|
carabiner96
Oct 28, 2008, 9:26 PM
Post #2 of 87
(15179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
My only comment is it might be a little overkill.
Reminds me of acadia.
|
|
|
|
|
swaghole
Oct 28, 2008, 9:28 PM
Post #3 of 87
(15172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 371
|
carabiner96 wrote: My only comment is it might be a little overkill. Reminds me of acadia.
Yes, overkill but I time. And yep, it's Acadia. Nice guess!!
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Oct 28, 2008, 9:30 PM
Post #4 of 87
(15167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Are any of those blocks forming the cracks actually secure? They look pretty small, especially your "BFB."  
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 28, 2008, 9:33 PM
Post #5 of 87
(15150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
Don't get me wrong, I love overkill. See?
A fun day with my bros.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 28, 2008, 9:33 PM
Post #6 of 87
(15147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
Is the boulder detached? Does it thud or ring?
You have 4 pieces leveraging on a boulder and one piece in an independent crack. Could you have placed something in the crack between the front face and the boulder.
The lone hex on the front right will take roughly half of the force and the 4 around the block will share the other half in some way. A 5 piece anchor is usually overkill but if time and gear isn't an issue and it's not dangerously complex then OK. Do you really carry 3 long pieces of cord with you or is this because you were craging/top roping?
My initial strategy would be to go with one piece in the vertical crack, one in the horizontal (a tricam if it would go) and one under the boulder. The anchor would be spread over somewhat independent features yet still compact which simplifies rigging it together. The final product would depend on how I felt about the actual placements.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 28, 2008, 9:35 PM
Post #7 of 87
(15142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Oct 28, 2008, 9:35 PM
Post #8 of 87
(15142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Not a big fan of that right most hex. Its hard to get a feel for how far things will shift or how bomber the hex is but if it fails, it looks like all weight will go onto a single .75 camalot, causing it to rotate in the process.
How is the belay being used, top rope, bringing up the second?
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Oct 28, 2008, 9:41 PM
Post #9 of 87
(15128 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
swaghole wrote: Something I set up recently. Let me know what you think and how it can be improved.
4 out of 5 pieces are on one side of the main cordelette and only one piece on the other side. If that one Hex pops then the rest of the anchor will see a change in the direction of pull, possibly loading only one piece.
And as someone else said, you've got 4 out of 5 pieces relying on the one boulder not moving to maintain their placement. Lots of eggs in one basket. I'd spread it out to other cracks if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
swaghole
Oct 28, 2008, 9:43 PM
Post #10 of 87
(15126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 371
|
hafilax wrote: Is the boulder detached? Does it thud or ring? You have 4 pieces leveraging on a boulder and one piece in an independent crack. Could you have placed something in the crack between the front face and the boulder. The lone hex on the front right will take roughly half of the force and the 4 around the block will share the other half in some way. A 5 piece anchor is usually overkill but if time and gear isn't an issue and it's not dangerously complex then OK. Do you really carry 3 long pieces of cord with you or is this because you were craging/top roping? My initial strategy would be to go with one piece in the vertical crack, one in the horizontal (a tricam if it would go) and one under the boulder. The anchor would be spread over somewhat independent features yet still compact which simplifies rigging it together. The final product would depend on how I felt about the actual placements.
The boulder was about close to 18 inches in height and more then 24 inches in width where i place the pro. It was also about 10 feet long and solid. Rock solid. Had my partner jump on it and nothing moved. I did use a second feature on the right for redundency.
|
|
|
|
|
swaghole
Oct 28, 2008, 9:51 PM
Post #11 of 87
(15107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 371
|
notapplicable wrote: swaghole wrote: Something I set up recently. Let me know what you think and how it can be improved. Bonus points to the one who can figure out where this is located. [image]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3024/2981657659_9e84671a89_b.jpg[/image] http://farm4.static.flickr.com/...659_9e84671a89_b.jpgNot a big fan of that right most hex. Its hard to get a feel for how far things will shift or how bomber the hex is but if it fails, it looks like all weight will go onto a single .75 camalot, causing it to rotate in the process. How is the belay being used, top rope, bringing up the second?
FWIW, the rock is very dense granite. The right hex wasn't going anywhere. Bomber placement in a constricting crack with rock that is 8" thick. I could have dropped my truck on it. The rock would need to break for that piece to fail.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 28, 2008, 9:54 PM
Post #12 of 87
(15089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
People trundle surprisingly large boulders with little effort and some smaller boulders are impossible to dislodge. It could be on ball bearing pebbles for all I know from the photo. Your friend may have jumped on it but your gear is pushing up on it.
Regardless, if there are options for building an anchor out of independent features that are close together that is what I try to do. The placements dictate the end result though.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Oct 28, 2008, 9:58 PM
Post #13 of 87
(15081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
Holy hell that's a lot of gear!
And the blocks all look like the cams will lever them off. Couldn't you have slung them with all that cordage?
|
|
|
|
|
mattb1921
Oct 28, 2008, 10:06 PM
Post #14 of 87
(15067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Posts: 144
|
Man that is a ton going on. In your picture you put a cam and said that it was there just because. I believe it was the .75 Camalot, why bother if the other one is good. You also seemed to use lots of slings and cord. Why not untie your cords and make them single lines and eliminate some of them slings. The rock seems to be pretty smooth and assuming you are using proper cord it should not be a problem.
