|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 1:01 AM
Post #1 of 59
(8136 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
I am new to trad and have been reading about anchors as much as I can. There is an older thread (~2 years, "Improved Sliding X: Is it really safer?") that inspired me to mess around with anchor systems. I came up with this (see links to pictures), but I figure it's already got a name.
It seems to me to work quite well! The only extra pieces beyond a normal setup is two rap rings. Is there any kind of bad pulley effect going on in it? The red sling is to prevent severe extension when the middle piece pops. When either side piece pulls out, there isn't too much extension. Additionally, the whole thing is done on a bite (on the far left the end of the bite is clove hitched), so I'm pretty sure that it's redundant, too?
I understand that it's easier to flame someone than it is to help them understand why what they did was incorrect. Yet, if there are problems in it, explain to me what exactly is wrong so I don't accidentally replicate it in another anchor.
Full structure:
http://i305.photobucket.com/.../spikeddem/macro.jpg
Left Side:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...keddem/leftmicro.jpg
Right side:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...eddem/rightmicro.jpg
Bottom:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...ddem/bottommacro.jpg
Here it is taking a pull from an angle:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...m/directionforce.jpg
Failure of middle placement:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...eddem/middlepull.jpg
Failure of side placement:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...keddem/sidepulls.jpg
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 1:04 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 1:11 AM
Post #2 of 59
(8120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
I predict Majid will cry triaxial loading on the master point biner (might use two biners there, one on each rap ring).
Extension in the case of anchor failure is unacceptably large (and nails, even 12d, make poor anchors).
Failure of any one strand (cut rope) means total anchor failure.
(This post was edited by shockabuku on May 23, 2008, 1:12 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 1:43 AM
Post #3 of 59
(8092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
shockabuku wrote: I predict Majid will cry triaxial loading on the master point biner (might use two biners there, one on each rap ring).
I suppose two biners would be good anyways.
In reply to: Extension in the case of anchor failure is unacceptably large (and nails, even 12d, make poor anchors).
The extension of the side arms is significantly less than the extension of the middle arm. Since we'll worry about the worst case scenario, I'll address just the middle arm pulling out. The extension is about 8" or 9" in this case. I think the extension would be directly correlated with the length, right? So as the system gets larger, this problem would probably get worse? Ideas to improve that?
Edit: This might start to blow the KISS away, but clipping a sling to the left-most biner and threading it through the rap rings, tying off an overhand knot (to adjust for sling length) then clipping below that knot on the right-most carabiner. That would really lower any extension at all on it. (Now its +2 rap rings +2 slings, as in extra equipment needed. Although slings are often used anyways.)
In reply to: Failure of any one strand (cut rope) means total anchor failure.
I'm pretty sure you can cut any one strand in the system and it is all still rock-n-roll. The ends do not move and are knotted, thus the strands are individual of one another in this case.
Thanks for your input! 
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 1:59 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 4:21 AM
Post #4 of 59
(8014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
spikeddem wrote: shockabuku wrote: I predict Majid will cry triaxial loading on the master point biner (might use two biners there, one on each rap ring). I suppose two biners would be good anyways. In reply to: Extension in the case of anchor failure is unacceptably large (and nails, even 12d, make poor anchors). The extension of the side arms is significantly less than the extension of the middle arm. Since we'll worry about the worst case scenario, I'll address just the middle arm pulling out. The extension is about 8" or 9" in this case. I think the extension would be directly correlated with the length, right? So as the system gets larger, this problem would probably get worse? Ideas to improve that? Edit: This might start to blow the KISS away, but clipping a sling to the left-most biner and threading it through the rap rings, tying off an overhand knot (to adjust for sling length) then clipping below that knot on the right-most carabiner. That would really lower any extension at all on it. (Now its +2 rap rings +2 slings, as in extra equipment needed. Although slings are often used anyways.) In reply to: Failure of any one strand (cut rope) means total anchor failure. I'm pretty sure you can cut any one strand in the system and it is all still rock-n-roll. The ends do not move and are knotted, thus the strands are individual of one another in this case. Thanks for your input!
Yeah, I mis-wrote, I meant if one of the three legs was cut. Some people don't consider that much of a threat, some do.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 5:45 AM
Post #5 of 59
(7972 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
when you load this anchor, where do you think you load your biner? on the green line or the red line or both?
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 23, 2008, 6:38 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
docburner
May 23, 2008, 7:57 AM
Post #6 of 59
(7924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 192
|
I would think right side failure would produce severe extension.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 8:43 AM
Post #7 of 59
(7908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
shockabuku wrote: Yeah, I mis-wrote, I meant if one of the three legs was cut. Some people don't consider that much of a threat, some do.
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, that'd definitely be a problem.
majid_sabet wrote: when you load this anchor, where do you think you load your biner? on the green line or the red line or both?
