|
ctardi
Jun 12, 2006, 11:32 PM
Post #1 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
http://www.weldingwiki.com/images/anchor.jpg
So, let's pretend that both points are bomber. Got a figure eight on one anchor, clove hitch on the other, and a double re traced figure eight for the master point, with two opposite and opposing biners. What do you think of that setup? It is totally redundant, and non extending. Simple, safe. (Done with static rope). I think it's good for extending...
|
|
|
|
|
estwing
Jun 12, 2006, 11:37 PM
Post #2 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 344
|
same thing as a cordalette, only more knots, less rope
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 12, 2006, 11:41 PM
Post #3 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
Well...I'd do my cordlettes differently. :)
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 12, 2006, 11:48 PM
Post #4 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
Strength of my cordletted: 1500kg
Strength of that static rope: 3628kg
I'll take the rope...
|
|
|
|
|
euroford
Jun 12, 2006, 11:53 PM
Post #5 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 2913
|
i do it like that sometimes, but don't bring along a static rope, use your climbing rope. you can also incorporate a third or more points. every climber should know how to quickly build bomber anchors with the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 12:03 AM
Post #6 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
Yea, I agree. But i'm still learning(isn't everyone?), which means a lot of toprope setups. I beleive it would be hard to toprope anything tall, while using the rope as an anchor.
This is also good for going over an edge, as static rope tends to saw it's self less. I do keep two peices of tubeular webbing, with the ends open, to put over the rope to pad it.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jun 13, 2006, 1:51 AM
Post #7 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Pound some bolts into the wall. Make it solid. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 2:10 AM
Post #8 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
My wall is too exposed to bolt on lead, and there's no trail to the top. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
shorty
Jun 13, 2006, 2:06 PM
Post #9 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 1266
|
ctardi,
That's a bomber setup -- straight out of AMGA's recommendations for top ropes.
|
|
|
|
|
snothead
Jun 13, 2006, 2:18 PM
Post #10 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2005
Posts: 44
|
What do people think about the clove hitch not being backed-up? I've heard some say that a clove within a closed loop is fine, but in the end of a piece of rope it should be backed up. What's the consensus? overkill? not necessary? necessary?
Also, your eight on a bight on the right isn't well dressed - and I know i'm being picky but you asked for feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 13, 2006, 2:28 PM
Post #11 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: http://www.weldingwiki.com/images/anchor.jpg So, let's pretend that both points are bomber. Got a figure eight on one anchor, clove hitch on the other, and a double re traced figure eight for the master point, with two opposite and opposing biners. What do you think of that setup? It is totally redundant, and non extending. Simple, safe. (Done with static rope). I think it's good for extending...
It's all fine, but what's with the double retraced fig-8? A fig-8 on a bight is the right knot for this application, IMO.
Also, I'd use either three non-lockers or a locker and a non-locker at the power point. You can't monitor it - it's out of sight. So better be safe on that one.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 2:28 PM
Post #12 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
Thanks Shorty, got it from the ACMG, but I beleive the standards are fairly similar.
Snothead, I didn't dress that knot very well, thanks for pointing that out.
The clove hitch is backed up, by the other anchor point. At least that's how I see it. Can't use a clove hitch for any single life line, but it's great to be able to equalize an anchor with it.
I guess it would be easy enough to back it up, but I don't see it as necisarry.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 13, 2006, 2:32 PM
Post #13 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
why retrace the figure 8? Why not just a figure 8 on a bite?
easier to handle, faster, and less bulk
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 2:33 PM
Post #14 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
Figure eight on a bite leaves me clipped into one strand of rope, retraced it leaves me with two, more redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 13, 2006, 2:36 PM
Post #15 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
with that logic, you should use a retraced figure 8 into each of the pieces then
to each their own I guess
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 13, 2006, 2:44 PM
Post #16 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: What do people think about the clove hitch not being backed-up? I've heard some say that a clove within a closed loop is fine, but in the end of a piece of rope it should be backed up. What's the consensus? overkill? not necessary? necessary?
