts in either thread of these threads.
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Mar 13, 2006, 7:38 AM
Post #85 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
fingertrouble, your lack of respect for what substantial extension can mean in the real world is disturbing.
Here's another case. Years ago while rapping at Joshua Tree, a friend blew two cams out of a three cam anchor arranged in a vertical crack. Third cam held. Poor placements in flared, grainy crack.
Assume they would have blown even if perfectly equalized. What happens to these equalized pieces in a case like that? What kind of force is transferred to that last piece? Would he (and his partner clipped to the anchor) have lived or died if it had been truly equalized?
Please don't quote big-name climbers as reasons to support your case. Don't cite accidents where the key details are unknown. Doing the math and the theory is nice. Doing tests is awesome. The design and implementation of those tests and the conclusions drawn from them are absolutely essential. We haven't seen the precise details on those tests, and I strongly suspect that the tests are insufficient to predict real-world results. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong on that, but I bet I won't.
|
|
|
|
|
aradia
Mar 13, 2006, 8:25 AM
Post #86 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2005
Posts: 93
|
In reply to: I appreciate your contributions, so if you'll summit a photo or link, I'd be happy to comment, as you might imagine. The drawing at the top of Jake's collection doesn't actually equalize, as flyinglow's photo and other posters have made abundantly clear. It's a non-starter in this game.
The diagram (and following photo) is the equalette, and it does equalise. Took me a little while to understand what it was doing, but I figured it out after reading the entire sliding X thread, with the various pictures. It's redundant equalisation, as I'll explain below.
As far as your "proposal" is concerned:
Putting half twists into an alpine equaliser (it's not called a "craig short") doesn't offer any limiting. The alpine equaliser, in many forms, has already been expounded upon in great length in the sliding X thread.
Using a cordelette (it's not called a "john long") as a backup is horribly misguided. There seem to be only two reasons for this. First, as an extension limiter. But in practice, there are better ways to accomplish extension limiting without requiring an entirely separate anchor (the sliding X thread shows such methods). Second, as physical redundancy in the event that the primary anchor is severed. However, this means falling back onto what now seems to be an inadequate anchor (cordelette). Furthermore, some of the extension limiting methods in the sliding X thread also offer limited physical redundancy by creating multiple logical loops in an extension limited AE.
There seems to be confusion regarding redundancy and equalisation, and the purpose of each. They are not synonymous. A fully redundant anchor is not necessarily equalised, and an equalised anchor is not necessarily fully redundant.
Equalisation, by definition, means that the force is spread throughout multiple points of protection.
Redundancy, on the other hand, has multiple cases. There is the case wherein a piece of protection fails, and there is the case wherein the connection to the pro fails.
Tying into the rope via clove hitches to multiple points of pro offers zero equalisation, full redundancy for pro failure, zero redundancy for connection (rope) failure.
An alpine equaliser offers full equalisation, full redundancy for pro failure, zero redundancy for connection failure.
Some of the modified alpine equalisers in the sliding X thread offer limited equalisation, full redundancy for pro failure, and limited redundancy for connection failure. By this account, these solutions are nearly ideal.
The equalette (and I believe one of the modified AEs, but I'd have to check again) offers limited equalisation, full redundancy for pro failure, and full redundancy for connection failure.
Since you seem to be confused about how the equalette works, I'll try to explain it (John can correct me if I'm wrong). I'll use the four-point diagram as shown in the sliding X thread. In this case, two logical points are fully equalised. These two points are defined by the isolating knots near the master point; ie, at least one piece of pro from one knot is equalised with at least one piece of pro from the second knot. Each knot, however, has a redundant piece of protection which isn't necessarily equalised at all times. Failure of an equalised segment (due to failed pro or failed connection) will result in a very minor extension, but full equalisation remains between the two knots. The master point, likewise, has two segments, and thus is also redundant. One master point segment may fail without causing the anchor to fail. The photo differs from the diagram in that the master point is clipped with a single biner in the photo, which means failure of all segments on a single knot will cause the master point biner to slide past the knot. The diagram shows a single biner in each of the master point segments, which means all segments on a knot can fail without causing the anchor to fail. There is no single point of failure. The quickest failure of the anchor would occur with failure of all segments on a single knot, plus failure of one segment in the master point (one biner falls off the failed master point segment, one biner slides off the knot).