Well, what about clipping each rap biner with it's own locker? For educational purposes, I'll guess an answer to your question: Both. (Maybe?) Is your point that it will be triaxially loaded?
docburner wrote: I would think right side failure would produce severe extension.
Now that I think of it, the extension here is probably exactly one-half the length of the arm, right? With a smaller setup like this it didn't seem too much, but I suppose it would get quite large on bigger setups.
That, combined with it's arm failure issue, means it'll probably be way too complicated to be of any use. From what I can see, at least.
|
|
|
|
|
reverse_dyno
May 23, 2008, 8:50 AM
Post #8 of 59
(7907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2005
Posts: 69
|
Why not to use this anchor:
1. If you cut one strands of the cord, you will fall a very long way. Twice the distance between the master point and center anchor biner.
2. Your anchor will then consist of 1 strand of cord between the two outside biners. The middle biner will no longer be in the system.
3. Too complex
If you do not believe how far you will fall, cut one of the strands :)
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 11:35 AM
Post #9 of 59
(7867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
spikeddem wrote: I am new to trad and have been reading about anchors as much as I can. There is an older thread (~2 years, "Improved Sliding X: Is it really safer?") that inspired me to mess around with anchor systems. I came up with this (see links to pictures), but I figure it's already got a name. It seems to me to work quite well! The only extra pieces beyond a normal setup is two rap rings. Is there any kind of bad pulley effect going on in it? The red sling is to prevent severe extension when the middle piece pops. When either side piece pulls out, there isn't too much extension. Additionally, the whole thing is done on a bite (on the far left the end of the bite is clove hitched), so I'm pretty sure that it's redundant, too? I understand that it's easier to flame someone than it is to help them understand why what they did was incorrect. Yet, if there are problems in it, explain to me what exactly is wrong so I don't accidentally replicate it in another anchor. Full structure:  Left Side:  Right side:  Bottom:  Here it is taking a pull from an angle:  Failure of middle placement:  Failure of side placement: 
Why the fuck would someone link the pictures rather than embed them?
Then why would some douche bag quote it all and not fix it?
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 11:42 AM
Post #10 of 59
(7859 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
Why not just use this....
???????????
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 3:09 PM
Post #11 of 59
(7775 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
chossmonkey wrote: Why not just use this.... [image]http://www.trango.com/images/products/slings/alpineequalizer.jpg[/image] ???????????
monkeyman
That anchor looks like one of those "get one fits all" anchors sling. the other day I saw one of those on the wall and dude was belaying his partner with it. I looked at it and i thought it was made of some girls underwear.
WHY TF you want to use a anchor sling that has all these tight bends and all those rings .....etc ?
Today’s climbers are turning in to brainless can't do anything themselves. what is wrong with getting a 6 meter of cord and build yourself a nice solid multi point anchor and leave big mama jama fig8 as power point ?
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 3:26 PM
Post #12 of 59
(7762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
reverse_dyno wrote: Why not to use this anchor: 1. If you cut one strands of the cord, you will fall a very long way. Twice the distance between the master point and center anchor biner. 2. Your anchor will then consist of 1 strand of cord between the two outside biners. The middle biner will no longer be in the system. 3. Too complex If you do not believe how far you will fall, cut one of the strands :)
Unless you cut a whole arm worth of strands, it won't fall. However, I'm not willing to find experimental rather than theoretical results on this point! 
Also, I don't see how it is complicated:
1. Make a bite on a normal cordelette.
2. Stuff through right-most biner.
3. Stuff through rap ring.
4. Stuff through center crab.
5. Stuff through rap ring.
6. Clip left-most biner. Clove hitch.
7. Fasten down other end.
8. Clip sling from left to middle.
Done! Considering all the slack is off to one side, I think it is much cleaner looking than clove hitches and fig eights on an equalette.
Not to mention it is very easy to adjust after it is all put together.
chossmonkey wrote: Why the fuck would someone link the pictures rather than embed them? Then why would some douche bag quote it all and not fix it?
I'm sorry, I don't know how to embed pictures! I think I know now though. I will in the future.
chossmonkey wrote: Why not just use this.... [image]http://www.trango.com/images/products/slings/alpineequalizer.jpg[/image] ???????????
I'd rather not buy a limited piece of equipment, I guess. I've always got the rap rings, and already have the cordelette anyways. The rap rings can be put on easily (per above) during construction, so one wouldn't need to carry this system as a whole unit while he/she is climbing.
Thanks for everyone's input!
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 3:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 3:43 PM
Post #13 of 59
(7745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
spikeey
'
The anchor is your life. Do not make an experimental project out of something that holds your life. Keep it simple and solid. Your rig up there is classified under CF.
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
May 23, 2008, 4:04 PM
Post #14 of 59
(7717 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
It's not an unsafe anchor. Ok as a self equalizing system. Has a little built in extension limiting. However it is more complicated than necessary.