Please read this paper if you're interested in knot strengths. In particular, it's the best tests I've seen on clove hitch holding strength.
Here's the short version: In static rope, the clove can slip at forces as low as 4.5 kN, though most of the time it was higher. In dynamic rope, the clove never slipped, and broke at the same force as the overhand knot.
So - Ctardi, you're unlikely to see forces higher than 4.5kN on one strand of a well equalized anchor like the one you've built, but my recommendation would be to back up that clove hitch in the static rope if you have the time. Probably just a simple overhand knot set snug against the clove would be enough to keep it from slipping.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 2:52 PM
Post #18 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 3:24 PM
Post #19 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
In reply to: with that logic, you should use a retraced figure 8 into each of the pieces then to each their own I guess
How I see it, the peices are backed up, as there is another peice should one fail. If one strand of the master point fails, it'll be okay. If any one part of this anchor fails, it will be fine. Including the master point.
cracklover - I guess i'll throw in an overhand backup, doens't take any time...
Why not backup the master point? ACMG says to do it that way, it only takes me about 4 more feet of rope, maybe 20 more seconds than tying a regular eight on a bite.
That anchor setup, I think it's good for when the anchors arn't near the edge. That's a 22meter work rope, could probably get 8 meters of extension.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 13, 2006, 3:35 PM
Post #20 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
Right, but we tie in with a single strand figure 8 or bowline. There is no redundancy there, and the tie in gets to be in many more unpredictable situations. The anchor is going to be where the anchor is. IF the anchor is rubbing that bad, you should move it. If it isn't rubbing, then it won't rub in the future, and there is still no reason to make that portion redundant.
It takes 20 seconds more to tie and another 20 to untie. If the lengths are off, it can take longer.
Like I said, to each their own. Your method will give you redundancy, but I am not sure how necessary it is. Hopefully my reasoning is sufficiently explained that you understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 13, 2006, 3:54 PM
Post #21 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: with that logic, you should use a retraced figure 8 into each of the pieces then to each their own I guess How I see it, the peices are backed up, as there is another peice should one fail. If one strand of the master point fails, it'll be okay. If any one part of this anchor fails, it will be fine. Including the master point.
Right on.
In reply to: Why not backup the master point? ACMG says to do it that way, it only takes me about 4 more feet of rope, maybe 20 more seconds than tying a regular eight on a bite.
... this is okay reasoning, as far as it goes. It just doesn't go very far. As soon as you're in a situation where you have to make choices, you can no longer rely on "ACMG says to do it like this". But from the first paragraph, it does seem like you understand what's going on behind the rules, so I trust you'll mostly make the right choices when you have to improvise.
In reply to: That anchor setup, I think it's good for when the anchors arn't near the edge. That's a 22meter work rope, could probably get 8 meters of extension.
Okay, so what do you use to get over the edge? I mean, if you're using up all this lovely static rope with all these fancy knots, and then extending the whole setup with a single loop of mil spec webbing - well doesn't that seem a little silly to you, if the rope could be capable of running over the edge? Keep in mind that if you've got a second line running from the power-point of this anchor, (a single point) over the lip, to another power point where the rope runs through, you're going to wind up dragging that second line across the lip of the cliff every time the TRer falls, unless he's at a direct plumb-line from the original anchor. This sawing of the second line is not good, and you won't be able to see what's happening above the lip of the cliff at all. And I don't think I'd like the idea of dragging those two non-locking biners around above the cliff where you can't see 'em. Oh, unless the ACMG says it's okay. :P
GO
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 3:56 PM
Post #22 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
Yup, I get what you are saying, but it's like anything else, million ways to do it, do what you are most comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
|
radistrad
Jun 13, 2006, 4:10 PM
Post #24 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2002
Posts: 800
|
I would skip that clove hitch and replace it with a figure 8 on a bight.
I would also prefer to have 3 pieces of pro if your not clipping into bolts.
