|
ihategrigris
Mar 22, 2006, 6:16 AM
Post #1 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 757
|
This has probably been addressed in the 'is the improved sliding-x really safer' thread.... but I can't find it (700+ replys!).
Largo had stated at the beginning of the sliding-x thread that their tests show that the equalized cordellet isn't really well equalized at all. I'm just wondering WHY the cordalette doesn't provide 'true' equalization.
Is it because each piece is loaded differently due to different angles between the piece and the load at the power point (this should be obvious to anyone with anyone with a highschool level understanding of physics) or is there something else i'm missing?
|
|
|
|
|
sactownclimber
Mar 22, 2006, 6:30 AM
Post #2 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Posts: 216
|
Read the thread, it's in there, probably in the first few pages. It has to do with the fact that the legs of the cordelette are different lengths.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 22, 2006, 6:48 AM
Post #3 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Yeah, start at the beginning and just start - the sooner you start the sooner you'll be caught up. Please do that rather than asking questions there that have already been answered or starting new threads...
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 22, 2006, 7:41 AM
Post #4 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
I'll disagree with forcing people to read that quaqmire just to get straight answers. If you don't want to answer, then ignore the thread. But sending everyone to page 1 of that monstrosity is cruel and unusual punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 22, 2006, 9:14 AM
Post #5 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Roy,
We'll have to disagree and I'll be waiting with baited breath on your concise summary post - or they can wait and buy John's new book but they'll be missing some interesting stuff. I think anyone that does lot of trad or alpine should consider wading through it...
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Mar 22, 2006, 12:58 PM
Post #6 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
HAHA, something really useful on Rc.com, and people complain that it is too much trouble to read it.
Make it into McThread, to go with McNewspaper, and read it while you eat your Mc Muffin.
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Mar 22, 2006, 2:12 PM
Post #7 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 22, 2006, 2:42 PM
Post #8 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started.
For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Mar 22, 2006, 2:48 PM
Post #9 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
I, too, gave up on that thread. Lazy? No, just a wiser user of time. And as far as a cordelette not being purely equalized, I believe it's because each leg is tied off at the power point-- they don't slide or adjust it one piece blows. Seems like a figure eight with three loops ("bunny ears" plus one) would adjust, though.
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Mar 22, 2006, 3:17 PM
Post #10 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
A Straight Answer
OK- I tracked down a few page #s for you. (can't get them to link)
1st basic explanation from John (Vivalargo) comes on pg 5 of the "sliding x " monster thread.
John elaborates more in the "solution to John Longs anchor challenge" thread (less pages to wade through). Look at pages 4 and 5.
Another way to get the information is just to go to Vivalargo's profile and read his posts from the last few weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 22, 2006, 3:29 PM
Post #11 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Yeah, the sliding-X thread is hideous... I mentioned in my own post on the monster that I'd be attending an AMGA course, which I did.
Conclusion? Well, there are a lot of options, many of which DON'T us the cordelette (or don't tie it off), and each of which is appropriate for certain scenarios. The equalized cordelette with 3 legs is pretty freaking strong, but you want to be equally confident in each of your anchors if you're going to use it... Like three bolts. Or a parallel crack taking three bomber placements... etc...
But if you think one of the legs is more likely to fail, you simply use a more appropriate anchor, potentially one that is self-adjusting (and there are and endless number of scenarios for this set up!) The important point is that you need to LIMIT the shockload potential, which can easily be done while still maintaining SELF equalizing properties.
I wish I had pictures... one example: a cordelette or sling on 2 or 3 anchors, you need it self equalizing, so tying off is not an option, but you're worried about a marginal piece. Personally, I'd look for a better leg if I had the time, but if it isn't an option, just tie a limiting not (simple overhand) just above the masterpoint on the marginal side. This can be done in a lot of different scenarios, and comes in quite handy.
IF the piece does pull, you'll be on your remaining pieces with limited shockload, and the anchor remains self-equalizing.
Without trying to sound like I'm making a plug... the course was extremely educational and definately worth the time! Learning from a guide with 30 years of experience is something else. I know it's no substitute for experience, but he really helped us to "THINK" for ourselves. Evaluating and choosing appropriate systems, rather than using the easiest thing that comes to mind... Not that I didn't already try to do that, but now my resources have grown tremendously. 4 days in the mountains with the AMGA was far more effective than 4 days of reading a thread on the internet!