I think that sometimes when people build anchors for toprope they tend to think hey I got the gear might as well use it. By doing so you have introduced tons of angles that if something goes wrong on one piece the whole thing could go out of whack. Simple is often better.
The boulder seems to pass the hug test. Does the boulder angle down toward the cliff? Is it is my brain playing tricks on me?
|
|
|
|
|
mattb1921
Oct 28, 2008, 10:17 PM
Post #16 of 87
(15038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Posts: 144
|
hafilax wrote: People trundle surprisingly large boulders with little effort and some smaller boulders are impossible to dislodge. It could be on ball bearing pebbles for all I know from the photo. Your friend may have jumped on it but your gear is pushing up on it.
I have to agree with this. Your friend jumping on it means nothing. Did you sit down and try and use your legs to push it around?
I was in an AMGA course a few months back and a guy in our class used a huge boulder (bigger than the one you described) to build the anchor. He jumped on it and pushed it with his arms and it didn't move so he used it. Well when his anchor was tested the instructor got on the opposite side of pull and pushed it with his legs and it moved. What the guy didn't notice is that it was sitting on a slope slightly angled toward the cliff on small rocks (acted like ball bearings). Ever since then I am extremely careful when checking out boulders for toprope.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Oct 28, 2008, 10:18 PM
Post #17 of 87
(15034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
Holy love of God.
Yes I know how to improve it, take out two of those pieces, a couple of the slings, and the superfluous cordalette (or both). Sometimes when the gear is good it’s nice to add a piece or equalize two at one point in the anchor – but you sure as hell shouldn’t have to equalize two .75s in a parallel crack. If it takes that much redundancy to give you faith in an anchor to bring up a second how the hell can you lead over gear?
Personally, I would have moved it all over to the crack with the medium hex and use the ‘horizontal’ behind it – 3 pieces, cordalette if that’s your thing, belay on.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 28, 2008, 10:27 PM
Post #18 of 87
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere.
Don't be so sure. Cams provide a lot more leverage than you think. I have seen cams leverage a block and be pulled out.
Second (directed at swaghole), are you sure that angle is 45 degrees? It looks more like 100. Could be an illusion, Though.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 28, 2008, 10:35 PM
Post #19 of 87
(15005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
This is total crap. You forgot the car tire and the I-beam. I also don't see a canoe, or any olives. Oh yeah, you used the wrong color arrows as well.
Edited to add: Poor form asking for a critique then arguing with the advice given.
(This post was edited by knieveltech on Oct 28, 2008, 10:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
swaghole
Oct 28, 2008, 10:36 PM
Post #20 of 87
(14999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 371
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere. Don't be so sure. Cams provide a lot more leverage than you think. I have seen cams leverage a block and be pulled out. Second (directed at swaghole), are you sure that angle is 45 degrees? It looks more like 100. Could be an illusion, Though. Josh
Illusion. And the camera makes my ass look fat
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Oct 28, 2008, 10:38 PM
Post #21 of 87
(14986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
Looks to me like you could have tied off the entire BFB or a part of it to replace one or two of the placements under it. You'd need to cinch it up tight so it doesn't slide off, but as long as it's getting pulled to the right by the right arm of the anchor, I think that would work OK. One worry would be the right arm failing, then (depending on the direction of pull) it might fall off.
What about tying off the block in the front? The one that essentially lies in between and behind the purple slings.
Does that angle actually look like 45 degrees to anybody else out there? To me it looks more like 90 degrees, which is fine, too. Just wondering if my eyes are playing tricks on me, I guess.
What I'd do:
Search for keyhole placements for passive protection (&tricams) underneath that block (hard to tell with angle of the hill I guess). If less than two are available, replace with cams underneath it. Tie off the block in the front.
If I doubted the integrity of both those structures even a tiny bit I'd stuff a cam or tricam in the crack on the right side of the screen, just in front of where it becomes covered by the boulder (behind the intersection).
Thoughts? Ought to be pretty clean looking, and satisfactorily redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 28, 2008, 10:58 PM
Post #22 of 87
(14929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
two question for OP
1- where is the direction of your load and based on your setup, which group of your anchor is the stroungest?
2- if for whatever reason you loose your left anchor or the entire right anchor set up, what direction your master will end up ?
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 28, 2008, 11:09 PM
Post #23 of 87
(14911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
majid_sabet wrote: two question for OP 1- where is the direction of your load and based on your setup, which group of your anchor is the stroungest? 2- if for whatever reason you loose your left anchor or the entire right anchor set up, what direction your master will end up ?
