|
needmoregear
May 20, 2004, 6:29 PM
Post #2 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 45
|
looks pretty bomber to me.
|
|
|
|
|
mwbtle
May 20, 2004, 6:33 PM
Post #3 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 5891
|
this one is much less obvious...and one of the issues with it has to do with anchoring restrictions at Peterskill...
|
|
|
|
|
bubba
May 20, 2004, 6:34 PM
Post #5 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 284
|
How 'bout the knot from the cord slung around the tree is inside the biners.
|
|
|
|
|
bubba
May 20, 2004, 6:36 PM
Post #7 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 284
|
How 'bout the knot from the cord slung around the tree is inside the biners.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffstephan
May 20, 2004, 6:36 PM
Post #8 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2003
Posts: 183
|
Perhaps the cordelette knot coming from the tree point is inside the beaner which could result in opening the gate? :?
|
|
|
|
|
monopocketmojo
May 20, 2004, 6:37 PM
Post #9 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2003
Posts: 184
|
not an optimal set-up with the thin trees and the knot in the biners, but certainly not nearly as bad as the other pic that's going around. for you guys, what diameter tree is the minimum that you would anchor to? that one looks small, but i might still use it if it's better than any other cracks or rocks around.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffstephan
May 20, 2004, 6:38 PM
Post #10 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2003
Posts: 183
|
damn...I'm as slow as this computer :D
|
|
|
|
|
kimmyt
May 20, 2004, 6:38 PM
Post #11 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 4546
|
Don't anchor off pitch pines at PK!!!
I bet you were furious at this one, Tai....
K.
|
|
|
|
|
monopocketmojo
May 20, 2004, 6:39 PM
Post #12 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2003
Posts: 184
|
you can't tell what knot it is...what, an overhand?
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
May 20, 2004, 6:40 PM
Post #13 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
1) Is directly off tree- a no-no at PK. There is no padding around the rtree, etc.
2) Knot is inside the biner.
Besides that, look decent.
What else?
|
|
|
|
|
mwbtle
May 20, 2004, 6:40 PM
Post #14 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 5891
|
In reply to: Perhaps the cordelette knot coming from the tree point is inside the beaner which could result in opening the gate? :?
I think actually its more a problem with the knot coming undone than a possible gate opening.
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
May 20, 2004, 6:45 PM
Post #16 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
it's an over hand on a bight.
now what's the deal with pitch pines at peterskill?
|
|
|
|
|
elron
May 20, 2004, 6:48 PM
Post #17 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 480
|
T, I'll bite... is the knot an EDK? I can't tell if the two strands hanging down are two individual strands or a loop.
It also looks like the cam on the right may be under-cammed, but from this angle i really can't tell. i'm sure we can find a few things wrong with just about any anchor, but this looks pretty bomber. I love how in some of JL's anchor books, in the "Con" section of an anchor description he'll state something like "The flake is loose", or "The block is hollow". How do we tell that from a picture?? :)
Also, could someone PM me about the whole pitch pine thing at PK? I'm sure its been discussed here before, but i'm not familiar with it and don't want to derail this thread. On the contrary, I'd love to see more threads like this. JL's anchor books are so great because of this approach... showing REAL anchors. Maybe we can get some "good" anchors to critique too... a lot can be learned from good anchors as well as bad
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 6:50 PM
Post #18 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: 1) Is directly off tree- a no-no at PK. There is no padding around the rtree, etc. 2) Knot is inside the biner. Besides that, look decent. What else?
3) Overhand knot with no backup, instead of grapevine knot.
Trees in general are okay, as long as you do it as a back-up piece and pad the tree. They still don't like it, but they understand it.
Pitch pines, however, are strictly and completely off-limits. Under no circumstances are there to be any anchors built with pitch pines, according to the Minnewaska rangers. Seeing as how they control our access, I think it best to humor them. :roll:
T
|
|
|
|
|
kimmyt
May 20, 2004, 6:51 PM
Post #19 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 4546
|
And from what I noticed, the few times I was at PK, most of the trees that are close to the edges and in decent location for anchoring seem to be pitch pines....