My advice? Just find people you trust, who have something valuable to teach you, and at it to your library of climbing knowledge. Then go out and keep getting the experience! It's not a quick process... stay humble, don't get killed.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 22, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #12 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
bighigaz,
You must be some sort of magican if u can look at a piece and tell whether it will fail our not.
I'd bet most people here have had a piece they thought was bomber blow.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 22, 2006, 4:58 PM
Post #13 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Yeah, the sliding-X thread is hideous... I mentioned in my own post on the monster that I'd be attending an AMGA course, which I did.
Hideous, hmmm. Given you posted on that thread when it was only 8 pages long and even then your post started with:
I didn't read the entire forum, (I apologize), but wanted to share my .02...
Clearly if you couldn't make it through 8 pages then, 50+ might understandably be challenging now. But you said you were going to read it on returning from that course, did you?
And are your conclusions based on your having attended the top roping course, or on the course and having read through the sliding-X thread? Given your conclusions are still those of someone biased and "trained in the cordalette" I suspect the former.
In reply to: Without trying to sound like I'm making a plug... the course was extremely educational and definately worth the time! Learning from a guide with 30 years of experience is something else.
Well, I'm sure that top roping course was great, but right off the top of my head I can think of just six folks taking part in the sliding-X thread that collectively represent over two hundred years of high caliber experience.
In reply to: I know it's no substitute for experience, but he really helped us to "THINK" for ourselves.
Well, I would "THINK" that anyone that was motivated to shell out $500+ for a course would run, not walk, to the sliding-X thread and soak up every shred of it. That is if they are the type of person that thinks for themselves and doesn't need to be spoon fed by an "instructor".
In reply to: and actually Evaluating and choosing appropriate systems, rather than using the easiest thing that comes to mind... Not that I didn't already try to do that, but now my resources have grown tremendously. 4 days in the mountains with the AMGA was far more effective than 4 days of reading a thread on the internet!
Kind of speaks for it self, James - again, a challenging proposition no doubt.
In reply to: My advice? Just find people you trust, who have something valuable to teach you, and add it to your library of climbing knowledge. Then go out and keep getting the experience! It's not a quick process... stay humble, don't get killed.
Amazing. A thread filled with "climbing knowledge" and discussion from some of the better minds in climbing who do have "something valuable to teach you" and you call it hideous. But then, as you said reading it and playing along with a piece of cord and some biners takes time - "It's not a quick process..."
So, if you aspire to or do a lot of trad or alpine, "THINK" for yourself, and are willing to put in effort to learn something new it might be worthwhile to suck it up and read the sliding-X thread instead of the bogus cliff notes here...
|
|
|
|
|
ontherocks
Mar 22, 2006, 4:59 PM
Post #14 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2001
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: I'm just wondering WHY the cordalette doesn't provide 'true' equalization. Is it because each piece is loaded differently due to different angles between the piece and the load at the power point (this should be obvious to anyone with anyone with a highschool level understanding of physics) or is there something else i'm missing?
I didn't read the thread, but the general reason why a cordelete does not equalize well is that the expected direction of pull is likely different than the real one, then one piece (the one closer to the direction of pull) will receive the whole load of the falling climber.
However, if the direction of pull is close enough to what the person that rig the anchor expected, the elasticity of the anchor (knots getting tighter, nylon stretching, etc) may help to compensate a bit, and load other pieces too, but don't expect much. If the direction of pull will change use either other method or at least make sure that the most solid piece is the one that most likely will be loaded.
But still.. I didn't read the thread..
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 22, 2006, 5:29 PM
Post #15 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
A suggestion not for everyone: Grokking all of the thread in one sitting would be a strain/pain/drain. Similar to healyje's suggestion, put some anchor building gear in a small bag and stow it in a handy place. Find somewhere convenient to build anchors; it was a tall rack in the kitchen for me. Start building anchors while working through the thread. Take a break for a day or so every now and then. If something doesn't make sense, jot it down (your question, relevant person who posted, and what thread page) BUT keep reading - the answer will likely be on a later page. Good mojo. One thing that might provide motivation to work through it is to first read this thread if you haven't:
Fatal accident at Tahquitz 10/19/03
Bill L.
Edit: fix url
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 22, 2006, 5:30 PM
Post #16 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Healyje, out of the nearly 60 pages, there are perhaps 12 good posts buried amongst the detritus. It's now so full of BS and rehashing and death systems pretending to be safe that the thread is actually becoming dangerous for many readers.