Hey Major, if the OP loses the entire left side of the anchor then chances are he isn't going to give a fuck about the direction of pull because he's going for a ride with a 50 ton granite toboggan chasing him down the route. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 28, 2008, 11:18 PM
Post #24 of 87
(14896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
knieveltech wrote: majid_sabet wrote: two question for OP 1- where is the direction of your load and based on your setup, which group of your anchor is the stroungest? 2- if for whatever reason you loose your left anchor or the entire right anchor set up, what direction your master will end up ? Hey Major, if the OP loses the entire left side of the anchor then chances are he isn't going to give a fuck about the direction of pull because he's going for a ride with a 50 ton granite toboggan chasing him down the route. Just a thought.
homeboy
you build equalize anchor so you could share load. based on OP's setup, the direction of his master is more toward the right side anchor which is only one piece.
think about that 90 degree angle !!!!
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Oct 28, 2008, 11:19 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Oct 28, 2008, 11:21 PM
Post #25 of 87
(14889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
swaghole wrote: notapplicable wrote: swaghole wrote: Something I set up recently. Let me know what you think and how it can be improved. Bonus points to the one who can figure out where this is located. [image]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3024/2981657659_9e84671a89_b.jpg[/image] http://farm4.static.flickr.com/...659_9e84671a89_b.jpgNot a big fan of that right most hex. Its hard to get a feel for how far things will shift or how bomber the hex is but if it fails, it looks like all weight will go onto a single .75 camalot, causing it to rotate in the process. How is the belay being used, top rope, bringing up the second? The anchor was used for top-rope (lower down the cliff and climb up before the tide gets to you). That's why there's a redirect for lowering off a grigri. FWIW, the rock is very dense granite. The right hex wasn't going anywhere. Bomber placement in a constricting crack with rock that is 8" thick. I could have dropped my truck on it. The rock would need to break for that piece to fail.
If the hex is truck then your good to go, although I would have backed it up. You've got a whole pile of redundant equalization going on to the left and then all that is compromised by the single piece on the right.
I see the potential for the block to shift but I don't share the others great concern given the anchors purpose and in light of the hex way in the back there. That is assuming the hex is isolated from possible movement of the BFB.
All things considered, there are a number of ways for it to kill you and those you love but I have belayed/been belayed off alot worse also.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Oct 28, 2008, 11:22 PM
Post #26 of 87
(6270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Oh and because no one else has said it...
YOU WILL DIE nOOb!!!
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 28, 2008, 11:48 PM
Post #27 of 87
(6255 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
notapplicable wrote: Oh and because no one else has said it... YOU WILL DIE nOOb!!!
Fuck! I knew I was forgetting something.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 29, 2008, 12:05 AM
Post #28 of 87
(6248 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere. Don't be so sure. Cams provide a lot more leverage than you think. I have seen cams leverage a block and be pulled out. Second (directed at swaghole), are you sure that angle is 45 degrees? It looks more like 100. Could be an illusion, Though. Josh
careful you don't trip over your sense of humor there, boy!
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Oct 29, 2008, 12:39 AM
Post #29 of 87
(6237 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere.
To the contrary, that boulder moves quite easily. I was dancing on it one day and it moved. The vertical boulder in the fore-ground to the left of the hex moves even easier. Definitely wouldn't put a cam on that one.
All that said, it's hard to build an anchor for those climbs without those boulders, and I've used them more than once. But someday it's gonna get someone in trouble
(This post was edited by basilisk on Oct 29, 2008, 12:40 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
churningindawake
Oct 29, 2008, 12:45 AM
Post #30 of 87
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2007
Posts: 5292
|
I really don't think that putting cams in between boulders is really that safe.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 29, 2008, 12:50 AM
Post #31 of 87
(6224 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
I didn't realize that front one is detached as well.
A friend told me a rule of thumb passed on from his father. If it rings it's attached, if it goes thud it's not.
I lead a climb that goes on top of a big flake taking a few whippers onto a nut in the process. I'm belaying the second up while standing on the flake when he gets to the nut. After a little hammering with the nut tool it releases and I could feel the whole flake go "Booooonnnnnng". At least I knew it was attached. 
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Oct 29, 2008, 1:15 AM
Post #32 of 87
(6212 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
knieveltech wrote: notapplicable wrote: Oh and because no one else has said it... YOU WILL DIE nOOb!!! Fuck! I knew I was forgetting something.
If you have to ask, your gonna die. If don't ask, your gonna die.
Either way, YOU WILL DIE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 29, 2008, 2:42 AM
Post #33 of 87
(6193 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
I really didn't think anyone would take me seriously...
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Oct 29, 2008, 2:48 AM
Post #34 of 87
(6191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
hafilax wrote: I didn't realize that front one is detached as well. A friend told me a rule of thumb passed on from his father. If it rings it's attached, if it goes thud it's not. I lead a climb that goes on top of a big flake taking a few whippers onto a nut in the process. I'm belaying the second up while standing on the flake when he gets to the nut. After a little hammering with the nut tool it releases and I could feel the whole flake go "Booooonnnnnng". At least I knew it was attached.
First off, rules of thumb are supposed to rhyme! Duh!
Second off, I don't know what you mean by "ring" and "thud" I guess, but if it sounds hollow that means it is detached. Sounds to me like you're saying the opposite?