K.
|
|
|
|
|
monopocketmojo
May 20, 2004, 6:51 PM
Post #20 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2003
Posts: 184
|
this has been a fun test to see how much we'll let slide because we're not paying attention close enough or want to skimp to get climbing faster...i'm gonna die young.
|
|
|
|
|
oafy
May 20, 2004, 6:55 PM
Post #21 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 102
|
Dude these are great topics, gets you thinken about proper anchor set ups. Keep them comin, gets people involved and makes them realize you gotta watch up when you jump on other people's top-ropes at the local crag!.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 6:59 PM
Post #22 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: T, I'll bite... is the knot an EDK? I can't tell if the two strands hanging down are two individual strands or a loop. It also looks like the cam on the right may be under-cammed, but from this angle i really can't tell. i'm sure we can find a few things wrong with just about any anchor, but this looks pretty bomber. I love how in some of JL's anchor books, in the "Con" section of an anchor description he'll state something like "The flake is loose", or "The block is hollow". How do we tell that from a picture?? :) Also, could someone PM me about the whole pitch pine thing at PK? I'm sure its been discussed here before, but i'm not familiar with it and don't want to derail this thread. On the contrary, I'd love to see more threads like this. JL's anchor books are so great because of this approach... showing REAL anchors. Maybe we can get some "good" anchors to critique too... a lot can be learned from good anchors as well as bad Kevin
Kevin, the knot is an overhand on a bight - a European Death Knot, or EDK. They need to be backed up with another overhand right behind it, or they will roll. Ironically, the backed-up EDK is my favorite rappeling knot.
I'll drop you a line about the pitch pines...
T
|
|
|
|
|
needmoregear
May 20, 2004, 7:00 PM
Post #23 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 45
|
why does it have to be a grapevine? there is nothing wrong with the EDK. hell, backing it up kind of defeats the purpose of using it on repels.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 7:02 PM
Post #24 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: it's an over hand on a bight. now what's the deal with pitch pines at peterskill?
The simple answer: the pitch pines at PK are protected, as they're the largest inland stand of pitch pines in the northeast or some junk. Do not use them as any part of an anchor.
And Kimmy remembers correctly - unfortunately, the majority of trees at the edges of the cliffs are pitch pines.
T
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 7:05 PM
Post #25 of 70
(8284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: why does it have to be a grapevine? there is nothing wrong with the EDK. hell, backing it up kind of defeats the purpose of using it on repels.
I personally prefer the EDK for rappeling. Not, however, for using in a TR anchor.
Read THIS, from the Gunks.com board; it's regarding various rappeling knots. The EDK will roll back on itself, tightening the whole time - that's why you need to leave 2-3' tails when using it. You can also just back it up with another overhand, right up against the first knot.
The grapevine is static. It doesn't roll, it doesn't shift. Good, therefore, for a SRENE anchor.
T
|
|
|
|
|
dymondbak37
May 20, 2004, 7:30 PM
Post #26 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2002
Posts: 212
|
Shouldn't the leg of the anchor going to the tree, be a complete piece of cordelette, without the 2 biners in the middle there?
|
|
|
|
|
elron
May 20, 2004, 7:35 PM
Post #27 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 480
|
dymondbak... that would be a looong cordelette! :) in this case the second cordelette is being used as a long sling to bring the tree into the anchor. Its attached to the anchor cordelette with two biners and looks pretty solid (with the exception of the knot under discussion)
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 20, 2004, 7:40 PM
Post #28 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Sounds like you have some educational issues to address concerning your area's rules and use traditions.
Re: the setup, the blue runner looks to be a good knot on the pic, it's certainly in fine condition, can't see the other one well, ... that setup looks fine to me. 3 solid looking pieces, the tree is bomber of course.
Yeah, I'd climb on it, no question. Now tell me, did I just step in it by saying that?
Here's wishing you the best of luck with upcoming training/area issues though, thanks for sharing here, I wonder how you can get the word out there? Copys of "rules" under windshield wipers and posted at gear shops and gyms?
