|
johnwesely
Nov 18, 2009, 2:14 AM
Post #51 of 124
(29679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Aequitas wrote: yeah, it does now. I didn't think about the fact that the forces on the upper nut would be increased, i just thought it would have been easier to clip the top nut by itself
Also, the rope is cloved into it. Meaning that is part of an anchor or it is the whole anchor. I imagine the majority of the force would go on the top piece because steel cable is not very pliable.
|
|
|
|
|
dugl33
Nov 18, 2009, 2:36 AM
Post #52 of 124
(29664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740
|
johnwesely wrote: Aequitas wrote: yeah, it does now. I didn't think about the fact that the forces on the upper nut would be increased, i just thought it would have been easier to clip the top nut by itself Also, the rope is cloved into it. Meaning that is part of an anchor or it is the whole anchor. I imagine the majority of the force would go on the top piece because steel cable is not very pliable.
This set up being someones entire anchor is too scary to even contemplate.
Going back to the 5kn on the biner example, you would have roughly 5 kn on the bottom nut and 10 kn on the top. You've taken 5kn and turned it into 15kn. Ain't physics cruel. A mini force multiplying haul system...
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Nov 18, 2009, 2:44 AM
Post #53 of 124
(29654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
dugl33 wrote: johnwesely wrote: Aequitas wrote: yeah, it does now. I didn't think about the fact that the forces on the upper nut would be increased, i just thought it would have been easier to clip the top nut by itself Also, the rope is cloved into it. Meaning that is part of an anchor or it is the whole anchor. I imagine the majority of the force would go on the top piece because steel cable is not very pliable. This set up being someones entire anchor is too scary to even contemplate. Going back to the 5kn on the biner example, you would have roughly 5 kn on the bottom nut and 10 kn on the top. You've taken 5kn and turned it into 15kn. Ain't physics cruel. A mini force multiplying haul system...
Perpetual motion has been accomplished!!!
|
|
|
|
|
dugl33
Nov 18, 2009, 2:51 AM
Post #54 of 124
(29649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740
|
johnwesely wrote: dugl33 wrote: johnwesely wrote: Aequitas wrote: yeah, it does now. I didn't think about the fact that the forces on the upper nut would be increased, i just thought it would have been easier to clip the top nut by itself Also, the rope is cloved into it. Meaning that is part of an anchor or it is the whole anchor. I imagine the majority of the force would go on the top piece because steel cable is not very pliable. This set up being someones entire anchor is too scary to even contemplate. Going back to the 5kn on the biner example, you would have roughly 5 kn on the bottom nut and 10 kn on the top. You've taken 5kn and turned it into 15kn. Ain't physics cruel. A mini force multiplying haul system... Perpetual motion has been accomplished!!!
Ha Ha. Well, not yet... but examples of multiplying force are everywhere, grab a crow bar, turn a steering wheel, set up a z-pulley system, crank a wrench...
The sad ironic fact of this set up is it would be much safer to just clip the upper nut and that's it. People get away with crazy shit simply because its not put to the test.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Nov 18, 2009, 2:58 AM
Post #55 of 124
(29638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
dugl33 wrote: johnwesely wrote: Perpetual motion has been accomplished!!! Ha Ha. Well, not yet... but examples of multiplying force are everywhere, grab a crow bar, turn a steering wheel, set up a z-pulley system, crank a wrench... The sad ironic fact of this set up is it would be much safer to just clip the upper nut and that's it. People get away with crazy shit simply because its not put to the test.
I don't believe in simple machines. I only believe in perpetual motion.
|
|
|
|
|
Aequitas
Nov 18, 2009, 3:33 AM
Post #56 of 124
(29620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 36
|
Yeah me too. thats why i have 1000's of "drinking birds" powering my tv.
|
|
|
|
|
grover
Nov 18, 2009, 4:15 AM
Post #57 of 124
(29598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 569
|
|
|
|
|
|
icanribbit
Nov 18, 2009, 4:31 AM
Post #58 of 124
(29582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2009
Posts: 27
|
grover wrote: [IMG]http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g216/msenyk/IMG_1009.jpg[/IMG]
if thats applewood smoked bacon, then its bomber
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Nov 18, 2009, 10:37 AM
Post #61 of 124
(29487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
First off i want to say that you can NOT learn how to place gear just by pictures!