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 29, 2008, 3:02 AM
Post #35 of 87
(6187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
A flake is like a tuning fork if it's attached. When you hit it you can sense it vibrating. If it's broken off and sitting on dirt the vibrations will be damped and it goes thud.
Just because it's attached doesn't mean it's any safer to place gear behind it but at least you have some more information.
If there's a ring
place pro with a sling
If it goes thud
it's surely a dud
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 29, 2008, 1:59 PM
Post #39 of 87
(6104 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
swaghole wrote: FWIW, the rock is very dense granite. The right hex wasn't going anywhere. Bomber placement in a constricting crack with rock that is 8" thick. I could have dropped my truck on it. The rock would need to break for that piece to fail.
carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere.
Uh... I don't know how to say this, so I'll just use a picture:
That used to be three popular climbs at Otter Cliffs.
Cheers!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
Oct 29, 2008, 2:08 PM
Post #40 of 87
(6096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
Yeah, I've seen big boulders move. I had lowered my friend down a climb, he climbed up, than I lowered him back to the deck, he walked over to another climb as I made a new anchor atop another climb. He got up and said "whoa dude, you belayed my off a boulder?" and I was like "yeah, sure, it's huge" (about 2x4x7'). I had a cordalette strapped around it. He said the thing was totally insecure and I responded with "no way" the thing ain't moving, he bet me a beer he could move it, then quickly got into a leg press position behind the boulder and shoved it sideways, the thing moved easily.
Where was this? On top of Otter Cliffs.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 29, 2008, 2:14 PM
Post #41 of 87
(6090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Oh, and for those of you not in the know, Otter Cliffs (to which jrathfon and I are referring) is at Acadia - where this dude's anchor was made.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 29, 2008, 2:25 PM
Post #42 of 87
(6086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
That rockfall was the second of two major falls in as many years (granted, the first was caused by an earthquake).
I've been climbing in acadia near ten years now, and have climbed there all 12 months of the year. In the freeze thaw seasons, you can almost see car sized boulders move up and down, just like the cliff was breathing.
That said, the bubble hasn't moved in eons, even with the encouragement of the MDI football team '52!!!
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 29, 2008, 2:26 PM
Post #43 of 87
(6086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere.
Again, this was A JOKE. Normally, I don't care if people don't get it, but if people think i'm serious on this one then I just look like a tard.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 29, 2008, 2:34 PM
Post #44 of 87
(6080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
cracklover wrote: swaghole wrote: FWIW, the rock is very dense granite. The right hex wasn't going anywhere. Bomber placement in a constricting crack with rock that is 8" thick. I could have dropped my truck on it. The rock would need to break for that piece to fail. carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere. Uh... I don't know how to say this, so I'll just use a picture: That used to be three popular climbs at Otter Cliffs. Cheers! GO
Holy shit. Choss much?
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
Oct 29, 2008, 2:41 PM
Post #45 of 87
(6075 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
carabiner96 wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere. Again, this was A JOKE. Normally, I don't care if people don't get it, but if people think i'm serious on this one then I just look like a tard.
I think the "a la classy" picture beat you to the punch.
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
Oct 29, 2008, 2:43 PM
Post #46 of 87
(6069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
cracklover wrote: swaghole wrote: FWIW, the rock is very dense granite. The right hex wasn't going anywhere. Bomber placement in a constricting crack with rock that is 8" thick. I could have dropped my truck on it. The rock would need to break for that piece to fail. carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere. Uh... I don't know how to say this, so I'll just use a picture: [image]http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg186/reticentbehavior/AcadiaRockfall.jpg[/image] That used to be three popular climbs at Otter Cliffs. Cheers! GO
funny enough, I was belaying my buddy up one of those ill fated climbs, maybe one of those boulders in the pic as they used to be about 20 ft back from the edge (asuming this pic is taken from the sea stack)
|
|
|
|
|
hansundfritz
Oct 29, 2008, 2:44 PM
Post #47 of 87
(6067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 139
|
I would have been tempted to head for the trees in the background of the picture for one leg of the anchor -- provided, of course, that you had enough of the lead rope left.
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
Oct 29, 2008, 2:54 PM
Post #48 of 87
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
maybe we were a little left, i remember there just being a rock wall in the back, no trees, and options for two boulders, being anywhere close to in-line with the top of the climb. it was a quick anchor build, he just wanted one more pitch before we head out.
that being said, we were critiquing anchors. i would use a heavy boulder in a pinch and back it up with my legs and body anyday, like a pseudo body belay back up off the harness kind of thing, especially when it's a 5.10 climber doing a 5.7 pitch and there isn't anything else around, a storm's a brewing, and the brews are calling your name.
more on topic: putting 4 pieces on one leg and 1 on another is just silly. utilizing that 2nd cordalette would be more effective with 2 pieces on each leg of the master point cordalette (a 2x2 anchor instead of a 4x1). and as was stated before the vertical cracks that are more integral in the cliff offer better protection points than the loosely attached flakes/boulders/choss, just sitting on top.
|
|
|
|
|
jajen
Oct 29, 2008, 2:55 PM
Post #49 of 87
(6058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Posts: 81
|
Dacs? Upper Tiers?