Regards:
Bill :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
ropeburn
May 20, 2004, 7:45 PM
Post #29 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2003
Posts: 594
|
I don't think I'd girth hitch two trees that far apart with one piece of sling. I may just be being anal, but I would think that would possibly put unnecessary inward force on the trees as well providing the chance that the sling would move around and mess up the tree. Of course this is all moot if you’re not supposed to slinging these trees in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 7:52 PM
Post #30 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: Shouldn't the leg of the anchor going to the tree, be a complete piece of cordelette, without the 2 biners in the middle there?
Sometimes you have to extend the placements, then tie the cordalette off the extensions so that the cordalette can reach to where it's needed. Two biners, opposite and opposed, are fine. In fact, if the knot was different and they weren't anchored off the pitch pines - and, as someone pointed out, they wouldn't sling both trees like that - it'd be a very good anchor.
T
|
|
|
|
|
dfrancom
May 20, 2004, 7:59 PM
Post #31 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2004
Posts: 36
|
Looks like the rope around the tree is a larks foot with an angle of about 65 deg. I think 45 deg or less would be much stronger. Larks foots are good on a horn where there is danger of the rope slipping off. In this situation though the rope is obviously not going to slip up the tree!!
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
litedawg
May 20, 2004, 8:05 PM
Post #32 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2001
Posts: 337
|
For this I recommend a 2 1/4 inch serrated Spatha and that you help them by fixing the problem yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
kimmyt
May 20, 2004, 8:15 PM
Post #33 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 4546
|
In reply to: Sounds like you have some educational issues to address concerning your area's rules and use traditions.
Brings up something I was always curious about, Tai....why doesn't PK have any signs saying anchoring off the pines is a no-go?? I mean, when you told me about the rule, I don't recall ever seeing ANYTHING saying not to do it, which might explain why you see so many people anchoring off of them.
Not that you can do anything about them, but I was just curious if you knew the answer, or maybe I just missed the signs.....
K.
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
May 20, 2004, 8:16 PM
Post #34 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
In reply to: In reply to: you can't tell what knot it is...what, an overhand? Correct - overhand knot, with no backup. Should have been a grapevine; overhand knots like that - silimar to an EDK - have a tendency to roll unless backed up tight to the first knot. And Kimmy - damned right I was furious, especially with both of those lovely cracks right there, begging to accept pro. Crap like that can and will get PK closed. They don't have a lot of rules, there, but anchoring off of Pitch Pines is forbidden. T
Maybe I can't see it well enough in the picture, but it didn't appear that the purpose of the overhand was to join the ends of the cord around the tree. It looks like it was to shorten it (since the cord appears to be girth hitched to the tree). I don't disagree with the idea of getting it out of the biners or backing it up, but assuming that is a bight I see coming out of the end, I don't think a grapvine would be useful to shorten it.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 8:19 PM
Post #35 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sounds like you have some educational issues to address concerning your area's rules and use traditions. Brings up something I was always curious about, Tai....why doesn't PK have any signs saying anchoring off the pines is a no-go?? I mean, when you told me about the rule, I don't recall ever seeing ANYTHING saying not to do it, which might explain why you see so many people anchoring off of them. Not that you can do anything about them, but I was just curious if you knew the answer, or maybe I just missed the signs..... K.
I'm curious about that myself, Kim; there's only one place I've seen it - on a little POS pamphlet that they used to give out when they sold the day passes out of the booth instead of out of the office. They haven't handed one out in about a year. It's not in the guidebook at all. I have never gotten a straight answer when asking a ranger about it, either. *shrug*
Frankly, I'd love to have a PK 2nd Edition guide printed up, with the new routes that have been discovered, the corrected ratings instead of just an arbitrary number, and that VERY important information about the pitch pines. That's in addition to a prominent sign or several about them.
T
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 8:28 PM
Post #36 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: you can't tell what knot it is...what, an overhand? Correct - overhand knot, with no backup. Should have been a grapevine; overhand knots like that - silimar to an EDK - have a tendency to roll unless backed up tight to the first knot. And Kimmy - damned right I was furious, especially with both of those lovely cracks right there, begging to accept pro. Crap like that can and will get PK closed. They don't have a lot of rules, there, but anchoring off of Pitch Pines is forbidden. T Maybe I can't see it well enough in the picture, but it didn't appear that the purpose of the overhand was to join the ends of the cord around the tree. It looks like it was to shorten it (since the cord appears to be girth hitched to the tree). I don't disagree with the idea of getting it out of the biners or backing it up, but assuming that is a bight I see coming out of the end, I don't think a grapvine would be useful to shorten it.