It's also not difficult to implement. It seems like two isolating knots could be permanently tied into a loop of rope, with a biner on each segment, and then the only thing necessary is to clove hitch the protection and tie into the master point. One could also cut the two large loops after tying the isolating knots (or tie two pieces of rope together with isolating knots), essentially leaving four independent rope strands for greater versatility in hitching the pro, but this opens up another potential (though unlikely?) point of failure (clove hitch slipping off the end of the rope) on each piece of pro.
All in all, the equalette seems utterly amazing. Props to John for coming up with it. I still want to play with it a bit, to see if there are any worthwhile variations, but it seems great in its current version.
|
|
|
|
|
buckyllama
Mar 13, 2006, 3:42 PM
Post #88 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 314
|
In reply to: v) 1 biner for the master point is a single point of failure - unlike the multiple strands at the power point of the standard cordelette, the 2 biners of the equalette; add a second biner?
Not only is the single biner a point of failure, so is the cord istself (if using a single cord). With the equalette or cordalette, the cord is sibdivided with the knots so that there is no single strand that may be cut that would cause a complete failure, this is not true with the triple sliding - x whatever you want to call it.
The addition of a second cordalette would, of course, solve the problem. But at the cost of carrying an extra piece of specialized gear and the associated problems that have been pointed out. An additional technique would be to rig a slack sling to a single one of the anchors. It would at least eliminate the single point of failure and would use a piece of equiptment that you already have to hand.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 13, 2006, 4:32 PM
Post #89 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: As I've pointed out several times now that drawing is John's crew's "equalette" / "duoglide" solution and if you followed along with John's posts he's repeatedly and emphatically made it clear it not only "hunts", but out-hunts a cordalette by a long shot.
It leaves a lot to be desired with 3 anchor points, which is what most of us will use about 90% of the tiime. The time and extra gear required for a 4th anchor point just ain't worth the hassle.
Aradia, the naming thing is problematic enough, please don't confuse it further. The "craig short" is just a triple sliding x, while an alpine equalizer is a very different beast (look at the Trango for a commercial version to see the difference).
Greg, you're barking a lot but you aren't backing up your claims with teeth. Insisting JLs data sucks without offering anything but annecdotes don't cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 13, 2006, 5:12 PM
Post #90 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Greg,
I agree with Roy here, John's crew sounds like they've pretty thoroughly debunked the extension paranoia at least in the sliding-X case and probably by "extension" to all the AE rigs. That said, it is in one's best interest to keep such rigs shorter even if that means setting up them up with fixed extension components. I have a hard time believing John's crew is making those results up.
As far as the equalized-mank vs. 50'-downclimb-to-body-belay discussion. On FA's over the years I've encountered no anchor belays, one point anchor, and marginal anchors of all stripes. In almost all of those situations there was no going anywhere let alone downclimbing 50'. Sometimes you have to be prepared to deal with what you've been dealt. I have also equalized nests of microstoppers to Air Voyagers for half an anchor where otherwise I would have only had one point. Equalization as well as opposition can and does sometimes come into play on a single point of an anchor. Your concerns relative to directional integrity of anchor points both functionally and in failure should be well-noted by all though.
Similarly I hope John took my suggestion to spend some time on the importance of "stance" as an essential component of any belay and one that can be an art form of its own. Body belaying and stance to some extent are both lost arts from what I see out at the crags and have been for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
mhabicht
Mar 13, 2006, 5:22 PM
Post #91 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2006
Posts: 51
|
Clearly I am an idiot becuase I have NO IDEA how to post a photo becuase I cannot find the image url. BUT!! If you want to see my "improved" equallette please look at my profile.
-michael
|
|
|
|
|
glowering
Mar 13, 2006, 5:24 PM
Post #92 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 386
|
The Craig Short :lol: Not a great solution IMO.
As others have mentioned people have been using that setup for years. Back in the middle of the sliding X thread I called it the Sliding-W.
The Craig Short should be the name for the method of using TWO cordelettes, 1 tied in a Sliding-W (or triple sliding-X if you prefer that name) with a longer static tied cordetlette on top. I don't think I would ever use it. 4 Cordelettes? No thanks. It would be nice to have 4 cords in case of self-rescue, but I can't see bringing 4 on every climb. Also if a piece blows there is no equalization, it's going to load the next pieces one at a time. It will also take (almost) twice as long as the equalette or the static cordelette system. I'd read Craig's book with a grain of salt.
