|
sittingduck
Jun 8, 2006, 9:51 PM
Post #52 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
I am not asking for documentation on how my anchor is made but how the physics will affect it. You can by looking at it tell me exactly how the physics will affect it, I thank you for sharing. I now have your view about how physics will affect my anchor and I appreciate it, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Jun 8, 2006, 10:18 PM
Post #53 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
It's only discussion if you listen ducky.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Jun 11, 2006, 9:53 PM
Post #54 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: CharlesJMM, again thanks, really appreciated. Before this gets complicated, do you think it is safe to use the climbing rope(s) clove hitched to the pieces for redundancy as the underlying idea, allowing the equalizer to shock load the anchor if one piece blows?
Jesus....you'd think the Sliding X thread never happened!
1) The initial cordelette config you posted (the "Craig Short") was never tested because the friction in the system makes the equalization almost non existant.
2) Jim E's data about shock loading (the fact that it essentially doesn't exist when you have a climbing rope in the system) was posted too.
3) Putting your climbing rope into the same biners as your cordelette, essentially makes your system non-escapable.
I think there are some better alternatives out there, the equalette comes to mind.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Jun 13, 2006, 12:19 AM
Post #55 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
In reply to: In reply to: CharlesJMM, again thanks, really appreciated. Before this gets complicated, do you think it is safe to use the climbing rope(s) clove hitched to the pieces for redundancy as the underlying idea, allowing the equalizer to shock load the anchor if one piece blows? Jesus....you'd think the Sliding X thread never happened! 1) The initial cordelette config you posted (the "Craig Short") was never tested because the friction in the system makes the equalization almost non existant. 2) Jim E's data about shock loading (the fact that it essentially doesn't exist when you have a climbing rope in the system) was posted too. 3) Putting your climbing rope into the same biners as your cordelette, essentially makes your system non-escapable. I think there are some better alternatives out there, the equalette comes to mind. Cheers, Jim
The sliding x thread happened and I posted in it, whats the problem?
1) Yes I agree, you could use the equalizer CharlesJMM shows in this thread. Do you think it equalizes well enough?
2) Yes I noticed that.
3) Could you explain why you think this system is non-escapable?
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Jun 13, 2006, 2:42 AM
Post #56 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: CharlesJMM, again thanks, really appreciated. Before this gets complicated, do you think it is safe to use the climbing rope(s) clove hitched to the pieces for redundancy as the underlying idea, allowing the equalizer to shock load the anchor if one piece blows? Jesus....you'd think the Sliding X thread never happened! 1) The initial cordelette config you posted (the "Craig Short") was never tested because the friction in the system makes the equalization almost non existant. 2) Jim E's data about shock loading (the fact that it essentially doesn't exist when you have a climbing rope in the system) was posted too. 3) Putting your climbing rope into the same biners as your cordelette, essentially makes your system non-escapable. I think there are some better alternatives out there, the equalette comes to mind. Cheers, Jim The sliding x thread happened and I posted in it, whats the problem? 1) Yes I agree, you could use the equalizer CharlesJMM shows in this thread. Do you think it equalizes well enough? 2) Yes I noticed that. 3) Could you explain why you think this system is non-escapable?
2) You used the term shock load, so I assumed you didn't get the data John posted....I find it very hard to use that term anymore.
3) The system is non-escapable because you have your rope cloved into weighted anchor biners. You'll either have to fuss with your anchoring biners and open them (bad idea) while weigthing the anchor, or you'll have to add more biners to seperate the cloves from the cord biners. (which would lead to many more complications should a piece fail.)
Also, should a piece fail and your clove backup get loaded, your rope is now occupied in the anchor...you might has well have rigged a direct tie in, from the start.
I've spent a lot of time reading the threads and data about cordelettes, spent a lot of time talking with some pro in the industry....and I still find myself reaching for a cordelette at most anchors. The gear hasn't been that bad that I'm worried about the force distribution issues, and it's a hassle to use any form of redundant yet extension limiting, system.
If I were to use anything else, it'd be crossed slings, or JL's equalette on 3 pieces. Most of this other stuff seems semi pointless to me and my climbing, ATM.....which is a pain, cause I've spent a lot of time and energy on the whole issue...and we're almost right back where we started, just more informed about it.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Jun 14, 2006, 3:03 AM
Post #57 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
Thanks for explaining Jim
1) Yes, wide spread pieces is maybe best rigged with only the climbing ropes, 2 pieces on one rope and 1 piece on the other, and just skip the self adjusting equalizer?
I can tighten the cloves with my ropes so that I'm sure they wont shift much around on the biner. I tie them on the spine side, near the "bottom". I do not agree in the "shifting around" problem at all. And if it should shift it is redundant. The single non-redundant powerpoint biner that seems to flourish in this community is of a much bigger concern.