Good point, and yes it definitely looks that way. However, you can tie a grapevine at any point on a rope - making a very small loop in an otherwise very long piece of rope if needs-be. There are also other ways to fix the situation, such as tying the accessory cord in a loop around both trees, then making a two-point cordalette out of it by pulling the middle through and tying the ends into a fig8-bight (therefore splitting the load on the trees instead of increasing it). You could also tie a re-threaded figure8 around the trees and a figure8-bight for the biners, or a re-threaded fig8 around the trees and a clove-hitch for the biners, or a double- or triple-fisherman's knot in a loop around the trees with either of the two other options above for the other end, etc. *shrug* Of those options, the first has the best redundancy and causes the least pressure on the trees.
T
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
May 20, 2004, 8:32 PM
Post #37 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
In reply to: not an optimal set-up with the thin trees and the knot in the biners, but certainly not nearly as bad as the other pic that's going around. for you guys, what diameter tree is the minimum that you would anchor to? that one looks small, but i might still use it if it's better than any other cracks or rocks around. |
|
|
|
|
meataxe
May 20, 2004, 8:42 PM
Post #38 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
In reply to: Maybe I can't see it well enough in the picture, but it didn't appear that the purpose of the overhand was to join the ends of the cord around the tree. It looks like it was to shorten it (since the cord appears to be girth hitched to the tree). I don't disagree with the idea of getting it out of the biners or backing it up, but assuming that is a bight I see coming out of the end, I don't think a grapvine would be useful to shorten it.
There would be no need to shorten the cord around the tree. Since a cordalette is used to equalize, the loop would not need to be exact.
When I looked at the knot, I thought it was the 8 version of the euro death knot, which is known to loosen when it rolls--the overhand version will tighten. I would use neither version of the EDK since they will roll. Double fishermans would be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
May 20, 2004, 8:43 PM
Post #39 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: Size-wise those trees look perfectly bomber to me. Of course bigger is always better. :wink:
I don't think it has anything to do with how big the trees are, but that constant slinging will wear away the bark and allow disease to set in. No? I know there's a fine for slinging treeas at Pilot Mnt., NC. Isn't there one at PK?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 20, 2004, 8:46 PM
Post #40 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: you can't tell what knot it is...what, an overhand? Correct - overhand knot, with no backup. Should have been a grapevine; overhand knots like that - silimar to an EDK - have a tendency to roll unless backed up tight to the first knot. And Kimmy - damned right I was furious, especially with both of those lovely cracks right there, begging to accept pro. Crap like that can and will get PK closed. They don't have a lot of rules, there, but anchoring off of Pitch Pines is forbidden. T Maybe I can't see it well enough in the picture, but it didn't appear that the purpose of the overhand was to join the ends of the cord around the tree. It looks like it was to shorten it (since the cord appears to be girth hitched to the tree). I don't disagree with the idea of getting it out of the biners or backing it up, but assuming that is a bight I see coming out of the end, I don't think a grapvine would be useful to shorten it. Good point, and yes it definitely looks that way. However, you can tie a grapevine at any point on a rope - making a very small loop in an otherwise very long piece of rope if needs-be.
Yes, but ususally you're dealing with an already tied cordelette, and you'd have to untie the existing knot to retie a grapevine to shorten the cordelette. My cordelettes were tied like 5 years ago. I don't know if could untie them without using plyers. Plus a grapevine is difficult to adjust. The overhand knot is probably ok, since it's a TR set up and the arm with the knot sharing the load with two other arms of the anchor. My preference, however, is to shorten a cordellette by tying it to the biner with a double clove hitch (ie, one clove hitch tied while holding both strands of the cordelette together).
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
antigrav
May 20, 2004, 8:47 PM
Post #41 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2003
Posts: 215
|
Since the anchor is for toproping (so presumably there is plenty of time and opportunity to make a "perfect" anchor), wouldn't it be an idea to use something else than camming devices for pro? I've been told to avoid them in these circumstances, because of the walking tendencies... :?