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Oct 29, 2008, 3:02 PM
Post #50 of 87
(6501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
jajen wrote: Dacs? Beer Walls Upper Tiers?
edit for speeling
(This post was edited by sbaclimber on Oct 29, 2008, 3:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 29, 2008, 3:03 PM
Post #51 of 87
(8692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
yeah, this was at live free or die wall, right next to fast and furious.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Oct 29, 2008, 3:58 PM
Post #52 of 87
(8669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere.
I have done some extensive field work to validate this claim and it appears to be erroneous. The test samples that we collected from Acadia proved to be well within average range of density for granite. We compared the values to that from samples collected at Yosemite, Squamish, Looking Glass, and the Home Depot in Shakopee Minnesota. We used wet density tests, theoretical calculation, and DEXA tests to account for fluctuation. I therefore am unable to explain why you would make such a claim Biner.
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Oct 29, 2008, 4:01 PM
Post #53 of 87
(8667 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
All of this said without being there to inspect the blocks.
Considering that you're using boulders for most of your anchor I'd personally be a little wary with the amount of active protection being used. I've used boulders that size to demo to nOObs how much force a cam can generate, ie I've moved boulders that size with cams. If the boulder really is the only option I'd use passive as much as possible, or sling he boulder rather than have a camming action. Boulders really depend on Gravity and Friction, lifting reduces friction and works against gravity on those fvckers.
It's one of those things where all of us can only speculate as to the integrety of the rock without actually being there.
Looking at the pic I'd be inclined to look for different pieces than what you've used.
Use the some passive gear or tricam in the crack extending back into the face from the right most hex rather than the location of that hex. There seems to be a crack to the left of your GriGri redirect that may take some passive pro. Slinging that furthest back block, using that big hex to keep the sling in may be a better option. Like I said we can only speculate, but I do think that a little more looking around for better pieces would be in order. For me a single baby angle in that horizontal crack to the left would inspire more confidence than the 5 pieces you have. Take that as pure speculation though.
I've built anchors with upwards of 15 pieces just to get something, I've also had to resort to single piece anchors, and imfamous "Don't fall" Alpine anchors... I also call the Great Canadian Chossies home. <---The rock only gets better from here, you either grow brass balls or resort to sport wanking in the Chossies.
Personally I like simple anchors. Sometimes you have something to really work with, sometimes you have to really work to get something.
|
|
Attachments:
|
Anchor.jpg
(99.0 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Oct 29, 2008, 5:42 PM
Post #55 of 87
(8623 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
When I set up that anchor (which I believe is above wonderwall? at Otter Cliffs) and when the guides that I know do as well, I use a red camalot in that right crack (the one with a hex), a small cam (alien or tcu) in that horizontal, and another piece in that back crack (where you have another hex). It's not the greatest place for an anchor, though it is the only available; having multiple pieces in that horizontal is pointless (if the block moves, non of the pieces are any good) and also that back crack is kind of dependent on the block as well.
People reading might think that I just contradicted myself by saying you only need the pieces that I mentioned and then said they aren't that great. Building an anchor is always a compromise. Like I said, this is how I see the guides in the area do it, and I think if you saw it in action and heard it explained, you (the reader) would agree that this is the best setup. Take the red camalot in the right crack for example- BOMBER.
|
|
|
|
|
hansundfritz
Oct 29, 2008, 6:11 PM
Post #56 of 87
(8600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 139
|
cracklover wrote: hansundfritz wrote: I would have been tempted to head for the trees in the background of the picture for one leg of the anchor -- provided, of course, that you had enough of the lead rope left. IIRC, trees are off limit at Otter Cliffs. GO
That makes sense. Glad to hear it.
I am a tree lover myself, of course, and don't want to open the debate about the propriety of slinging trees -- but I see lots of folks these days building gear anchors in places where there are great natural anchors. In any event, that observation is what prompted my original reply about heading back for the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 29, 2008, 6:14 PM
Post #57 of 87
(8599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Oct 29, 2008, 6:42 PM
Post #58 of 87
(8582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
Majid? WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
alleyehave
Oct 29, 2008, 8:37 PM
Post #59 of 87
(8554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Posts: 461
|
That thing gave me a headache.
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Oct 29, 2008, 8:40 PM
Post #60 of 87
(8549 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
hansundfritz wrote: cracklover wrote: hansundfritz wrote: I would have been tempted to head for the trees in the background of the picture for one leg of the anchor -- provided, of course, that you had enough of the lead rope left. IIRC, trees are off limit at Otter Cliffs. GO That makes sense. Glad to hear it. I am a tree lover myself, of course, and don't want to open the debate about the propriety of slinging trees -- but I see lots of folks these days building gear anchors in places where there are great natural anchors. In any event, that observation is what prompted my original reply about heading back for the trees.