However i do believe that it is a good additional measure, since one might see one thing or another than one might not have thought about.
so here is some images by me:
would maybe hold, but it is at the uppermost limit of the camming range! A little change in the position (walking) could change that from a "maybe, but i would rahter have something else" placement into something absolutely worthless.
I am not saying anything here ...
One could argue if the larks foot (is it called like that?) in the thin spectra does weaken it, and if the clay layers between the sandstone layers are a weakness, but apart from that i would say this is as bomber as it gets.
Clusterfuck, plus some pieces (especially the blue sling in the middle) are not very good when the direction of pull changes. but since this is at a topout, it does not matter. Could have been done better with more slings.
Big rock at the top, then a #2 friend and then a #1, all in a nice crack.
Ano could argue that this anchor has the "all eggs in one basket" problem, but given the fact that this is the only crack you will find (and the crack could only fail if a 20x20m piece of slab would fall of), it should be ok.
If the direction of pull changes, the equalization will be gone. If a direction of pull change would have been a concern, it could have been tesioned with a opposing piece at the bootom.
BOMBAR! 
qwert
(This post was edited by qwert on Nov 18, 2009, 10:38 AM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
7.jpg
(90.4 KB)
|
|
|
3.jpg
(85.1 KB)
|
|
|
anchor.jpg
(127 KB)
|
|
|
anchor2.jpg
(116 KB)
|
|
|
wtfanchor.jpg
(67.7 KB)
|
|
|
8 bomber.jpg
(99.1 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scotty1974
Nov 18, 2009, 1:41 PM
Post #63 of 124
(29446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2006
Posts: 248
|
Aequitas wrote: [image]http://www.rockclimbingcompany.co.uk/images/hexentric-placement-5.png[/image] Hexentric placement, Comments?
Mabye...but that's the exact thing that tri-cams excel at. Nice pockets!! Set a tri-cam in camming mode and you got your self a bomber piece of gear!
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
Nov 18, 2009, 5:20 PM
Post #64 of 124
(29406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
Tricam craft
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
Nov 18, 2009, 5:51 PM
Post #66 of 124
(29376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
No way. It ain't just cherry pepsi, it's WILD cherry pepsi
|
|
|
|
|
darkgift06
Nov 18, 2009, 6:17 PM
Post #69 of 124
(29348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2009
Posts: 492
|
I see alot of biners backwards with the gate against the rock.. thats a no no..
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Nov 18, 2009, 6:43 PM
Post #71 of 124
(29314 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
It looks like that top nut wouldn't stand a chance if it were pulled outward at all. Rigging it as a pulley to keep the bottom nut oppositional will effectively reduce the difference in pull angle from the vertical line (i.e. it'll pull more straight down).
Yes, you are increasing forces on the top not (probably just under double the amount of force it would normally experience.
However, if your real concern is that the upward nut pulling outward and you aren't worried about the rock blowing out / the piece shattering, this might actually be a reasonable option.
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
Nov 18, 2009, 6:58 PM
Post #72 of 124
(29293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
ryanb wrote: suprasoup wrote: Tricam craft [image]http://mountainproject.com/images/94/90/106489490_large_51415e.jpg[/image] Did you jerk test this one for an outward pull? I pulled a nut in similar flare in a fall so I have taken to setting testing/them with a jerk straight down and a jerk straight out...this placement looks like it would hold if the rails of the tri-cam were set around a lump or the nose behind something but would blow otherwise. I probably would have used a large bd nut turned sideways and set into the constriction from behind to resist both an down and out pull.