Really glad to see a newer climber experimenting and playing around with various anchor techniques. Keep doing it.. do super rediculous complicated stuff..do simpler stuff.. play with it a lot. The familiarity it breeds will serve you better than anything alse can .... especially if you get into wall climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 23, 2008, 4:11 PM
Post #15 of 59
(7701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
majid_sabet wrote: That anchor looks like one of those "get one fits all" anchors sling. the other day I saw one of those on the wall and dude was belaying his partner with it. I looked at it and i thought it was made of some girls underwear.
For posterity.
In reply to: what is wrong with getting a 6 meter of cord and build yourself a nice solid multi point anchor and leave big mama jama fig8 as power point ?
You haven't been reading much lately, have you? The shortcomings of the cordalette anchor system have been quite thoroughly discussed here and elsewhere.
Edited to add: I still don't get why people don't use the climbing rope to anchor in? It's simple, doesn't require extra gear, and vastly more safe than any cord tie-off set up.
(This post was edited by reno on May 23, 2008, 4:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 23, 2008, 4:15 PM
Post #16 of 59
(7695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Shrink the photos, please. The thread's a little hard to read.
My first impression is that your red sling, while well intended, also increases the impact force to the single piece of gear that ends up holding it. If so, that makes cascade failure of the entire anchor system more likely. How much more likely? I don't know. I also really hate that your master point is a biner. I think that's a mistake, the beginnings of which we're already seeing in the tri-loading mentioned above.
Majid responded that a pre-equalized tie-off is a better option, because he still doesn't believe the test results Long and Ewing experienced -- namely that shockloading from extension is largely a myth and that, under high fall forces, cascade failure is actually a bigger concern. In this case, however, he may be right. A pre-equalized tie-off, while flawed in some respects, is probably better than this anchor in more circumstances than not.
Way to use your noodle, but like you said, you're new to the game. Experiment all you want in your garage, but for now, it might be a good idea to stick with more established methods in practice. Just a suggestion. Not a flame.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 4:22 PM
Post #17 of 59
(7681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
majid_sabet wrote: chossmonkey wrote: Why not just use this.... ??????????? monkeyman That anchor looks like one of those "get one fits all" anchors sling. the other day I saw one of those on the wall and dude was belaying his partner with it. I looked at it and i thought it was made of some girls underwear. WHY TF you want to use a anchor sling that has all these tight bends and all those rings .....etc ?
Today’s climbers are turning in to brainless can't do anything themselves. what is wrong with getting a 6 meter of cord and build yourself a nice solid multi point anchor and leave big mama jama fig8 as power point ?
I personally wouldn't use either version, but since there is a version that would likely work better than what was posted I thought I'd mention it.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 4:30 PM
Post #18 of 59
(7669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
Thanks for your comments J_ung. They were helpful!
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 4:35 PM
Post #19 of 59
(7665 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
spikeddem wrote: chossmonkey wrote: Why the fuck would someone link the pictures rather than embed them? Then why would some douche bag quote it all and not fix it? I'm sorry, I don't know how to embed pictures! I think I know now though. I will in the future. chossmonkey wrote: Why not just use this.... [image]http://www.trango.com/images/products/slings/alpineequalizer.jpg[/image] ??????????? I'd rather not buy a limited piece of equipment, I guess. I've always got the rap rings, and already have the cordelette anyways. The rap rings can be put on easily (per above) during construction, so one wouldn't need to carry this system as a whole unit while he/she is climbing. Thanks for everyone's input!
I guess I'd consider rap rings extra gear unless I'm establishing rap routes. It also seems like it would take quite a bit more time to set up if you need to thread and build the whole thing every time you use it. Not to mention the possibility of dropping parts. I personally, if using that setup would want to have the rings threaded differently so that if an outside biner broke you wouldn't have possible complete anchor failure. A longshot yes, but why have questionable links?
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 4:39 PM
Post #20 of 59
(7657 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
majid_sabet wrote: spikeey ' The anchor is your life. Do not make an experimental project out of something that holds your life. Keep it simple and solid. Your rig up there is classified under CF.
This from a guy who "raped" on two strands of a core of a rope. Even though it was only 20' which normally isn't to life threatening. Not like how a 30' rap would have been.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 4:44 PM
Post #21 of 59
(7650 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
chossmonkey wrote: spikeddem wrote: I am new to trad and have been reading about anchors as much as I can. There is an older thread (~2 years, "Improved Sliding X: Is it really safer?") that inspired me to mess around with anchor systems. I came up with this (see links to pictures), but I figure it's already got a name. It seems to me to work quite well! The only extra pieces beyond a normal setup is two rap rings. Is there any kind of bad pulley effect going on in it? The red sling is to prevent severe extension when the middle piece pops. When either side piece pulls out, there isn't too much extension. Additionally, the whole thing is done on a bite (on the far left the end of the bite is clove hitched), so I'm pretty sure that it's redundant, too? I understand that it's easier to flame someone than it is to help them understand why what they did was incorrect. Yet, if there are problems in it, explain to me what exactly is wrong so I don't accidentally replicate it in another anchor. Full structure: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/macro.jpg[/image] Left Side: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/leftmicro.jpg[/image] Right side: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/rightmicro.jpg[/image] Bottom: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/bottommacro.jpg[/image] Here it is taking a pull from an angle: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/directionforce.jpg[/image] Failure of middle placement: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/middlepull.jpg[/image] Failure of side placement: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/sidepulls.jpg[/image] Why the fuck would someone link the pictures rather than embed them? Then why would some douche bag quote it all and not fix it?