Just wanted to elaborate on this. The trees at Otter aren't the strongest, as they can't get very good root systems in the rock. Regardless, that's what people did for many years. As a result, a tree would get pulled out/killed from being used as an anchor. This would cause the loose soil remaining to erode away, thus further exposing the other nearby trees. That combined with the obvious erosion from being on a cliff, plus being next to the ocean, has resulted in the vegetation retreating from the cliffs. It's moved back about 20 feet in as many years. Seeing this, and the plentiful trad anchor options up top, the park asked climbers to stop using vegetation. Also, to the right of this picture (facing away from the ocean) they installed two giant stainless steel staples, because there was no trad anchors to be had.
All in all, probably the best choices that could be made while still allowing climbing
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 29, 2008, 8:40 PM
Post #61 of 87
(8547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
You mean you guys to rack and I-beam, a stump, a tire with rim, a recently cut down deciduous tree, and a boulder that can all defy the laws of physics?
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Oct 29, 2008, 8:41 PM
Post #62 of 87
(8547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
majid_sabet wrote: [IMG]http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/9454/screenhunter005ry7.gif[/IMG]
Also, I can really appreciate this. I especially enjoy the selection and placements of biners
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Oct 29, 2008, 10:25 PM
Post #64 of 87
(8500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
Also Swaghole, I noticed in your captions you mention that you were lowering with a grigri. While this can be done safely, I recommend lowering with a munter off of the anchor, with an autoblock backup on your harness. It's the bee's knees when lowering a climber on a top side managed top rope setup. When the climber gets to the bottom, throw the grigri on.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 29, 2008, 10:36 PM
Post #65 of 87
(8496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
diebetes wrote: Also Swaghole, I noticed in your captions you mention that you were lowering with a grigri. While this can be done safely, I recommend lowering with a munter off of the anchor, with an autoblock backup on your harness. It's the bee's knees when lowering a climber on a top side managed top rope setup. When the climber gets to the bottom, throw the grigri on.
Much simpler than using an ATC guide.
|
|
|
|
|
swaghole
Oct 29, 2008, 10:53 PM
Post #66 of 87
(8489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 371
|
diebetes wrote: Also Swaghole, I noticed in your captions you mention that you were lowering with a grigri. While this can be done safely, I recommend lowering with a munter off of the anchor, with an autoblock backup on your harness. It's the bee's knees when lowering a climber on a top side managed top rope setup. When the climber gets to the bottom, throw the grigri on.
Have you ever tried lowering someone repeatedly from a munter? Lowering from a munter really twists up the rope. With a top rope setup where you need to lower the climber down so he can climb back up, a Grigri with a redirect is safe, quick and effective.
Edited for typo. Bad spellers of the world, untie.
(This post was edited by swaghole on Oct 29, 2008, 10:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Oct 29, 2008, 11:05 PM
Post #68 of 87
(8473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: majid_sabet wrote: [IMG]http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/9454/screenhunter005ry7.gif[/IMG] What a deathtrap, you should at least put an opposite and opposed biner on there, if not a locker.
Are you talking about the anchor or the major?
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Oct 30, 2008, 12:40 AM
Post #69 of 87
(8444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
swaghole wrote: diebetes wrote: Also Swaghole, I noticed in your captions you mention that you were lowering with a grigri. While this can be done safely, I recommend lowering with a munter off of the anchor, with an autoblock backup on your harness. It's the bee's knees when lowering a climber on a top side managed top rope setup. When the climber gets to the bottom, throw the grigri on. Have you ever tried lowering someone repeatedly from a munter? Lowering from a munter really twists up the rope. With a top rope setup where you need to lower the climber down so he can climb back up, a Grigri with a redirect is safe, quick and effective. Edited for typo. Bad spellers of the world, untie.
No actually, I'm in the business of recommending techniques that I've never tried. I was just passing some advice along- that's how I learned to lower climbers at Otter. It's smoother, you're less likely to drop somebody ie safer (especially if you use the back up) AND you don't look like a grigri noob. Do you know about grigri noobs? And repeatedly lowering climbers? You lower a climber once, they climb up, and voila, the rope is ready for the next climber. Is that what you mean by repeating? Cause I've never had a problem with a rope kinking while doing this (at least not that I blamed the Munter, and not my rope management on). You don't own a Beal do you?
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 30, 2008, 12:45 AM
Post #70 of 87
(8438 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
Mrrrrow.
|
|
|
|
|
marde
Oct 30, 2008, 4:30 PM
Post #71 of 87
(8378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2006
Posts: 169
|
swaghole wrote: Have you ever tried lowering someone repeatedly from a munter? Lowering from a munter really twists up the rope.
Just hold the strands parallel not like you do it with tube style device.
If you use the munter like a tuber it kinks your rope for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 30, 2008, 4:43 PM
Post #73 of 87
(8371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
marde wrote: carabiner96 wrote: ...In the freeze thaw seasons, you can almost see car sized boulders move up and down, just like the cliff was breathing. Holy shit Wearing a helmet there is not enough! Safe your ass
LMAO
|
|
|
|
|
davidwebb1969
Oct 31, 2008, 7:07 AM
Post #74 of 87
(8322 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2008
Posts: 21
|
My personal comments on the anchor setup are:
1. Over engineered
2. When I create an anchor using artificial gear, two pieces of gear make one anchor point.
3. If i am going to use clip gate biners I use 2 and I opposite and oppose them,
4. As someone has already stated that if the right anchor point fails, the load will be redirected onto the left anchor point thus shock loading a possibly leaving one of the 5 pieces you have in the left supporting the entire system,
5. Your main knot on the left anchor point is sitting on the edge, if you are using this for a long period of time it COULD affect the integrity of the cordalette,
6. If the anchor point on the right was to fail I would envisage the 2 x .75 camalots could be left taking the entire load.
