Also, since everyone here is so inclined to be such an armchair critic (majid I'm looking at you), I invite you all to show off a creation of yours to partake in this series.

you could use as many strand as you wish to build your master but if only one strand is used to link the master to your cam, then your anchor is as strong as the that single strand. Basically, if you link a 14 kn biner to 12 kn rope and add a 10 cam but then use 5 kn rap ring. Your anchor is only rated to 5kn.

This is true.

And irrelevant. Who the fuck uses a rap ring (or anything rated at 5 kN, for that matter) on his master point anyways?

FWIW, I tend to use the equalette more often than not. I do keep it pretied, and once the gear is placed it generally takes less than 60 seconds to set up. I like it because the strands tend to reach farther than the cordolette, it's more flexible, and I have yet to run into a situation where i can't use it in lieu of the c-lette.

This is true.

I show off my climbing-related creations ALL THE TIME, here and elsewhere.

My anchors are simple, like me.

I use rap ring for my master and works great. By far even better than most biners cause you do not have to worry about locking/unlocking whatever.

You got any picture from your 60 sec rig ?

Clearly, Dingus' approach is faster and simpler, but I guess I'm typically more skeered than he is.

Why does that make it more likely to walk than a placement with equal deployment? When it comes to cams walking, I am concerned more about rope-action, direction of pull, and cracks that widen around the point of placement. Not whether I have even cam deployment. Edit: besides, that cam's deployment looks pretty dam good to me.

*******************************************
Well it does not look good to me and I always try for simi even deployments. I am obviously more anal then you with my placements. Clearly you are at a much tighter deployment interior verse exterior compounded by the proximity to the edge of the crack witht he exterior lobes.
*******************************************
There are systems to equalize odd numbers of protection although doing it redundantly and dynamically is usually not done cleanly (even with the equalette).

Anyway, why always equalize between three instead of two and then one? I understand the load is not truely equalized across all pieces. But the primary in general anchor building is to place bomber individual pieces. Why always go to extremes every time if one usually has bomber individual placements and limited anchor extension upon failure.
*******************************************
Again I am clearly a more anal with my anchor setups. I might gain stability of the system but will take more time and not move as fast. It is a tradeoff I am prepared to be on the safe side and lose a litle time.
I also would point out my critique of the anchor looks at the whole and the primary placement is sketch IMHO. Thus increasing the reasons behind a 3 point equalization.
*******************************************

Bill L

What does this:


mean?

On a different point would someone mind laying out the cons and pros of the X vs the equalette.

-Jolly

Also, since everyone here is so inclined to be such an armchair critic (majid I'm looking at you), I invite you all to show off a creation of yours to partake in this series.

Also, since everyone here is so inclined to be such an armchair critic (majid I'm looking at you), I invite you all to show off a creation of yours to partake in this series.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I just wouldn't feel like pre-threading the ring.

Nope. It's a standard equalette. Pretty much, my limiter knots knots are pre-tied about 8 inches apart. Once the gear is in place, all I have to do is clove hitch all three (or four) pieces, and if need be, adjust the hitches and/or limiter knots. Sliding X the master point between the limiter knots and slap on the locking biner(s) to clove into with the rope.

It took longer to type it than it typically does to set up. I like it because the sliding x gives a little 3-D movement, tying and adjusting the master point in a c-lette is a little more finicky process, the legs can be shorter or longer and are easier to adjust, and it's easy to visually assess. When you break it down, you just have to pull the cloves, no need to untie anything. Just personal preference.

Clearly, Dingus' approach is faster and simpler, but I guess I'm typically more skeered than he is.

you description is already confusing and I bet, your so called c-lette is no more than a regular CF-lette but with a different flaveor.

just post a photo and let me see it

Are you kidding me? I just told you it's a standard equalette and you want me to show you a picture? If you don't know what it is, haven't done a search, and haven't worked with it yourself, you can't reasonably have any opinion on it...

Or are you just fucking with me? The "Improved Sliding X" thread had almost 1000 posts in it and you of all people didn't see it?

yea that is the unequalized piece I am referring to and it looks run out a bit longer then it would be if equalized with the entire group. I worded that poorly.

-Jolly

I am not. I want to see a picture of your anchor setup with all the pro been linked with master point. Thats what i want .

you got any?

The correct word is "than", with an "a".

Now then, "it looks run out" is a confusing choice of words in this situation because "run out" generally refers to the distance between pieces of gear. I take it however, that you are using it to mean the length of equalette arm in comparison to the other arms. Assuming that's what you mean, why do draw issue to it? One of the useful features of the equalette is that the powerpoint is free to equalize at least within a range that compensates for unequal length arms and their respective elongation when weighted. Your point is not obvious (to me) or is based on a faulty assumption.