Long's book should be a bit clearer. But there's another anchor book coming in a few months that should be even better. When they're both out, we can start all over again :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 22, 2006, 7:02 PM
Post #17 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Dangerous if one dips into the thread and picks out a rig that strikes one's fancy and then takes it out on the rock. But that person is already dangerous. On the other hand, one wading through it will likely be struck with: "Hmmm, I tried the rig on page X in my living room and like it but now see on page X+11 that there is an issue with it that keeps it out of my bag of tricks!"
In my opinion, almost anyone wading through that thread will come away with improved ability to evaluate anchors - whether it is their partner's anchor or one in a book - not unlike the traditional cordelette!
Bill L.
Edit: "bag of tricks" implies more than I wanted. I intended to say something like "rigs that interest me"; whether to actually use something in that thread is of course a personal choice.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 22, 2006, 9:03 PM
Post #18 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Roy,
Like I said we totally disagree on this on. Even with all its flaws that thread still has one of the highest levels of quality technical content on this site. Anyone coming up into a lot trad or alpine and bothers to buy technical books or take course is really missing out not sucking it up and wading through it. Anyone not able to sort the grain from the chaff as they go along will drop out as they get saturated. And the conversation, even after 50+ pages is not without merit. As for John's, Craig's, or anyone else's book - well, they're books and will represent some select solution subset reflecting the author's beliefs, biases, and interpretation of whatever research was at their disposal. Some of the rigs discussed in the sliding-X thread, like mhabicht's contribution were posted after Largo finished his book so there is just one case of some interesting concepts that won't be included.
That folks would roam these forums day-in-day-out soaking up a marvelous level of inane b#llshit and then not dig into a thread with some actual "meat" is somewhat amazing to me. C'est la vie - but people shouldn't cast the thread as a jabberwock simply because of the effort involved or that no single "uber" rig emerges...
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 24, 2006, 2:49 AM
Post #19 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
$5 says everyone who's hating on the sliding x thread will go read it after they see John's published data.
You don't have to read all 50 pages to learn something new. Read John's posts on the first few pages, look at what he recommended...rig it yourself, and see the advantages 1st hand.
There was more possitive energy and revolutionary concepts in that thread than anywhere else I've seen on the site. I haven't seen anything this useful since the PTPP wall index thread...and the sliding x certainly takes the cake.
I'm with healyje, pay attention class!
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 24, 2006, 3:37 AM
Post #20 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Revolutionary? Puhleez. Turn to page 189 of Freedom of the Hills, 2nd edition, 1964. The concepts have been around a long time, only the gear has improved and the internet wasn't born yet.
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Mar 24, 2006, 4:50 AM
Post #21 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started. :lol: For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise. Bill L.
Uhh...I guess I mistook curt's standard "you're an idiot" for a trend. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 5:05 AM
Post #22 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started. :lol: For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise. Uhh...I guess I mistook curt's standard "you're an idiot" for a trend. Sorry.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 24, 2006, 5:12 AM
Post #23 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started. :lol: For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise. Uhh...I guess I mistook curt's standard "you're an idiot" for a trend. Sorry. Well said. Hmmm, didn't even phase me; perhaps I've become numb to that "standard" stuff as you say and should rather be after Curt with a pitchfork? But seriously, I am surprised that stopped anyone who would spend time on RC.com. For the thread's volume, it's just not that rough of a thread as you suggested. Bill L.
Sorry, but my "you're an idiot" comment in that thread was dead on. Go back and re-read the senseless BS I was commenting on.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 6:07 AM
Post #24 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: Revolutionary? Puhleez. Turn to page 189 of Freedom of the Hills, 2nd edition, 1964. The concepts have been around a long time, only the gear has improved and the internet wasn't born yet.
So I don't see why you are sticking on the word "revolutionary" when so much else has been said in this thread and elsewhere of late.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 6:20 AM
Post #25 of 54
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started. :lol: For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise. Uhh...I guess I mistook curt's standard "you're an idiot" for a trend. Sorry. Well said. Hmmm, didn't even phase me; perhaps I've become numb to that "standard" stuff as you say and should rather be after Curt with a pitchfork? But seriously, I am surprised that stopped anyone who would spend time on RC.com. For the thread's volume, it's just not that rough of a thread as you suggested. Sorry, but my "you're an idiot" comment in that thread was dead on. Go back and re-read the senseless BS I was commenting on. Curt
I'll repeat a point: For the thread's volume, it's simply not as rough as originally suggested by mesomorf.