Just to piss you off, asshat.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 4:49 PM
Post #22 of 59
(7642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
j_ung wrote: My first impression is that your red sling, while well intended, also i ncreases the impact force to the single piece of gear that ends up holding it. If so, that makes cascade failure of the entire anchor system more likely. How much more likely? I don't know. I also really hate that your master point is a biner. I think that's a mistake, the beginnings of which we're already seeing in the tri-loading mentioned above. Majid responded that a pre-equalized tie-off is a better option, because he still doesn't believe the test results Long and Ewing experienced -- namely that shockloading from extension is largely a myth and that, under high fall forces, cascade failure is actually a bigger concern. In this case, however, he may be right. A pre-equalized tie-off, while flawed in some respects, is probably better than this anchor in more circumstances than not.
I guess I was to busy PC++ing to fully follow those threads, but how would the extension of this anchor be different than if it was (for argument sake) a sliding X?
Perhaps I have missed some important details in the whole "shockloading not a big issue" idea.
Have those threads ever been trimmed down so they are readable? They seem to me like they would be a bit like GUing the BET now.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 4:55 PM
Post #24 of 59
(7628 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
chossmonkey wrote: Have those threads ever been trimmed down so they are readable? They seem to me like they would be a bit like GUing the BET now.
If one of the threads to which you are referring is the "imrpoved sliding x: is it really safer?" then I'd say it hasn't. It's about 33 pages long, and I could hardly get through I think eight or so pages before I couldn't handle anymore. Haha. A lot of the images are actually dead links now, too.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 5:03 PM
Post #25 of 59
(7615 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Jay
If you take a rope and attach one end to an anchor put an inline prusik and leave 6 inches of slack between prusik and the anchor, have a climber 50 feet below and then cut the prusik. The 6 inches of slack on top may only stretch the top rope few more inches but the climber who is hanging down below will see over several feet of drop in yoo yoo action.
Now imagine you are belaying your partner from the top and somehow he falls and one of the anchor protections blows off and you add 17 inches of additional slack to your rope under fall. That extra 17 inches of slack on top becomes the acceleration in fall forces. Defiantly something you do not want in rope work.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 5:05 PM
Post #26 of 59
(2645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
spikeddem wrote: chossmonkey wrote: Have those threads ever been trimmed down so they are readable? They seem to me like they would be a bit like GUing the BET now. If one of the threads to which you are referring is the "imrpoved sliding x: is it really safer?" then I'd say it hasn't. It's about 33 pages long, and I could hardly get through I think eight or so pages before I couldn't handle anymore. Haha. A lot of the images are actually dead links now, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 23, 2008, 5:24 PM
Post #27 of 59
(2636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
reno wrote: Edited to add: I still don't get why people don't use the climbing rope to anchor in? It's simple, doesn't require extra gear, and vastly more safe than any cord tie-off set up.
Agreed. So much easier and quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 5:25 PM
Post #28 of 59
(2636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
majid_sabet wrote: Jay Now imagine you are belaying your partner from the top and somehow he falls and one of the anchor protections blows off and you add 17 inches of additional slack to your rope under fall. That extra 17 inches of slack on top becomes the acceleration in fall forces. Defiantly something you do not want in rope work.
Please read the following with a grain of salt and correct me where I'm wrong. Thanks
Anybody feel free to correct me, but from Jim Ewing's tests I got that if one stops imagining and actually calculates the forces, that the experimental evidence does not follow the logical conclusions about extension and the forces it produces.
Additionally, neither this anchor nor any of the other (equalette, sliding x's + limiter knots) would generally allow for 17" of extension.
Moreover, I offer this theoretical argument: In a cordelette, it has been concluded (I don't remember whether it was Jim Ewing or Professor Gold (?), I think it says in Climbing Anchors, 2nd ed.) that one arm sustains the majority of the weight (except in perfect, convenient conditions). Thus, because it is not well equalized before the failure of the piece, the "new" piece to receive the large majority of the force would, in effect, be "shock loaded."
The above is something I came up with as I was writing it . . . so there's probably a flaw in there somewhere.