Largo said extension is not a big deal if you have limiter knots. That seemed to be the whole point of the other thread. How to come up with a system that can equalize with limited extension. So far the equalette does seem to meet the challenge the best to me. Equalizes among both "halfs" of the anchor, low extension. Pretty fast and simple.
I'd be interested to see the difference in shock loading between 5.5mm tech cord and 7mm nylon in a cordelette. 5.5mm slides so easy on the biners that it might equalize better and produce less shock even though it is more static than 7mm. Also I mentioned in the other thread, I wonder if a clove hitch (such as in the equalette) will slip under load and distribute the load among multiple pieces.
I'm betting that I will be using an equalette most of the time in the coming years for 3-4 piece trad/gear anchors. If I came accross two bolts, I'd use the quad.
If I needed better equalization (which I probably never would) I would use a sliding-X under two more sliding-Xs to four pieces (all sliding-Xs with limiter knots), or a short (2 foot) sliding-W under three extensions to 3 pieces.
Although I'm a big fan of redudancy some people seem to be carried away with it. Most of us only use one rope, one harness, and one belay device and we trust those right? One master power point biner is sweet. No having to unweight everything to unclip one person (most of the time), you're keeping an eye on it so it probably won't get cross-loaded. With the equalette I will probably just leave on biner on the cord with the sliding-X wrap on it.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Mar 13, 2006, 5:34 PM
Post #93 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: fingertrouble, your lack of respect for what substantial extension can mean in the real world is disturbing.
It seems you may have missed something. I don't believe anyone has said that "substantial exension" is nothing to worry about. What has been said is that "shock loading" is a myth when you have limited extension and the belayer is tied into the anchor with the climbing rope.
I think the point of these threads is that people are trying to explore rigging systems that provide reasonable equalization without unreasonable extension. Having said that, I don't see a single system in either thread that is superior to simple rigging using sliding-x's with limiter knots.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 13, 2006, 7:22 PM
Post #94 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Craig said:
In reply to: My objective in starting this thread was to lay bare a potential winner of the John Long anchor challenge
To win you have to play by the rules. by needing 4 loops of cord to me that is WAY too much gear.. for quick 2 pitch climbs.. maybe. but like others have said you are using John's original Cordalette and a 3 piece sliding X
Also what makes you special that you couldnt have put your ideas in with everyone else's in the other thread.
The Challenge (as it were) JL
In reply to: The true magic bullet is going to be a system ( rigged on a standard length of cord sans widgets) where you can clip off the placements with loops (not knots), and which features a sliding powerpoint. Perhaps the two are mutually exclusive, but I bet this can somehow be rigged if enough people start fiddling around with the idea.
your entry did not meet the criteria of the assignment. please try again. (this applies to a few of the rigs btw.. although the last one posted by papounet pg 41 is my favorite thus far.)
Anyway.. If names need to be adjusted on my picture post please send me a PM with the picture and correct name to be placed with it.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 13, 2006, 7:51 PM
Post #95 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Clearly I am an idiot becuase I have NO IDEA how to post a photo becuase I cannot find the image url. BUT!! If you want to see my "improved" equallette please look at my profile. -michael
Michael,
I took a look at your design. My general comments would be:
a) it is dependent on there being a useable length of "extra" cord after you rigged the anchor which wouldn't always be the case unless you brought a really long cord.
b) the two strands on each side are the redundancy - you are implementing a "redundant redundancy" by essentially using four strands on a side as opposed to two. My take is that the two on each side are more than adequate.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Mar 13, 2006, 8:06 PM
Post #96 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
[quote="jakedatc"]
The Challenge (as it were) JL
In reply to: The true magic bullet is going to be a system ( rigged on a standard length of cord sans widgets) where you can clip off the placements with loops (not knots), and which features a sliding powerpoint. Perhaps the two are mutually exclusive, but I bet this can somehow be rigged if enough people start fiddling around with the idea.
your entry did not meet the criteria of the assignment. please try again. /quote]
Get the lead out, Jack, and come up with something yourself--as othrs have been trying all along. I never said I was the guy to solve all these problems. What do you have to add in terms of a system that answers the criteria? It's ain't an easy one to wrestle down, of that you may be sure.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
fingertrouble
Mar 13, 2006, 8:25 PM
Post #97 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 54
|
Hey, Jake, thanks for your interest.