Why I didn't use a nut or a larger tricam, I honestly couldn't tell ya. But I wouldn't underestimate the power of the pinkie
With nuts it's SOP for me to jerk test them downward and outward but with tricams...hmmmm, you got me there. I don't normally place them in passive mode so I don't know if I'd pull test them straight out. Nice catch. It's something for me to think on the next time I'm out.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Nov 18, 2009, 7:55 PM
Post #73 of 124
(29246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
suprasoup wrote: ryanb wrote: suprasoup wrote: Tricam craft [image]http://mountainproject.com/images/94/90/106489490_large_51415e.jpg[/image] Did you jerk test this one for an outward pull? I pulled a nut in similar flare in a fall so I have taken to setting testing/them with a jerk straight down and a jerk straight out...this placement looks like it would hold if the rails of the tri-cam were set around a lump or the nose behind something but would blow otherwise. I probably would have used a large bd nut turned sideways and set into the constriction from behind to resist both an down and out pull. Why I didn't use a nut or a larger tricam, I honestly couldn't tell ya. But I wouldn't underestimate the power of the pinkie With nuts it's SOP for me to jerk test them downward and outward but with tricams...hmmmm, you got me there. I don't normally place them in passive mode so I don't know if I'd pull test them straight out. Nice catch. It's something for me to think on the next time I'm out.
Oh I know the power of the pinky. I learned on a rack that was largely passive including a partial set (the small and large ones) of tri-cams. My current dislike of them stems largely from the fact that I've learned I can get by without them and be a tad quicker for it ... they were the first thing that came off my rack when I had collected enough gear that I started to value dragging less stuff around.
My girl friend/main partner will still yell down at me "sure do wish I had a tri cam here!" at times, but I've also noticed she is generally fine climbing on past those places without stopping to fiddle gear in.
I don't have to many gear shots, but here are a couple from recent trips which illustrate some points about gear leading (click for larger):
Orange Alien, West Face of North Early Winter Spire. Note that the direction of pull is way off for a lead fall but about right for limiting the swing in case jen falls while climbing through the bulge she is about to get too. Not a perfect placement but served its purpose.
Same route, you can't actually see any gear in this one but I think it is a good example of how to extend runners to limit rope drag (click for the large version). Jen is in the middle of a fierce little 11a lie back that i sewed up clipping directly to cams and not extending runners. For the rest of the pitch the climbing was easier and I ran it out a bit and extended everything.
Nnumber 2 extended with trad draw in crack (p3 bail krammer, leavenworth I think). Pretty text book. This is about as close to perfect hands as we get around here on a regular basis, a bit flared at the lip and widening. I like to find a parallel spot where the cam is unlikely to walk, make sure the carabiners aren't going to be loaded over the edge of the crack and try to keep the rope running off to one side of the crack so it doesn't get fowled up in my feet/ankles.
Hawk Berry on a failed onsite attempt of Equinox in jtree (this ones from a few years ago...shot on film!). Note the two pieces placed while standing on the good horn. Hawk is a really solid climber, he introduced me to the idea of running it out between decent stances while placing redundant pieces at those stances. This takes some balls but is a great strategy for thin steep routes where the gear is strenuous to place but the fall is clean.
I think most of these are decent but I welcome any criticism.
(This post was edited by ryanb on Nov 18, 2009, 7:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Aequitas
Nov 19, 2009, 3:49 AM
Post #74 of 124
(29144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 36
|
Is there a reason big bros are slung through the pre drilled holes rather than just slinging the main body of the piece. The only reason I can see is to clip it to your harness.
|
|
|
|
|
danull16
Nov 19, 2009, 4:12 AM
Post #75 of 124
(29130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2009
Posts: 67
|
the ends are cut at angles so the pre-drilled holes ensure the fall is taken on the proper end of the bro. instead of the middle or opposite end.
intended to just answer the question not get off subject. i don't trad climb but i enjoy the pics. take it easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