Overall a good system that could be simplified to clear up some clutter within your system.
My personal preference is to always use locking biners within a anchor system, but that is just my preference.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
swaghole
Oct 31, 2008, 10:57 AM
Post #75 of 87
(8135 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 371
|
davidwebb1969 wrote: My personal comments on the anchor setup are: 1. Over engineered 2. When I create an anchor using artificial gear, two pieces of gear make one anchor point. 3. If i am going to use clip gate biners I use 2 and I opposite and oppose them, 4. As someone has already stated that if the right anchor point fails, the load will be redirected onto the left anchor point thus shock loading a possibly leaving one of the 5 pieces you have in the left supporting the entire system, 5. Your main knot on the left anchor point is sitting on the edge, if you are using this for a long period of time it COULD affect the integrity of the cordalette, 6. If the anchor point on the right was to fail I would envisage the 2 x .75 camalots could be left taking the entire load. Overall a good system that could be simplified to clear up some clutter within your system. My personal preference is to always use locking biners within a anchor system, but that is just my preference. Dave
Thanks for the good feedback. Very good reply.
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Oct 31, 2008, 11:46 AM
Post #76 of 87
(2689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
swaghole wrote: davidwebb1969 wrote: My personal comments on the anchor setup are: 1. Over engineered 2. When I create an anchor using artificial gear, two pieces of gear make one anchor point. 3. If i am going to use clip gate biners I use 2 and I opposite and oppose them, 4. As someone has already stated that if the right anchor point fails, the load will be redirected onto the left anchor point thus shock loading a possibly leaving one of the 5 pieces you have in the left supporting the entire system, 5. Your main knot on the left anchor point is sitting on the edge, if you are using this for a long period of time it COULD affect the integrity of the cordalette, 6. If the anchor point on the right was to fail I would envisage the 2 x .75 camalots could be left taking the entire load. Overall a good system that could be simplified to clear up some clutter within your system. My personal preference is to always use locking biners within a anchor system, but that is just my preference. Dave Thanks for the good feedback. Very good reply.
Now you're just being a jerk; I made very similar points. I guess I should have numerated them.
And to davidwebb- you must own twice as many locking biners as I do. If I can visually inspect the biners in my anchor, I don't use lockers, except for the masterpoint/shelf of the cordelette area.
|
|
|
|
|
swaghole
Oct 31, 2008, 11:53 AM
Post #77 of 87
(2684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 371
|
diebetes wrote: swaghole wrote: davidwebb1969 wrote: My personal comments on the anchor setup are: 1. Over engineered 2. When I create an anchor using artificial gear, two pieces of gear make one anchor point. 3. If i am going to use clip gate biners I use 2 and I opposite and oppose them, 4. As someone has already stated that if the right anchor point fails, the load will be redirected onto the left anchor point thus shock loading a possibly leaving one of the 5 pieces you have in the left supporting the entire system, 5. Your main knot on the left anchor point is sitting on the edge, if you are using this for a long period of time it COULD affect the integrity of the cordalette, 6. If the anchor point on the right was to fail I would envisage the 2 x .75 camalots could be left taking the entire load. Overall a good system that could be simplified to clear up some clutter within your system. My personal preference is to always use locking biners within a anchor system, but that is just my preference. Dave Thanks for the good feedback. Very good reply. Now you're just being a jerk; I made very similar points. I guess I should have numerated them.
WTF?? I just pointed out that the previous poster put up a nice effort in his post with what I thought was good, clear info. You must be PMSing - don't be so sensitive.
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Oct 31, 2008, 12:04 PM
Post #78 of 87
(2682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
cracklover wrote: swaghole wrote: FWIW, the rock is very dense granite. The right hex wasn't going anywhere. Bomber placement in a constricting crack with rock that is 8" thick. I could have dropped my truck on it. The rock would need to break for that piece to fail. carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere. Uh... I don't know how to say this, so I'll just use a picture: That used to be three popular climbs at Otter Cliffs. Cheers! GO
Gabe is correct. While that anchor appears to be solid, the rock there is ever-evolving. Especially since it is right on the ocean and is always succeptable to being moist. I was the one who took the above photo, and watched the rangers trundle a huge block to further increase the "safety" of the cliff. Clicky!
Otter Cliffs present a unique climbing spot, in that there are ample places to make anchors around and nothing higher than your waist. While I, too, have used that particular block as part of many of my anchors, I try to not depend on a singular feature unless I absolutely have to. Simplicity is the best, but if the situation calls for it, then a little creativity can go far.
If you want to see another Acadian anchor that has been deemed suspect by a few check this out: clicky.