Bill L.
Edited for clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 24, 2006, 6:40 AM
Post #26 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
I originally found the sliding-x thread interesting but now I am thoroughly sick of it. What annoys me the most is the people who think that it is somehow revolutionary. There was some information in that thread and a whole lot of sensationalising. Suggestings that a regular cordalette is unsafe is rubish.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 24, 2006, 7:26 AM
Post #27 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
I would say that the quality since 40 hasn't necessarily been as consistent as the pre-40 posts but there is still much of value there. I do think some agendas have played out over the the last 17 pages but there is still value there from my perspective. Again, as content of any value at all goes, even at its worst it's still better than 80-90% of what passes for content here.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Mar 24, 2006, 3:07 PM
Post #28 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
So far in this thread (2 pages), exactly half the responses igore the original question. Rock on! Maybe we can beat that piddling Sliding x thread!
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 3:53 PM
Post #29 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: So far in this thread (2 pages), exactly half the responses igore the original question. Rock on! Maybe we can beat that piddling Sliding x thread! |
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Mar 24, 2006, 5:09 PM
Post #30 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: Suggestings that a regular cordalette is unsafe is rubish.
On what are you basing this appraisal? I'm afraid this smacks of "It's fine because I say so" kind of reasoning. I said the same--then we did some testing and I stood corrected.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 24, 2006, 8:22 PM
Post #31 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: So far in this thread (2 pages), exactly half the responses igore the original question. Rock on! Maybe we can beat that piddling Sliding x thread!
Actually they don't ignore the original question - the answer to the original question is read the sliding-X thread...
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Mar 24, 2006, 9:29 PM
Post #32 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
Disagree. In polite society, a question is responded to with what, class? An answer. Not a lot of answers in this one. And "Go read that other thread" doesn't strike me as an answer. And besides, the Thread Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned is about a Sliding X. This guy was asking about a cordelette. You know, I started to not respond, because this thread runs the danger of succumbing to the same bullsh*t attacks the other one. So...if you got an answer to the original question, post up. Otherwise, go flame a n00b.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 10:26 PM
Post #33 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: Disagree. In polite society, a question is responded to with what, class? An answer. Not a lot of answers in this one. And "Go read that other thread" doesn't strike me as an answer. And besides, the Thread Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned is about a Sliding X. This guy was asking about a cordelette. You know, I started to not respond, because this thread runs the danger of succumbing to the same bullsh*t attacks the other one. So...if you got an answer to the original question, post up. Otherwise, go flame a n00b.
Frankly, when I saw the most detailed technical explanation given there about why it doesn't provide true equalization, my eyes glazed over and I trudged on to other stuff in the thread.
And justthemaid already did the legwork for you on getting the info: see the 9th reply 2 pages back in this thread (i.e., the 1st page). If that's not enough then the next thing is to take those pages/text and post them into this thread - which is utterly rediculous (I don't normally use "utterly rediculous" but it fits if we get that far).
Regarding "polite society", you're shooting from the hip as well as with your non-dominant hand.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
delcross
Mar 24, 2006, 11:21 PM
Post #34 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2005
Posts: 46
|
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 24, 2006, 11:34 PM
Post #35 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
^^ That pretty much sums things up. I'll just add something.
1. It is next to impossible to properly equalise more than 2 strands, especially with static cord. Dynamic cord will help spread load better. This is because to spread the load properly you need arms that are the right length down to the cm, this is HARD to do.
2. It is however pretty easy to spead the load across 2 strands if there is a non small angle between them (ie 60 degrees).
A sliding arangement gives equal tension on all arms, thus equal load on anchor. The rest of the thread is everybody arguing about the best sliding method while reducing extension.
Personally I'm sticking with the basic cordalette. I'm happy with load sharing across 2 pieces and redundacy from a third.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 12:23 AM
Post #36 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: In reply to: Suggestings that a regular cordalette is unsafe is rubish. On what are you basing this appraisal? I'm afraid this smacks of "It's fine because I say so" kind of reasoning. I said the same--then we did some testing and I stood corrected. JL
I am basing that appraisal on the fact that a cordalette succeeds in connecting several pieces together to form a redundant, limited extension anchor with partial load sharing. I would trust all my anchor pieces for a load of 10Kn which is more than any fall would generate, the extra pieces are just there due to paranoid redundancy.