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 4:30 PM
Post #25 of 54
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
In reply to: In reply to: Yup, I get what you are saying, but it's like anything else, million ways to do it, do what you are most comfortable with. Why did you post this thread? I strongly suspect it was just an exercise in mental masturbation for you. But if you're honestly looking for opinions, here's mine in brief: You're making a concrete foundation that's 10% thicker than it needs to be, and then potentially skimping on the concrete between the bricks you lay on top of the foundation because you don't have enough left. GO
Just interested in the opinions out there, have already made a couple of changes to what I will do. I'm still not seeing any reason not to do the figure eight at the master point that way, unless the extra rope used puts the anchor in a bad spot.
ACMG has good guidelines if I can do something how they suggest, why not do it?
Microbarn - This rope would be going over the edge, as I said earlier, it gets threaded through a peice of webbing. The webbing is not strength, it's protection.
radistrad - I didn't really trust the clove hitch the first few times, but it is much easier to equalize, and with the overhand backup, I don't see it coming undone under normal circumdance.
I'd just use this on either bolts, or bomber trees, or one of each. I'm not quite up to 3 point anchor building, but i'm learning. :)
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 4:31 PM
Post #26 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
In reply to: In reply to: Yup, I get what you are saying, but it's like anything else, million ways to do it, do what you are most comfortable with. Why did you post this thread? I strongly suspect it was just an exercise in mental masturbation for you. But if you're honestly looking for opinions, here's mine in brief: You're making a concrete foundation that's 10% thicker than it needs to be, and then potentially skimping on the concrete between the bricks you lay on top of the foundation because you don't have enough left. GO
Just interested in the opinions out there, have already made a couple of changes to what I will do. I'm still not seeing any reason not to do the figure eight at the master point that way, unless the extra rope used puts the anchor in a bad spot.
ACMG has good guidelines if I can do something how they suggest, why not do it?
Microbarn - This rope would be going over the edge, as I said earlier, it gets threaded through a peice of webbing. The webbing is not strength, it's protection.
radistrad - I didn't really trust the clove hitch the first few times, but it is much easier to equalize, and with the overhand backup, I don't see it coming undone under normal circumdance.
I'd just use this on either bolts, or bomber trees, or one of each. I'm not quite up to 3 point anchor building, but i'm learning. :)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 13, 2006, 5:20 PM
Post #27 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: ACMG has good guidelines if I can do something how they suggest, why not do it?
I answered that question earlier. The reason not to do it is if you could use that extra four feet of rope for something more productive - extending the anchor over the lip was just one example.
What I'm saying is that this anchor is only part of the true anchor, if you're extending it over the lip. And depending on how you do that, and on the configuration of the top of the cliff, this may be the right solution to the wrong problem. I'm saying you still haven't really explained how you extend this anchor, and I think it's potentially a major flaw that could be fixed by doing something different with the anchor itself.
In reply to: Microbarn - This rope would be going over the edge, as I said earlier, it gets threaded through a peice of webbing. The webbing is not strength, it's protection.
Huh? If the rope is going over the edge, then why does it need to be extended. And what's this about webbing? What's it threaded through?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 13, 2006, 5:28 PM
Post #28 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
In reply to: Microbarn - This rope would be going over the edge, as I said earlier, it gets threaded through a peice of webbing. The webbing is not strength, it's protection.
Until this statement, I thought we were at an understanding. I am not getting the webbing strength vs protection. I didn't think we were ever talking about webbing.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Jun 13, 2006, 5:46 PM
Post #29 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
I do not like your anchor. Do it like this instead: figure eight on first bomber peice --> several feet of slack later (enough to get over the edge) clove hitch a locker, then clove hitch another locker a foot or so away --> clip your ropes into the lockers --> throw rope over the edge --> now take the free end leading from the second locker and clove hitch it into the SECOND bomber piece --> adjust the clove hitch on the second bomber peice until you feel tension. Now you have an 'equalized' (but not really) anchor with two COMPLETELY independent points.
I saw this method explained in Climbing Issue a few years ago, and though I don't use it myself, it looks better than what you've got.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 13, 2006, 5:50 PM
Post #30 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
haha, well what DO you use then?
As ctardi said before, we are still dealing with a 2 point anchoring system. Your suggested system seems to be directed at more points. It also seems to be directed at multipitch where you are swinging leads.