Also, following a piece pulling on my anchor or the equalette, the force is perfectly (essentially, and at least in my anchor) equalized between two placements. So before the pull, each piece is holding its share, and after the pull each piece is holding it's share. That "shock load" would be split up "perfectly" between two different pieces.
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 5:26 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
May 23, 2008, 5:30 PM
Post #29 of 59
(2631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
the extension is really the only thing that bugs me with this setup. If one of the side pieces pop you still get an extension of 1/3 of the length of that leg, right? that can still be significant. the sling also seems like too much extension. and what if your pieces are further apart? you can't link all placements with a 60cm sling.
I agree that it's very simple to set up, and I'm really not a scientist so take this with a grain of salt.
someone else asked why one wouldn't use the rope to build an anchor--I'm not a big waller or anything like that so I'm speaking from inexperience. but doesn't it take a big chunk of rope to build an anchor? what if you misguage your anchor points and run out?
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 23, 2008, 5:53 PM
Post #30 of 59
(2614 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Spikeddem, please understand that my following post is for your benefit alone. The following is not meant to be malicious or derogatory, rather, it is an appraisal of what I find to be a disconcerting phenomena of this website:
This online community is doing you a great disservice by entertaining the notion that these innovative anchors are at all better than the tried and absolutely true method of using a cordelette. People invent this shit while sitting at their keyboards and dicking around their dorm rooms -- these anchors are not viable real world solutions; its theoretical, hypothetical nonsense.
If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 5:59 PM
Post #31 of 59
(2615 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
fulton wrote: Spikeddem, please understand that my following post is for your benefit alone. The following is not meant to be malicious or derogatory, rather, it is an appraisal of what I find to be a disconcerting phenomena of this website: This online community is doing you a great disservice by entertaining the notion that these innovative anchors are at all better than the tried and absolutely true method of using a cordelette. People invent this shit while sitting at their keyboards and dicking around their dorm rooms -- these anchors are not viable real world solutions; its theoretical, hypothetical nonsense. If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it. Peace
There's a flaw in this logic. Would you prefer I use the first or second edition? I would end up with two significantly different conclusions!
Edit: My point being that there is no err in experimenting, especially on the ground. Indeed, I believe there is err in NOT experimenting. John Long himself encouraged it.
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 6:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 23, 2008, 6:16 PM
Post #32 of 59
(2601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Yes, you are right. But, perhaps, in addition, you might consider an ancient Chinese proverb:
Not every girl wants you to stick a finger up her butt.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 6:40 PM
Post #33 of 59
(2568 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
fulton wrote: Spikeddem, please understand that my following post is for your benefit alone. The following is not meant to be malicious or derogatory, rather, it is an appraisal of what I find to be a disconcerting phenomena of this website: This online community is doing you a great disservice by entertaining the notion that these innovative anchors are at all better than the tried and absolutely true method of using a cordelette. People invent this shit while sitting at their keyboards and dicking around their dorm rooms -- these anchors are not viable real world solutions; its theoretical, hypothetical nonsense. If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it. Peace
So what you are saying that anything else out of the book is no good and JL is the god of anchors ?
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 7:02 PM
Post #34 of 59
(2552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
majid_sabet wrote: fulton wrote: Spikeddem, please understand that my following post is for your benefit alone. The following is not meant to be malicious or derogatory, rather, it is an appraisal of what I find to be a disconcerting phenomena of this website: This online community is doing you a great disservice by entertaining the notion that these innovative anchors are at all better than the tried and absolutely true method of using a cordelette. People invent this shit while sitting at their keyboards and dicking around their dorm rooms -- these anchors are not viable real world solutions; its theoretical, hypothetical nonsense. If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it. Peace So what you are saying that anything else out of the book is no good and JL is the god of anchors ?
I think he's probably recommending this to someone that isn't experienced enough with anchors to judge it sufficiently on-the-fly.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 7:24 PM
Post #35 of 59
(2548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
chossmonkey wrote: shockabuku wrote: Just to piss you off, asshat. That was real mature. [image]http://www.climbeasterncanada.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif[/image]
As much so as your rather sophomoric response.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 7:28 PM
Post #36 of 59
(2545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
fulton wrote: Yes, you are right. But, perhaps, in addition, you might consider an ancient Chinese proverb: Not every girl wants you to stick a finger up her butt.
That's right, some are too naive to know they want it.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 23, 2008, 8:27 PM
Post #37 of 59
(2527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Hoo boy. I thought I wasn't going to get involved, but here we go.
First of all, I cannot disagree forcefully enough with those who say that experimenting with anchor configurations is "dangerous" or "stupid". Rather, I think that discussions like this speak to the heart of what it is to be a trad climber - self sufficiency and knowing one's tools (counting the mind and body amongst them) as well as you possibly can.