I'll happily agree that the equalisation is nowhere near perfect with a cordalette but you haven't shown that perfect equalisation is necessary for a safe anchor.
For christ sake climbers regularily are safely caught by single pieces of gear while climbing, that is what lead climbing is about. Whatsmore the load on a single piece of gear is more than double the load felt on the belay and anchor because both sides of the rope are pulling on the piece.
Even factor 2 falls, which you shouldn't let happen in the first place** shouldn't pose a problem to your anchor as rope stretch and belay device slip should limit this.
I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe.
** Why should you let this happen? Factor two falls happen when there are no pieces in between you and the belay. If there are no pieces then there is usually no reason why the belayer can't give extra slack to the climber and reduce the factor of the fall.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Mar 27, 2006, 1:06 AM
Post #37 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe.
Be gentle with him, Largo. :)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 27, 2006, 1:56 AM
Post #38 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. Be gentle with him, Largo. :)
That's ok.. i'm sure Curt will show up to give him a hand.. and by hand i mean one hit upside the back of his head in a :dopeslap: manner :)
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 2:04 AM
Post #39 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. Be gentle with him, Largo. :)
:lol: I'm ready, you don't need to be gentle. :wink:
I'm waiting...
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 27, 2006, 2:53 AM
Post #40 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. Be gentle with him, Largo. :) :lol: I'm ready, you don't need to be gentle. :wink: I'm waiting...
Your gonna be waiting a long time, or at least until the book goes into print.
I don't think JL needs to be defending both his own professional opinion, AND the testing he's spent hours doing to you on the internet.
The data's there, the book's getting written, John was kind enough to keep us in the loop with the sliding x thread....I don't think he needs to get into a pissing match on the internet just cause you "called him out".
Lets just remember who's been asked to author the book. :wink:
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Mar 27, 2006, 3:02 AM
Post #41 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Patto, in the argument business, your "explanation" that a fixed power point rigging is safe is called "begging the question." You make each piece stronger than the maximum load that can be imposed by a factor 2 fall, in which case you only need one piece, and with more than one piece it makes no difference how you rig the anchor. Your conclusion is true because you have defined the problem out of existence.
It is one thing to define it out of existence on paper and another thing to achieve one-piece total indestructibility in every anchor your ever build. If you can do this, then as you suggest, the discussion is not for you.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 27, 2006, 3:11 AM
Post #42 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Well said Jim
for me it sounds like someone telling a Nascar driver.. no.. i really think and old style helmet is fine by me.. i don't need a full face helmet for the racing i do. And even if i crash it'll keep me safe most of the time and only a few people have been killed wearing them. Hmm cuz Nascar has done tons of testing on the safety and all the professionals believe it and have far more experience.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 3:26 AM
Post #43 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: . Your conclusion is true because you have defined the problem out of existence.
Very, very true. However most evidence points to the fact that the problem doesn't exist in the first place.
I would happily admit that if I'm building an anchor out of three 4kN placements I would much prefer to use a sliding-x arrangement. I would happily agree that a cordalette in this circumstance wouldn't be a particularily safe anchor.
The point has been made in the original thread that stronge does not mean safer. Your 25kN anchor is safer than my 15kN if the highest force the anchor will feel is 6kN.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 3:31 AM
Post #44 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. I don't think JL needs to be defending both his own professional opinion, AND the testing he's spent hours doing to you on the internet. Jim
Well if he questions my opinion then I think that it is fair enough that I can question his.
As I have said already I don't dispute his testing. However just because there are more equalised setups than a cordalette, it doesn't mean that the cordalette is unsafe.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 27, 2006, 4:55 AM
Post #45 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. I don't think JL needs to be defending both his own professional opinion, AND the testing he's spent hours doing to you on the internet. Jim Well if he questions my opinion then I think that it is fair enough that I can question his. As I have said already I don't his testing. However just because there are more equalised setups than a cordalette, it doesn't mean that the cordalette is unsafe.
Your gonna have to retype this...In reply to: As I have said already I don't his testing.
Find where JL said the words "a cordalette is unsafe". I dont think you'll be able to. His testing revealed just how poor of it choice it can be....but, this doesn't change the fact that it has been "good enough" for most climbers, in most circumstances.
We now know that the cordelette does a very poor job, and we should find a better alternative....this is what John has said.