In reply to: you are using John's original Cordalette and a 3 piece sliding X
I still think that my proposal is the most economic of gear and would be the fastest to set up and easiest to check. I'm keeping my hat in the ring.
papounet's efforts, however commendable, seem to break the rules even more, and more of them. I kinda doubt if John (Mr. KISS) will like it.
~~~~~~
In reply to: It would be my preference to have a solid anchor and have a hell of time hauling up rope, then (sic) undergoing a quick trip to hell as a result of setting an anchor in a flared grainy crack.
~~~~~~
In reply to: You're not worried enough about extension |
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 13, 2006, 8:25 PM
Post #98 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
John. i was directing that at craig since he opened a new thread to seperate his own and dismiss all the other attempts.
I would have had no problems with it posted up like everyone else's anchor in the original thread to be evaluated. His wording shows a final product. everyone else has been very open to changes and adjustments.
Splitting off a new thread has also caused confusion that people are only reading this one since it looks like a final solution has been reached rather than just an idea to be thrown out there. so they are missing the whole discussion and questions that have been answered are being repeated again.
I have not posted an idea as a) i have very little knowledge of the physics involved b) my knot skills get me by with every day climbing but will not create anything new c) My favorites so far have been more exact replications of the Trango AE with the rings.
I respect everyones attempts i just don't like how craigs posts come off as all knowing
|
|
|
|
|
fingertrouble
Mar 13, 2006, 8:34 PM
Post #99 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 54
|
In reply to: the equalette does in fact "equalize" or distribute the load exceptionally well
http://i42.photobucket.com/...yinglow/sidepull.jpg
Have you actually lashed up this thing yourself? If you have you'd have seen that a 20-foot cordelette is pretty short for general purpose convenience. More importantly, you'd have seen that a change (even a slight change) in the direction of load from the one you set up for causes a difference in tension among the legs (of a 4-placement rig). flyinglow's photo shows this clearly, with two legs going slack and the other two sharing the load. The situation becomes even more weird in 3-dimensional space. In any space, as soon as force is applied to the master point, even without a change of direction, the anchors will be tensioned differently unless the strands from the limiter knots to placement biners are precisely identical (as rgold explained at length). And with 3 legs (one anchor missing), you start off unequalized from the get go, even before there's a change in direction of force.
I apologize if I've contributed to us talking past each other, but I can't see how anyone could claim that this thing equalizes. That defies geometry and it defies simple experimentation. Whether it's better than a cordelette is open to question, but it's certainly not better at equalizing than many of the other proposals.
The only thing I can figure is that the drawing in Jake's collection (the one you seem to like) isn't what John means when he says "equalette."
P.S. After I wrote this I noticed your post on the "Redux" thread. I stand by what I said there. Have you actually set this rig up yourself? How would you explain flyinglow's photo? What about the obvious problems with the 3-leg version? I could be all wet and if proved so I'll apologize profusely, but right now I'd say the ball is in your court to do a simple setup and offer a clear explanation, preferably illustration, of how the rig in the drawing actually equalizes. BTW, I noticed papounet's recent post on the Sliding-X thread where he expresses similar concerns; your answer merely blew off the fact that the setup simply doesn't equalize.
Consider this: look at one side of the anchor, the strands from one limiter knot to two carabiners. Say that one of the two strands is twice as long as the other. Isn't it clear to you that the long strand will receive half the tension of the short strand when a load is applied through the limiter knot? How is that equalization? Are you claiming that somehow the other side of the anchor could fix this?
One of is going to eat crow, publically I trust. Personally, I hate the taste.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 13, 2006, 8:48 PM
Post #100 of 164
(31011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Craig You are right it doesn't meet the criteria. for me, 3 rap rings semi-permanently tied into the anchor as well as the power points already set up is far simpler IMO than having to retie the cordalette to back up the 3 way (sorry.. my mistake in that post) sliding x.
Also the gear needed is far less cumbersome. 6 rap rings and 2 slings(or 40ft of cord) or 80 ft of cord?
:sigh: bordom forces me back to these threads.. so again i'll try to quit and let folks work things out.. PM me if my pictures are labeled incorrectly.
sorry for stirring things up
|
|
|
|
|
|