2) Sure.
3) The system is totally escapable in any circumstances with only my personal equipment, one screwgate oval biner and a prusik rope.
The weighted biners are no problem at all, with the equalizer or without it. They do not need to be opened, fuzzed with or doubled up by more biners.
My English is terrible but I'll try to explain:
First the scenario where the equalizer works and arrests the fall.
a) Try to make the leader self belay and untie --> Anchor unweighted.
if not:
b) Tie off the ATC and send the excess rope loop down so that she can send up all the gear. I now have plenty of gear and should have no problem escaping.
if not:
c) Tie off the ATC. Take the weight off with prusik from pp to rope below ATC. Tie a backup to the pp with excess rope to personal screwgate. Self belay. Untie from rope end. Thread the rope so that the clove hitches comes loose, it's easy, first pp then the biners in the pro. Excess rope is free from anchor. Remember to back up equalizer with climbing rope or sling from directional piece.
And then the scenario where equalizer blows and only one piece is weighted.
a) Same as over
b) Same as over
c) Tie off ATC. Re-rig blown piece or maybe move directional piece to become a downward piece. Re-rig equalizer, to a classic cordalette. Use prusik from equalizer, with biner from blown piece or directional piece or personal screwgate, to take weight of ATC. Untie pp biner and use it on cordalette. Tie a loop on the rope and clip it to powerpoint biner, this is the backup to the prusik. Untie and unthread the cloves. Excess rope is free from anchor.
Details ignored for clarity but it is the weighted biners that seems to be your concern.
Using only a cordalette clipped to the belay loop is probably easier, but not redundant at all since it relays on a single biner. Lets say that the leader is pulling a big stone and is falling together with the stone on to the anchor. Stone hits biner and biner breaks. Or biner gets weighted over edge. Or biner gets cross loaded. Or biner is hit by a stone when weighted. Or biner has flaws from factory or abuse.
Why not use the climbing ropes in the anchor? It is strong, dynamic, fast and easy to use and always at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Jun 14, 2006, 4:18 AM
Post #58 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: Using only a cordalette clipped to the belay loop is probably easier, but not redundant at all since it relays on a single biner. Lets say that the leader is pulling a big stone and is falling together with the stone on to the anchor. Stone hits biner and biner breaks. Or biner gets weighted over edge. Or biner gets cross loaded. Or biner is hit by a stone when weighted. Or biner has flaws from factory or abuse. Why not use the climbing ropes in the anchor? It is strong, dynamic, fast and easy to use and always at hand.
Well....if you rig a biner over an edge, for your masterpoint....your an idiot.
Stone hits biner and biner breaks?? Dont think so...it'd cut the cords, maybe...but any rock big enough to break a biner is big enough to kill you too. And odds are it'll kill you, and push you and the biners out in an arc, not breaking the biner at all.
Flaws from the factory? Like what, microfractures? :lol: I don't think we need to worry much about that. Besides, what are we connecting biners to at the anchor? Climbing rope, either for the belay of the second, or our own personal attachment to the anchor.
Abused gear? So you climb on gear you don't trust, rather than retiring it???
Your anchoring suggestion uses the rope, and cordelette material. People use cordelette material because it seperates the rope from the anchor....your design requires that every anchoring biner needs to be opened (probably while being weighted) to escape the belay....so why not save the material and just use the direct-tie-in method? Your taking the disadvantages of each system and combining them into 1...for what? Equalization? If your worried about it that much, why not use JL's Equalette?
As to you saying your not worried about your clove hitch moving around.... You dont know what it is that's going to fail, the pro (top of the biner) or the cord (bottom of the biner)....your clove hitch will be on the spine...you said....between the 2 points of contact loading the biner....how is it you want to get a rope out of 3 biners rigged like that again? And how do you know which end to put the clove at, so it wont shift...when you don't know what is going to fail?
You want to use a prussik to unweight each piece... and create a bunch of mini haul systems or something??? So your gonna haul the anchor up on pieces you didn't trust that much in the first place (or else why go through all the trouble of such an elaborate load distributing anchor?!??)
I really don't see what it is your anchor really does other than complicate things. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it....
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Jun 14, 2006, 3:15 PM
Post #59 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
In reply to: Well....if you rig a biner over an edge, for your masterpoint....your an idiot.
In reply to: Stone hits biner and biner breaks?? Don't think so...it'd cut the cords, maybe...but any rock big enough to break a biner is big enough to kill you too. And odds are it'll kill you, and push you and the biners out in an arc, not breaking the biner at all.
I'll bear in mind that you don't think so ...