Now to the point.
spikeddem wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Jay Now imagine you are belaying your partner from the top and somehow he falls and one of the anchor protections blows off and you add 17 inches of additional slack to your rope under fall. That extra 17 inches of slack on top becomes the acceleration in fall forces. Defiantly something you do not want in rope work. Anybody feel free to correct me, but from Jim Ewing's tests I got that if one stops imagining and actually calculates the forces, that the experimental evidence does not follow the logical conclusions about extension and the forces it produces.
Exactly which logical conclusions are you referring to? I don't believe there was much of a problem in modeling the forces they found. The fact that there was not a huge increase in force (shock load) on a fall where the anchor suddenly extended several inches in the middle of force on a many-meter-long rope surprised absolutely no-one who'd put much thought into the matter. Logical conclusions are as good as the precepts that go into them and the rigor of the logic. No better or worse.
In reply to: Additionally, neither this anchor nor any of the other (equalette, sliding x's + limiter knots) would generally allow for 17" of extension.
Not so. I won't go over every version of the 'lettes out there, just the one you're asking about. Let's say your cordelette is 20' in diameter (10 feet long). Your spikelette would be hang around 3' 1/3 below the placements, assuming it was set up the way you have it in your picture. If the outside arm without the limiter on it failed, the rig would extend to 5' below the pieces. Subtract 3 1/3 from 5, and see what you get...
In reply to: Moreover, I offer this theoretical argument: In a cordelette, it has been concluded (I don't remember whether it was Jim Ewing or Professor Gold (?), I think it says in Climbing Anchors, 2nd ed.) that one arm sustains the majority of the weight (except in perfect, convenient conditions). Thus, because it is not well equalized before the failure of the piece, the "new" piece to receive the large majority of the force would, in effect, be "shock loaded."
I'm not sure what your point is. If it is that when a piece in an anchor blows, that the force on the other pieces increases... well that's kind of a no-brainer. If the force pulling down hasn't gotten lower, (and I'll leave that alone for now) then the same force divided by fewer pieces = more force per piece. This is not a shock-load, as the total amount of force on the anchor has not increased. It's simply a redistribution of load onto fewer pieces.
In reply to: Also, following a piece pulling on my anchor or the equalette, the force is perfectly (essentially, and at least in my anchor) equalized between two placements. So before the pull, each piece is holding its share, and after the pull each piece is holding it's share. That "shock load" would be split up "perfectly" between two different pieces.
No, it would not be divided equally. If (using the anchor you displayed above) the piece on the right fails, then the one in the middle would take 1/3 of the remaining force, and the one on the left 2/3.
And there are two big issues relating to extension that did not get covered in JL's latest books.
The first one is simple - if the anchor extends, you as belayer risk losing your stance and/or losing control of the belay.
The second issue (one which I was clamoring for them to test while the tests were ongoing) is this: If you are at a hanging belay, if one piece rips, your anchor now extends a foot and a half, with you the belayer attached directly to it! I don't know what the forces are in this case, because cordelette cord isn't rated for dynamic catches. But suffice it to say that the force *may* be very severe.
This is not to say that there are not ways to mitigate it (such as tying in with the rope, minimizing extension, using dynamic cord, etc), but the point is that extension should not be ignored altogether, as it may be a serious issue if the belayer can fall directly on the anchor.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
fenderfour
May 23, 2008, 8:49 PM
Post #38 of 59
(2515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 177
|
This anchor is called Tufa King Much.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 9:16 PM
Post #39 of 59
(2502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
cracklover wrote: In reply to: Additionally, neither this anchor nor any of the other (equalette, sliding x's + limiter knots) would generally allow for 17" of extension. Not so. I won't go over every version of the 'lettes out there, just the one you're asking about. Let's say your cordelette is 20' in diameter (10 feet long). Your spikelette would be hang around 3' 1/3 below the placements, assuming it was set up the way you have it in your picture. If the outside arm without the limiter on it failed, the rig would extend to 5' below the pieces. Subtract 3 1/3 from 5, and see what you get...
When I build it and pull off the arm that does not have a sling, it extends 6 inches (+/- one-sixteenth of an inch). The red sling did not limit any extension except for the middle arm.
In reply to: In reply to: Moreover, I offer this theoretical argument: In a cordelette, it has been concluded (I don't remember whether it was Jim Ewing or Professor Gold (?), I think it says in Climbing Anchors, 2nd ed.) that one arm sustains the majority of the weight (except in perfect, convenient conditions). Thus, because it is not well equalized before the failure of the piece, the "new" piece to receive the large majority of the force would, in effect, be "shock loaded." I'm not sure what your point is. If it is that when a piece in an anchor blows, that the force on the other pieces increases... well that's kind of a no-brainer.
My point is that it seems like it would be easier for an anchor to go from x force to 2x (double is just an example) force rather than 0 force to 2x force. I'm not much for physics, so maybe that isn't true. My point is that the amount of force that is "surprising" the placement is less. Whether or not that makes an actual difference? I don't know.