But dude, this isn't the friggin climbing police. If you don't wanna do it...don't. No one is gonna come out the the crag and beat your ass for using a cordelette. The data is there, it illustrates the limitations of the pre-equalized cordelette....so make up your own mind. Just don't think your gonna disprove the data, or the guy who literally "wrote the book" (twice) on anchoring.
If you don't trust the data; go rig 200+ drop tests on a UIAA drop tower for a few weeks, with a well respected testing expert in the climbing community.....then tell us our data is wrong.
You can go climb on GoldLine with a hip-belay if it blows your skirt up...plenty of people did just fine doing that, too.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 9:47 AM
Post #47 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: Find where JL said the words "a cordalette is unsafe". I dont think you'll be able to.
I have already quoted this. I said that it is rubbish to think that the cordalette is unsafe. He questioned this, that is what the discussion is about.
In reply to: But dude, this isn't the friggin climbing police. If you don't wanna do it...don't. No one is gonna come out the the crag and beat your ass for using a cordelette. ... Jim
I know. I am just defending my opinon, im not forcing you to use the cordalette.
In reply to: In reply to: However most evidence points to the fact that the problem doesn't exist in the first place. There is really no evidence that the problem doesn't exist.
Actually there is ALOT of evidence that large forces ie >10kN are never experience in climbing. I have read numerous statement from people in the industry concerning force limitations. Ropes are tested with a factor 1.77 fall and given a maximum impact force rating. These are normally around 8kN. I wont go on, you should know this.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Mar 27, 2006, 4:40 PM
Post #48 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Patto:
If every primary anchor placement could sustain a factor two fall, and moreover, if we all could reliably determine same with visual inspection, the rigging wouldn't much matter. Fact is there are many anchors out there built on so-so primary placements, and there are many climbers who lack the experience to know the relative strength of said anchors by simply eyeballing them.
But beyond this, there is the issue of what is actually a better way to go about things, and what criteria we use to define "better."
A standard evaluation criteria is SRENE, and to that end, the cordelette unequal arm rig is not as effective as the equalette--which is just as simple and just as quick to rig as the original cordelette configuration, and is far superior in terms of equalization and redundancy.
A blanket statement claiming the cordelette is "safe," and that any contrary evidence is "rubbish" is simply not a well informed judgement. Moreover it encourages folks to continue using the cordelette unequal arm configuration after testing has shown it places the bulk of all dynamic loading on a single piece of gear. Switching to another system is an example of preventitive medicine. If you suggest that climbers wait till the disease (anchor failure) actually shows up, you've done nobody any favors.
But as someone already said--do as you please. But kindly don't imply that using the cordelette unequal arm configuration is a viable practice simply because more of such rigs haven't so far failed.
What is the logic in continuing to use a system that testing has show to be sketchy (in certain circumstances) when a better system has been provided? I can only look to the basic human tendency to resist change, and to call that wisdom.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Mar 27, 2006, 4:58 PM
Post #49 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: Actually there is ALOT of evidence that large forces ie >10kN are never experience in climbing.
For the rest of us, who are less clairvoyant, should really look at other anchoring options than the fixed power point cordelette anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 27, 2006, 9:12 PM
Post #50 of 54
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: Actually there is ALOT of evidence that large forces ie >10kN are never experience in climbing. I, for one, am impressed that you always know that your placements will actually hold 10 kn.
Me too. Guess Patto doesn't ever place small nuts, micro cams, ball-nuts, brassies, pitons, or cam hooks.
Must really limit him to climbs with crack systems larger than about an inch.
Also, Patto must use lockers on all his anchor piece placements. Apparertly his anchors, rigged with a cordelette, are incapable of loading a piece (with close to 100% of the force on one piece, as the testing has proved) with a momentarly open gate, with a rated strength below 10kN (as most biners are).
For the rest of us that own and place gear rated below 10 kN, or place gear in less than perfect circumstances, or use biners with an open gate strength of less than 10kN... I find this information very valuable.
This is all of course assuming that your assertation that forces in climbing never actually exceed 10kN, being correct.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 28, 2006, 12:42 AM
Post #51 of 54
(4622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Ah well guys. I guess we have to just disagree then.
A few last points:
-Jim, I don't have a habit of opening the gates of my carabiners during a fall. I don't load them across and edge. Thus I am not concerned about the gate open strength. (the gate can't open anyway once the load is >2kN)
-Jim, no i don't place brassies, micro cams and cam hooks in anchors, i don't want to. If i ever had to I would damn right use a sliding-x. Climbing I have placed small RP's rated for only 2kN!