Did I miss something?
|
|
|
|
|
joeforte
Jun 13, 2006, 6:38 PM
Post #31 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
Did anyone read this whole thread? He's using the webbing as an extra "sheath" for around the rope. He's threading the static line through tubular webbing, and it is the static line that will be running over the edge. A static rope, plus a webbing sheath is pretty much as bomber as you can get with standard climbing gear for running over an edge, unless you carry one of those PVC rope protectors.
I think he was asking more particularly about the knots and equalization, which looks great, besides maybe the clove being backed up, which he agreed he would do.
Why flame him for using the double figure eight? He is learning how to setup toprope anchors, and is being super safe about it. Nothing wrong with that. I'd gladly climb with this guy, rather than some know-it-all who accidentally overlooks the simple stuff.
In my opinion, you can't ever be too safe or too bomber with toprope setups. I can see in an alpine environment, when time, or gear is at a premium, you have to be as efficient as possible. But in this case, go overkill, as long as it's not cutting into your afterwork climbing time! :lol:
Lookin good man, keep it up. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
pendereki
Jun 13, 2006, 7:09 PM
Post #32 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Posts: 323
|
Yup, I read the whole thread and I pretty much agree with you.
I would climb with either of you!
CM
(I really expected that this thread would be about the sliding-X thread)
|
|
|
|
|
phlsphr
Jun 13, 2006, 7:26 PM
Post #33 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: Did anyone read this whole thread? He's using the webbing as an extra "sheath" for around the rope. He's threading the static line through tubular webbing, and it is the static line that will be running over the edge. A static rope, plus a webbing sheath is pretty much as bomber as you can get with standard climbing gear for running over an edge, unless you carry one of those PVC rope protectors. I think he was asking more particularly about the knots and equalization, which looks great, besides maybe the clove being backed up, which he agreed he would do. Why flame him for using the double figure eight? He is learning how to setup toprope anchors, and is being super safe about it. Nothing wrong with that. I'd gladly climb with this guy, rather than some know-it-all who accidentally overlooks the simple stuff. In my opinion, you can't ever be too safe or too bomber with toprope setups. I can see in an alpine environment, when time, or gear is at a premium, you have to be as efficient as possible. But in this case, go overkill, as long as it's not cutting into your afterwork climbing time! :lol: Lookin good man, keep it up. :wink:
Not to hard to read this whole thread--since it consists only of your post and a reply. On the other hand, if you are talking about some other thread (as you obviously are), I have no idea what thread you are talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 13, 2006, 9:26 PM
Post #34 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
In reply to: In reply to: ACMG has good guidelines if I can do something how they suggest, why not do it? I answered that question earlier. The reason not to do it is if you could use that extra four feet of rope for something more productive - extending the anchor over the lip was just one example. What I'm saying is that this anchor is only part of the true anchor, if you're extending it over the lip. And depending on how you do that, and on the configuration of the top of the cliff, this may be the right solution to the wrong problem. I'm saying you still haven't really explained how you extend this anchor, and I think it's potentially a major flaw that could be fixed by doing something different with the anchor itself. In reply to: Microbarn - This rope would be going over the edge, as I said earlier, it gets threaded through a peice of webbing. The webbing is not strength, it's protection. Huh? If the rope is going over the edge, then why does it need to be extended. And what's this about webbing? What's it threaded through? GO
Okay, I could have worded this better...
By extending an anchor, I meant that I would use this setup if my bolts/trees/whatever are back from an edge, because my work rope is long enough for anything within 8 meters from the edge.