In reply to: In reply to: Also, following a piece pulling on my anchor or the equalette, the force is perfectly (essentially, and at least in my anchor) equalized between two placements. So before the pull, each piece is holding its share, and after the pull each piece is holding it's share. That "shock load" would be split up "perfectly" between two different pieces. No, it would not be divided equally. If (using the anchor you displayed above) the piece on the right fails, then the one in the middle would take 1/3 of the remaining force, and the one on the left 2/3.
That was one of my original questions, actually. I was curious if that red sling would have a pulley effect or anything. My new version doesn't have the red sling (see below).
In reply to: And there are two big issues relating to extension that did not get covered in JL's latest books. . . .
Those other two points are interesting. I'll make sure to keep them in the back of my mind in the future!
Thanks for giving me some help!
As for the set-up, here is a newer version, adjusted for some concerns (Less the single biner problem, I forgot to take the photo with two biners instead of one. Just use your imagination!).
The red sling is no longer involved, but rather a dyneema dental floss sling is. Clipped into each side carabiner and passing through the rap rings. A tiny, tiny bit more complex, but this thing is damn adjustable and fast to set-up:
Extension of either side arm, it retains full equalizing ability (6 inches of extension in this set-up +/- one-sixteenth of an inch):
Extension of middle arm, also retains full equalizing ability (3 inches of extension in this set-up +/- one-sixteenth of an inch):
Some have said this is too complex, but it can be set-up in less than a minute, and there are only two knots (equalette either four or five with three placements). Not to mention it does not suffer any limit to reasonable directions of pull.
Main things it doesn't do well:
1) Powerpoint is a carabiner(s)
2) A complete arm chopped off (both strands) = catastrophic failure.
3) One could drop rap rings (but even then the cordelette is still OK, so this is versatile).
4) If the OUTER two placement blow, there will be an insane amount of extension (the distance would equal the length of the shorter arm)
5) If a side biner breaks, also catastrophic failure.
Haha, this is kinda fun (considering I'm on the ground for now!).
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 9:18 PM
Post #40 of 59
(2501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
fenderfour wrote: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/macro.jpg[/image] This anchor is called Tufa King Much.
Are you arguing that fewer knots, but an additional two rap rings and one sling is too much for the equalization and adjustability it gives? I guess I could understand that standpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 24, 2008, 12:30 AM
Post #41 of 59
(2461 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: reno wrote: Edited to add: I still don't get why people don't use the climbing rope to anchor in? It's simple, doesn't require extra gear, and vastly more safe than any cord tie-off set up. Agreed. So much easier and quicker.
Safer, too.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
May 24, 2008, 2:07 AM
Post #42 of 59
(2446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
reno wrote: I still don't get why people don't use the climbing rope to anchor in? It's simple, doesn't require extra gear, and vastly more safe than any cord tie-off set up.
I hope you and I are not the only 2 people that use it.
Anchoring with a rope is the quickest, simplest way to go.
OP should look into it as well.
|
|
|
|
|
catbird_seat
May 24, 2008, 5:39 AM
Post #43 of 59
(2414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Posts: 425
|
How many times can you say that? There are as many ways to anchor in using the rope as there are ways to do it using slings and cordelettes. You aren't saying much at all.
|
|
|
|
|
no_email_entered
May 24, 2008, 1:36 PM
Post #44 of 59
(2385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2008
Posts: 558
|
fulton wrote: If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it.
what about my man Luebben? i like that he has photos of anchor setups with his 2year-old belaying. (of course with a grigri and helmet----a good reason to have kids imo)
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
May 26, 2008, 12:38 AM
Post #45 of 59
(2274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
catbird_seat wrote: How many times can you say that?
A million. If I only wanted to do so.
In reply to: There are as many ways to anchor in using the rope as there are ways to do it using slings and cordelettes. You aren't saying much at all.
Anchoring with sling is too static if you ask me.
Instead of picking on me try to add something useful to this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 26, 2008, 12:49 AM
Post #46 of 59
(2270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
tradrenn wrote: catbird_seat wrote: How many times can you say that? A million. If I only wanted to do so. In reply to: There are as many ways to anchor in using the rope as there are ways to do it using slings and cordelettes. You aren't saying much at all. . Instead of picking on me try to add something useful to this thread.
WHAT do you know about anchors n00b ?
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 26, 2008, 12:54 AM
Post #47 of 59
(2266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
In answer to the second half of your subject, the answer is no, provided you never deploy such a system on the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 26, 2008, 12:54 AM
Post #48 of 59
(2265 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: reno wrote: Edited to add: I still don't get why people don't use the climbing rope to anchor in? It's simple, doesn't require extra gear, and vastly more safe than any cord tie-off set up. Agreed. So much easier and quicker.
good idea except if Sh*t hits the fan and you must escape belay, you "the belayer" and he/she "the leader/follower" are married to the anchor .