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 8:48 PM
Post #42 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: In reply to: Size-wise those trees look perfectly bomber to me. Of course bigger is always better. :wink: I don't think it has anything to do with how big the trees are, but that constant slinging will wear away the bark and allow disease to set in. No? I know there's a fine for slinging treeas at Pilot Mnt., NC. Isn't there one at PK?
I think so, or you might be asked to leave. As I don't use the trees, I've never had to deal with the consequences.
I'll try to find out the next time I'm up there.
T
|
|
|
|
|
coclimber26
May 20, 2004, 8:52 PM
Post #44 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 928
|
If I were to girth the two small tree's I would put the bar of the girth to the right so it ratchets tight when loaded or better yet make several wraps of the tree then girth...really not a big deal here because the pull is mostly horizontal. Even though the double barrel is prefered the over hand could work in this case. In the unlikely even that the EDK rolled there apears to be more than enough tail for a roll. When the EDK rolls once it becomes much stronger and has less of a chance of rolling again...From what I've read about EKD rolls it happens with around 5-7kn of force. Not likely on this toprope unless both cams blew and the knot was shockloaded by a 300lb climber. Don't like the knot weighted on the biner though..If loaded and the knot shifts it will weight the two cams and leave some slack in the line to the trees if the cordelete was equalized correctly that is...No need for the two biners on each piece but again it doesn't hurt. The cams look like good placements but can't say about the rock quality. I would bet that the lower cam is placed in less than optimal rock and that flake may expand. I would probably use some tubular around the cordalete strands running over the edge......but I'd ride it just like it is.
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
May 20, 2004, 9:26 PM
Post #45 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
OK OK with the pitch pine thing but shouldn't that be posted in some regional forum; and OK, the other thread has a really BAD TR anchor; but in regards to this thread, technically at least, I have two words:
ANCHOR NAZIS.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
May 20, 2004, 9:30 PM
Post #46 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: OK OK with the pitch pine thing but shouldn't that be posted in some regional forum; and OK, the other thread has a really BAD TR anchor; but in regards to this thread, technically at least, I have two words: ANCHOR NAZIS.
While I wholeheartedly object to the incredibly negative connocations brought in by the use of the word Nazi, yes - I'm fanatic about anchors. *shrug*
T
|
|
|
|
|
brianthew
May 20, 2004, 9:39 PM
Post #47 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 1820
|
In reply to: I've been told to avoid them in these circumstances, because of the walking tendencies...
I wouldn't be concerned too much about cams as top-rope anchors walking. What causes cams to walk is typically back-and-forth movement of the rope when one is leading. When the cams are at the anchor, this sort of movement would be pretty much zero. The rope is just sliding through the anchor point, and in case of a fall, giving a straight tug on the pieces. Of course, sometimes there's more to it than that, but simple inspection of placements should nullify fears of walking anchor cams.
I climb often at Devil's Lake, WI, which is a crag comprised of the most bullet, frictionless quartzite there is. Cams will walk like crazy on lead, but I don't mind them at all as top-rope anchors provided they're put in a good placement.
In reply to: I have two words: ANCHOR NAZIS.
Though this isn't a horrible or crazy unsafe anchor, with the only major technical problem being the knot, being an anchor nazi in the case of top-rope setups, I think, is completely justified. You're not climbing while setting up the anchor, so spending a bit more effort inspecting things and getting your anchor as close to "perfect" as possible is a good thing. Remember, when you're top-roping, all you have is the anchor. Should that single element fail, you will be freesoloing.
|
|
|
|
|
corpse
May 20, 2004, 9:51 PM
Post #48 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 822
|
It is so much NOT an issue of being a safety nazi or anchor nazi - I feel it's purely about education. And more things you SEE wrong, is hopefully one less thing you DO wrong.. I've come up with the idea before (in the suggestions thread), of having a picture category simply called Anchors; this way everyone could leave comments on pros/cons/flames :roll: whatever on the design of the anchor. Only problem with that of course, is you are limited to 1 photo, and in this case its good to see multiple photos.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
May 20, 2004, 9:55 PM
Post #49 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Excellent discussion.