I'm using the webbing like a sleeve, just slipped over the work rope, to protect it over the edge of the rock. I'll post a photo when I get home to show what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 14, 2006, 2:23 AM
Post #35 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: ACMG has good guidelines if I can do something how they suggest, why not do it? I answered that question earlier. The reason not to do it is if you could use that extra four feet of rope for something more productive - extending the anchor over the lip was just one example. What I'm saying is that this anchor is only part of the true anchor, if you're extending it over the lip. And depending on how you do that, and on the configuration of the top of the cliff, this may be the right solution to the wrong problem. I'm saying you still haven't really explained how you extend this anchor, and I think it's potentially a major flaw that could be fixed by doing something different with the anchor itself. In reply to: Microbarn - This rope would be going over the edge, as I said earlier, it gets threaded through a peice of webbing. The webbing is not strength, it's protection. Huh? If the rope is going over the edge, then why does it need to be extended. And what's this about webbing? What's it threaded through? GO Okay, I could have worded this better... By extending an anchor, I meant that I would use this setup if my bolts/trees/whatever are back from an edge, because my work rope is long enough for anything within 8 meters from the edge. I'm using the webbing like a sleeve, just slipped over the work rope, to protect it over the edge of the rock. I'll post a photo when I get home to show what I mean.
Ah, gotcha. Well if the power point of this anchor is what the toprope runs through, then I think it's fine. And sure, it's sensible to run the rope through tubular webbing if it's over a sharp edge.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 14, 2006, 3:48 AM
Post #36 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
OK, I think we are both on the same page now. :D :wink:
fulton - That is essentially the same, except for the master point, where the rope is attached. I could see myself trying that, but i'm not sure if I like it.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 14, 2006, 12:54 PM
Post #37 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
I have seen the protective webbing over the rope. No need for the pic. Thanks for the explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Jun 14, 2006, 3:14 PM
Post #38 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
In reply to: fulton - That is essentially the same, except for the master point, where the rope is attached. I could see myself trying that, but i'm not sure if I like it. |
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 14, 2006, 3:47 PM
Post #39 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: fulton - That is essentially the same, except for the master point, where the rope is attached. I could see myself trying that, but i'm not sure if I like it. Yes, very similar except for the master point. In fact, there really isn't a "master point" at all using the method (that I) previously described, rather; this method essentially creates two COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT anchor points that share the same length of static cord. The real advantage with this method is that you can adjust each 'arm' of the anchor without affecting the other 'arm'. Conversely, any adjustment in your system affects ALL component parts (by shifting the master point)--thus any single adjustment (of one 'arm') would require subsequent adjustment to the other 'arm'.
Hmm, in practice, wouldn't the toprope pull both "master point" biners together, creating a single equalized point with some irrelevant slack rope between them? So in effect, you do create a toprope point that shifts exactly in the same manner that ctardi's master point shifts with any change to the position of the gear or the length of the rope on either side.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 14, 2006, 3:51 PM
Post #40 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
I played with his system last night, and found no advantage.
I can move one arm, without really effecting the other. On both systems.
And yes, the top rope just drew both biners together. If I didn't have enough rope, I would use this.
|
|
|
|
|
kmsmoguls
Jun 16, 2006, 1:15 AM
Post #41 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Posts: 140
|
Hey ctardi. How did you tie the figure 8 to have two strands at the power point? You can tie a figure 8 on a bight and make it so it has two strands. Unfortuantely that is not totally redundant. I just learned this myself when I took a rock leader class at North Conway and the guide tested the knot. If one of the stands that acts as your powerpoint was cut it could work its way out making the knot and anchor fail. He said that him and two other people had to put it under significant weight to get it to fail but they could.
They showed me another way to tie a similar knot that is bomb proof, unfortunately it is almost impossible to explain. I won't even attempt it because I know that I will confuse everyone. An alternative might be to tie two consecutive figure 8s on a bight. That way everything is redundent. Hope I didn't confuse anyone.
Erik
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 16, 2006, 4:45 AM
Post #42 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
I started with four strands of rope...that's about as much as I can explain.
Photos to come tomorrow... :)
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Jun 17, 2006, 8:11 AM
Post #43 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
I totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Jun 17, 2006, 5:46 PM
Post #44 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
I believe is is talking about my thread titled 'Anchor'.
Thanks Joe!
|
|
|
|
|
rocketsocks
Jun 17, 2006, 5:59 PM
Post #45 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2006
Posts: 179
|
It's a shame that it is technologically impossible to link to other threads on this forum.