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 26, 2008, 12:58 AM
Post #49 of 59
(2262 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
majid_sabet wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: reno wrote: Edited to add: I still don't get why people don't use the climbing rope to anchor in? It's simple, doesn't require extra gear, and vastly more safe than any cord tie-off set up. Agreed. So much easier and quicker.good idea except if Sh*t hits the fan and you must escape belay, you "the belayer" and he/she "the leader/follower" are married to the anchor .
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 26, 2008, 4:24 AM
Post #51 of 59
(1147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
reno wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: reno wrote: Edited to add: I still don't get why people don't use the climbing rope to anchor in? It's simple, doesn't require extra gear, and vastly more safe than any cord tie-off set up. Agreed. So much easier and quicker. Safer, too.
Well, we all seem to agree on that (except perhaps majid) and the ONLY possible reason I can think of not to do so would be when climbing a 60 meter pitch with a single 60 meter rope.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 26, 2008, 5:07 AM
Post #52 of 59
(1136 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
majid_sabet wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: reno wrote: Edited to add: I still don't get why people don't use the climbing rope to anchor in? It's simple, doesn't require extra gear, and vastly more safe than any cord tie-off set up. Agreed. So much easier and quicker.good idea except if Sh*t hits the fan and you must escape belay, you "the belayer" and he/she "the leader/follower" are married to the anchor .
I've never had a problem escaping the belay when anchored using the climbing rope.
It simply takes a measure of knowledge and skill. If you don't have those, well......
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 26, 2008, 5:10 AM
Post #53 of 59
(1134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
curt wrote: Well, we all seem to agree on that (except perhaps majid) and the ONLY possible reason I can think of not to do so would be when climbing a 60 meter pitch with a single 60 meter rope.
Agreed in principle, though one could argue semantics: It takes about a meter of rope per person to tie in. Thus, one could only climb 58 meters on a 60 meter rope.
But yeah, you have a point. Then, too, seldom is the harm in 2 meters of simul-climbing. Did that more than once in the Cirque of the Towers, and it worked out well enough.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
May 26, 2008, 10:21 AM
Post #54 of 59
(1116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
curt wrote: Well, we all seem to agree on that (except perhaps majid) and the ONLY possible reason I can think of not to do so would be when climbing a 60 meter pitch with a single 60 meter rope. Curt
I certainly don't agree. If you are multi pitching, particularly with multiple people then a separate cord for your anchor can often be better. If you are leading every pitch on a multipitch then you normally DON'T want to be building your anchor out of climbing rope. Of course if you do then you can always swap ends.
That said I am a strong advocate of using the climbing rope for the anchor. I carry a cordalette but I make my anchor with climbing rope probably 80% of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Jun 6, 2008, 9:54 PM
Post #55 of 59
(1004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
I'm curious how many people a) shun the cordelette because it equalizes poorly, doesn't adjust to changing direction, and/or can lead to cascade failure
but
b) use a rope-based anchor that doesn't overcome these deficiencies.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Jun 6, 2008, 10:05 PM
Post #56 of 59
(998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
patto wrote: I carry a cordalette but I make my anchor with climbing rope probably 80% of the time.
Brilliant!
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Jun 6, 2008, 10:08 PM
Post #57 of 59
(998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
gunkiemike wrote: I'm curious how many people a) shun the cordelette because it equalizes poorly, doesn't adjust to changing direction, and/or can lead to cascade failure but b) use a rope-based anchor that doesn't overcome these deficiencies.
I doubt most of these people (if any of them) shun the cordelette for that reason. More likely is that they don't feel like dragging up an extra piece of bulky gear that they feel can be replaced by more multifunctional equipment, such as the rope and slings.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Jun 6, 2008, 10:09 PM
Post #58 of 59
(997 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: gunkiemike wrote: I'm curious how many people a) shun the cordelette because it equalizes poorly, doesn't adjust to changing direction, and/or can lead to cascade failure but b) use a rope-based anchor that doesn't overcome these deficiencies. I doubt most of these people (if any of them) shun the cordelette for that reason. More likely is that they don't feel like dragging up an extra piece of bulky gear that they feel can be replaced by more multifunctional equipment, such as the rope and slings.
Although I would be interested to see how many of these people carry a GriGri.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jun 7, 2008, 12:29 AM
Post #59 of 59
(987 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: gunkiemike wrote: I'm curious how many people a) shun the cordelette because it equalizes poorly, doesn't adjust to changing direction, and/or can lead to cascade failure but b) use a rope-based anchor that doesn't overcome these deficiencies. I doubt most of these people (if any of them) shun the cordelette for that reason. More likely is that they don't feel like dragging up an extra piece of bulky gear that they feel can be replaced by more multifunctional equipment, such as the rope and slings. Although I would be interested to see how many of these people carry a GriGri.
multi-functional as all hell.
but i have the skillz to back up that assertion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