In reply to: Flaws from the factory? Like what, microfractures? I don't think we need to worry much about that. Besides, what are we connecting biners to at the anchor? Climbing rope, either for the belay of the second, or our own personal attachment to the anchor.
How nice for you that you don't think so ...
In reply to: Abused gear? So you climb on gear you don't trust, rather than retiring it???
In reply to: Your anchoring suggestion uses the rope, and cordelette material. People use cordelette material because it separates the rope from the anchor....your design requires that every anchoring biner needs to be opened (probably while being weighted) to escape the belay....so why not save the material and just use the direct-tie-in method? Your taking the disadvantages of each system and combining them into 1...for what? Equalization? If your worried about it that much, why not use JL's Equalette?
Are you sure that people uses the cordalette to separate the climbing rope from the anchor? It is not the reason I was thought.
In reply to: As to you saying your not worried about your clove hitch moving around.... You don't know what it is that's going to fail, the pro (top of the biner) or the cord (bottom of the biner)....your clove hitch will be on the spine...you said....between the 2 points of contact loading the biner....how is it you want to get a rope out of 3 biners rigged like that again? And how do you know which end to put the clove at, so it wont shift...when you don't know what is going to fail?
I'll untie each clove from the biners the same way I would tie them without opening the biner. Did you think it was impossible? I have escaped the tie in and have the rope end free while un-tying.
In reply to: You want to use a prussik to unweight each piece... and create a bunch of mini haul systems or something??? So your gonna haul the anchor up on pieces you didn't trust that much in the first place (or else why go through all the trouble of such an elaborate load distributing anchor?!??)
In reply to: I really don't see what it is your anchor really does other than complicate things. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it.... |
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Jun 17, 2006, 8:47 PM
Post #60 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
^^re: sittingduck
I can see how you want to escape the anchor (via untieing and unthreading the cloves one strand at a time) I can't say that I care for that. The lesson we have been learning about always anchoring in with the rope for your attachment, is a valuable one. Any setup that forces me to do otherwise to break it down, concerns me (whether it's a legitimate fear or not, it's one I have)...IF a piece just pulled out, and I now have to untie and weight a static sling to a shakey anchor....the pucker factor is getting a little out of control for me.
About biners being loaded on the top....it sure is possible. Should your piece of gear pullout, and your cordelette come tight against the clove hitch of rope...the clove hitch will move to the top of the biner.
In reply to: Yes I climb on abused gear all the time. How do you determine when a piece of gear is ready for retirement. I also mix my gear with whomever I climb with. I do not know what every piece in the rack has been through. It is not a problem as long as there is redundancy present. You see, I never trust my system upon one single piece of gear.
Spoken like a beginner. If you don't know when to retire a piece of gear, you shouldn't be using it. Be concervative. Call up BD, Metolius, etc, and talk to them about it...they'll give you a little insight.
You never trust your system to once single piece of gear? How many harnesses do you wear? How many ropes do you use? How many belay devices do you have on your rope(s)? How many belay biners do you use each time?
The anchor setup you describe (ATC usage) involved a single locking biner, with a single ATC, on probably a single rope...off your harness, through masterpoint biners to the climber(s).
My anchor setup, which you don't think is safe because I use one biner off the anchor to belay...has removed my harness, and multiple biners from the masterpoint (redirect) from the system....there are now less links in an equally strong chain. (using the same single belay biner and belay device, directly off the anchor... ala Reverso, etc) I find it histerical that you feel this setup is more dangerous cause it isn't "redundant". It's just as "redundant" as your setup, with less gear to break (as your concerned about, as you have already written.
Also, if a piece fails, and your clove hitches to get weighted....without building a haul system off of part of the anchor (or building a new one) you won't be able to get your now loaded rope out of the system.
You now have the weakeness of a direct tie in system cause you can't escape it (easilly) when the backup is loaded, and the weakness of a cordelette anchor (more material needed) without having seperated the rope from the anchor (the main reason most climbers use cordelette anchors...lead in blocks, no complex knots and shit, can use more of the rope for the pitch, easy to escape.)
Your setup is more complicated, and a PITA than the equalette....and why? What does it accomplish? You can (hopefully) distribute force across 3 pieces now? Rather than 2? Is that honestly that important? Rigging an anchor where you really think you need to distribute force across 3+ pieces shouldn't happen on much besides aid situations....and in those instances...who wants an anchor that occupies the rope?
I never said I was smart, and I never said you and the people you learned from are idiots....I just have spent a lot of time thinking about anchors, and learning about the fine points of them. What I give is just based on my experience and knowledge.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Jun 17, 2006, 10:28 PM
Post #61 of 61
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
Good lord. While I appreciate peoples efforts to improve things, doesn't anyone just fucking climb anymore???
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