-tradklime, no I'm not clairvoyant. However when I place a nut >#5 in a narrowing wedge of solid rock. I will bet my life savings that the piece will fail ONLY when the cable snaps. You will struggle to make a climbing fall exert such force to snap the cable.
-vivalargo
"But kindly don't imply that using the cordelette unequal arm configuration is a viable practice simply because more of such rigs haven't so far failed."
I have never used lack of failure as proof of safety (others have tho).
"What is the logic in continuing to use a system that testing has show to be sketchy (in certain circumstances) when a better system has been provided?"
You are assuming that a better system has been provided. As I and others have accepting, a sliding-x arrangement is stronger but that doesn't mean safer. This has been repeated numerous times but you have ignored it.
I and others are happy to use the cordalette. Sure go ahead and use your anchor, i have no issues. But please don't insinuate that the cordalette is dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 28, 2006, 2:17 AM
Post #52 of 54
(4622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: -Jim, I don't have a habit of opening the gates of my carabiners during a fall. I don't load them across and edge. Thus I am not concerned about the gate open strength. (the gate can't open anyway once the load is >2kN) -Jim, no i don't place brassies, micro cams and cam hooks in anchors, i don't want to. If i ever had to I would damn right use a sliding-x. Climbing I have placed small RP's rated for only 2kN!
BD free nuts start around 4-6kn, metolius cams 00-2 or 3 are 6.6kn, blue and black aliens are under 10 (some times a lot less :lol:) , the list goes on (this is off the top of my head). All of this is free climbing gear, used frequently in anchors.
Have you ever heard of gate flutter? Biners can open themselves (via momentium) when suddenly loading.
Shit happens. Your argument that a cam rated to 16 kn, clipped with a biner rated to 24 kn, is a solid anchor, is comical. You don't know for 100% how strong the placement is, and you can not guarentee 100% that no biner used in an anchor will ever see cross loading or an open gate at any point. And is using a cordelette anchor, your essentially belaying off one placement at a time.
The probility of the placement failing might be very very low, the same is true with an open or crossloaded biner. But the possibility exists.
Because that possibility exists, and we are putting our lives on these anchors, it makes sence to engage in practices that offer us the best chance of the anchor remaining strong, and secure. The cordelette IS NOT the best way to do this, and this has been proven.
The only arguments against using the anchors JOHN has described (not half of the crazy ass rigs people have come up with) is that they may take a little more time to setup. I'd argue they're on the same learning curve as the cordelette setup your arguing for. Practice the setup, and it'll come quickly.
Other than that, all your arguing is that your an old dog that doesn't want to learn a new trick.
It really seems like the only thing that's gonna get some "old dogs" to come around is having a piece or two of their cordelette anchor get ripped out. Hopefully that won't be too late.
John, I really hoped you passed your data along to the AMGA and such, it'll be good to see this stuff get intigrated into their manual and courses.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 28, 2006, 3:20 AM
Post #53 of 54
(4622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: Have you ever heard of gate flutter? Biners can open themselves (via momentium) when suddenly loading. s--- happens.
In reply to: The probility of the placement failing might be very very low, the same is true with an open or crossloaded biner. But the possibility exists.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Apr 13, 2006, 9:41 PM
Post #54 of 54
(4622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
In reply to: Ropes are tested with a factor 1.77 fall and given a maximum impact force rating. These are normally around 8kN. I wont go on, you should know this.
Ahaha you should go on as you obviously don't have a clue.
UIAA standard mandates that the maximum force on the climber side is less than 12g. It does this by ensuring tthat the force during the first fall in a specific setup (80kg mass, ff1.78, static belay,etc) is less than 12kn.
Indeed many ropes have figures around 8 to9kn. but is is for the climber side.
The redirection point sees 1.6 times this amount and the belayer side sees .6 times this amount.
Older ropes, zigzaging and other factors lessen the capability of the rope to absord the energy of the fall and lead to higher force.
slipage at the belay device, inertia moment of the belayer, and other factors complement the rope and contribute to lesser force.
I invite you to use the Petzl fall simulator to get a grasp of the forces involved
The statement you are referring to was made by Chris Harmston, at that time QA manager at BD.
But you should read all of his writing.
have a look at one of my previous posts at
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?p=827002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