Anchors are entirely subjective, imo, and there is no one "right" way to do things. As long as the OP followed the SERENE ideology then there isn't much to fret about. The chance that the rock would miraculously (sp?) explode on him that day or any given day at that location are particularily slim.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Oct 31, 2008, 3:40 PM
Post #79 of 87
(2658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
davidwebb1969 wrote: 1. Over engineered 2. When I create an anchor using artificial gear, two pieces of gear make one anchor point.
These two points seem to contradict each other.
|
|
|
|
|
davidwebb1969
Nov 1, 2008, 2:43 AM
Post #80 of 87
(2621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2008
Posts: 21
|
I am not sure how you figure out two pieces of Artificial Protection equals an anchor point, and a total of 4 pieces of artificial protection is over engineering. We are referring to a top rope anchor not a lead climbing belay.
Two pieces of gear per point is just safe.
|
|
|
|
|
evanwish
Nov 1, 2008, 6:09 PM
Post #81 of 87
(2582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 1040
|
majid_sabet wrote: [IMG]http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/9454/screenhunter005ry7.gif[/IMG]
the I beam isn't seccured,
the tree's on its side (weak)
the wheel isn't attached to anything
and that's a non-locker at the masterpoint..
but that's all ok it was a nice picture
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Nov 3, 2008, 5:20 PM
Post #82 of 87
(2531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
davidwebb1969 wrote: I am not sure how you figure out two pieces of Artificial Protection equals an anchor point, and a total of 4 pieces of artificial protection is over engineering. We are referring to a top rope anchor not a lead climbing belay. Two pieces of gear per point is just safe.
I have a hard time interpreting your post, as your writing is terrible, so I'm left to take a guess at what the hell you’re talking about.
For starters, I don’t build my anchors differently based on if they are for TR or a multi-pitch anchor. An anchor should be built bombproof, regardless. The exceptions would be 1) I may extend the anchor over a lip for TR, and 2) I’d be more inclined to build a 4 piece anchor as opposed to 3 for TR because I’m not there to watch the pieces and constantly weight them, increasing chance for something to move.
That said, I usually build my anchors with 3 points. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with having these 3 points made of single pieces if they’re all decent size in good rock. If you’re suggesting I should use two equalized pieces at each point I’m suggesting that’s retarded, or as you said ‘over engineered’. If I’m using small pieces I might consider equalizing them, but I don’t consider a .75 Camalot in a good crack to be a small or questionable piece.
|
|
|
|
|
graniteboy
Nov 10, 2008, 9:29 PM
Post #83 of 87
(2458 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1092
|
Your "BFB" block and your confidence in it not moving reminds me of the "BFB" block that USED to sit at the top of the Salathe on El Cap, until T Skinner and P Piana anchored to it (probably the umpteen hundredth climbers to do so) and it came off and damn near killed both of them on the last day of their first free ascent of that route.
I knew an old Aussie guy called Dennis back in the early 80s who died in similar circumstances....placed a cam under a "BFB" that cut loose when he loaded it and it landed on him as he lowered off.
Big blocks that are unattached and just sitting on top of a slab are not to be trusted, In my mind.
Also, although there is some foreshortening and
thus distortion of the view in the picture of your terminal cordellette angle, I would reckon it's closer to 90 degrees than 45....which means it will load an unnecessary increase in the actual load to each of your 2 main anchor sets (the single cam on right and the multiple points on left). But maybe that's just an optical illusion due to camera angle.
All in all, I'd say you spent a long long time building an anchor that I would not personally trust.
|
|
|
|
|
JAB
Nov 14, 2008, 2:02 PM
Post #84 of 87
(2391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 373
|
davidwebb1969 wrote: 3. If i am going to use clip gate biners I use 2 and I opposite and oppose them,
That is over-engineering right there. Lockers for the masterpoint, non-lockers for clipping the pieces of protection, is perfectly ok.
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Nov 27, 2008, 9:11 PM
Post #85 of 87
(2323 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
carabiner96 wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere. Again, this was A JOKE. Normally, I don't care if people don't get it, but if people think i'm serious on this one then I just look like a tard.
I actually did a search, Mo. it didn't make any sense and i didn't know your were teasin.
|
|
|
|
|
jollymon
Nov 29, 2008, 4:48 AM
Post #86 of 87
(2268 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2008
Posts: 55
|
Okay without reading any of the other posts Ill jump in here head first. I cant really see whats holding the blue cord and yellow cord together. I would have gone for much less then a 45 degree angle asa there is pretty ample placements and a solid downward pull with no real upward action....(looking at that horizontal crack in front of the BFB. Solid, wanna hang my Yaris from it?
Oh and also thats alot of arrows all over the place. but it gets the point across....I guess thhat was a useless observation.
-Jolly
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Nov 29, 2008, 10:52 PM
Post #87 of 87
(2244 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
brent_e wrote: carabiner96 wrote: carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere. Again, this was A JOKE. Normally, I don't care if people don't get it, but if people think i'm serious on this one then I just look like a tard. I actually did a search, Mo. it didn't make any sense and i didn't know your were teasin.
sucka!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought you were serious
Next time
I will make sure
because you know I have never made a joke before
) 