Worse yet is the impossibility of inserting some short explanatory remarks explaining the situation for those who lack context.
Oh to live in such a cruel and strange world.
P.S. What do you guys think about that new piece of gear on the market? You know, the one that does that thing.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jun 17, 2006, 6:03 PM
Post #46 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: Did anyone read this whole thread?
In reply to: A static rope, plus a webbing sheath is pretty much as bomber as you can get with standard climbing gear for running over an edge, unless you carry one of those PVC rope protectors. |
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Jun 17, 2006, 6:40 PM
Post #47 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
In reply to: It's a shame that it is technologically impossible to link to other threads on this forum. Worse yet is the impossibility of inserting some short explanatory remarks explaining the situation for those who lack context.
I assume you are being facetious.^^^^^
...and Joe, I agree a link or explanation of what you are talking about would have been nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jun 19, 2006, 12:12 AM
Post #49 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Mkay, I am going to merge this thread into the original thread that is being referred to. So for context for those who came in late, this section of the thread was once upon a time seperate due to a slight technical malfunction on the part of the OP of this section of this thread, in other words I am fixing some pilot error. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
oldsalt
Jun 19, 2006, 12:50 AM
Post #50 of 54
(4455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 919
|
I enjoyed this thread, but I'm bugged by one question....
Why not use 16" woofer for the bass of your anchor?
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Jul 3, 2006, 7:03 PM
Post #51 of 54
(3459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
CrackLover,
I'm revisiting this topic after some-time away.
In reply to: ctardi wrote: fulton - That is essentially the same, except for the master point, where the rope is attached. I could see myself trying that, but i'm not sure if I like it.
In reply to: fulton wrote: Yes, very similar except for the master point. In fact, there really isn't a "master point" at all using the method (that I) previously described, rather; this method essentially creates two COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT anchor points that share the same length of static cord. The real advantage with this method is that you can adjust each 'arm' of the anchor without affecting the other 'arm'. Conversely, any adjustment in your system affects ALL component parts (by shifting the master point)--thus any single adjustment (of one 'arm') would require subsequent adjustment to the other 'arm'.
In reply to: ctardi wrote: Hmm, in practice, wouldn't the toprope pull both "master point" biners together, creating a single equalized point with some irrelevant slack rope between them? So in effect, you do create a toprope point that shifts exactly in the same manner that ctardi's master point shifts with any change to the position of the gear or the length of the rope on either side. GO
So, finally, I think that we have finally meandered towards the point I ought to have made. My set up is SERNE, b/c! --> the two clove hitches create redudancy, whereas; the figure eight offers a SINGLE LOOP as the MASTER POINT - NOT redudant / NOT SERNE
Think about the situation in terms of a cordelete - a cordelete maintains the tenents of SERNE b/c the master point contains multipule loops (below the knot); should one loop below the knot fail, the master point remains intact. This is the desired affect of using the two 'biner/two clove hitch method rather than relying on a single figure eight - which comes down to a single loop of rope.
In conclusion - I never use this method, but I do recomend it. It's both fool-proof and so simple as to be mis-leading as to the many advantages.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Jul 3, 2006, 7:12 PM
Post #52 of 54
(3459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
I just noticed that ctardi's photo depicts some hybrid/bastardized/figure-eight with two loops below the knot - so his anchor IS SERNE.
But, I also think ctardi's knot looks so damn ugly; whereas the setup I described looks very handsom, which is also important.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
fmd
Jul 4, 2006, 5:00 PM
Post #53 of 54
(3459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2006
Posts: 656
|
[quote="fulton"]I just noticed that ctardi's photo depicts some hybrid/bastardized/figure-eight with two loops below the knot - so his anchor IS SERNE.
The knot looks like a double overhanded knot?? I would climb with this set up, I would just feel more comfortable with a yosesmite bowline or a figure eight where the clove hitch is.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 5, 2006, 2:31 AM
Post #54 of 54
(3459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Fulton, I think in the future you should also recommend that climbers should have more than one rope - and of course, each rope should have its own belayer. After all, those, too, are not redundant.
G :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
|