What I saw when I first clicked on the pics was the knot at the biners, that for me was the most glaringly obvious mistake. I wouldn`t use an overhand in this situation nor would I ever girth hitch a tree. I would always simply sling the tree and clip both ends of the sling/cordalette to a biner and extend down from there. If I was ever to girth hitch anything I would always go a second wrap which becomes a 95% rope strength knot as opposed to the single wrap girth hitch at 60% rope strength. Doubling the sling/cordalette will in fact be 2x rope strength and also be much kinder to the tree. Yes I am talking about single trees here.
The other thing I observed with this setup is in relation to the cams. Those cracks are horizontal and very close to the top of the cliff, how good are those plates that the cams are under. Would the plates lift under camming pressure. They probably would not as the plates are pretty huge but it is something to consider when placing cams.
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
May 20, 2004, 10:01 PM
Post #50 of 70
(7532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
about those cams -- the top one looks undercammed and that's a shallow placement. the bottom one looks like a black TCU, which, in my opinion (this has been heavily debated elsewhere) is almost always a marginal piece -- the camming range is so small it needs to be placed exactly right -- and this rock seems to have lots of irregularities.
Would this hold, definitly. But I'm not super happy about either cam (or the tree).
|
|
|
|
|
sarcat
May 24, 2004, 2:31 PM
Post #51 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
I have to agree with philbox. Girth hitches are never to be used in any kind of anchor situation. The bend of the rope around itself reduces it's strength. To keep the 95% rope/webbing strength any 180 deg. redirection must be 4x the diamiter of the rope. Also a girth violates the no angle more than 60 deg. rule. A wrap 3 pull 2 could have worked on the tree and given more length to the anchor (pitch pine argument aside).
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
May 24, 2004, 2:39 PM
Post #52 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
Something else I noticed that I'd correct if I were there was the girth hitch around the tree. It should be rotated counter clockwise to that the load bearing end is tangent with the tree. I don't know how much of a difference it would make but it would decrease the stress on the rope by getting rid of the bend in the loaded end.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
May 24, 2004, 2:48 PM
Post #53 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
That camalot is a bit shallow for me. I'd probably try one size smaller and try to place it deeper (assuming the crack gets smaller as it goes deeper). I guess it really depends on how solid or crumbly that rock tends to be.
The TCU is impossible to judge, although it does look nice and deep, so...its probably okay.
As for the overhand, like Jay, it's okay for a TR. Its not ideal, and Jay is correct, a clove hitch is a MUCH better choice...not only is it stronger, its also adjustable. Tying a grapevine there is silly....far too much work.
The anchor is okay for TR...not great, not really that good, but okay.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
May 24, 2004, 4:01 PM
Post #54 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
Hard to tell, but the power point doesn't seem to go straight down. The direction the anchor could be loaded could cause the cordelette to rub against that very rough ledge, fraying or cutting it.
|
|
|
|
|
luke
May 26, 2004, 7:06 PM
Post #56 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 57
|
OK, I understand that the pitch pines are a problem, but otherwise this anchor is fine as far as can be seen in the picture. An EDK is not ideal under those circumstances, it could be improved, but at worst it will roll once or twice (under fairly large loads, even in that kind of cord) and tighten up and lock. That wouldnt happen unless the rest of the anchor failed because there wouldnt be large enough forces involved even to make it roll. I dont like having it inside the biners but it doesnt look like it will open them, in fact quite the opposite. The girth hitch will reduce the strength of the cordalette by 40% or whatever, but that is bluewater titan cord as far as I can see, rated to more than 3000 pounds. Drop it to 60% of its strength and you have 1800 pounds, which is probably stronger than those trees.
It is hard to see the cam placements or to know if the plates can be trusted, but whoever said that the black cam is too small to trust is a bit off. Maybe you meant a different brand (alien??), but that looks like a black metolius to me and if so is the size of a 3/4 camalot. The small metolius cams are grey and purple.
Of course it is fair to say that we can see ways this anchor could be improved, but the only things that might make it unsafe (cam placements, rock strength) are not detectable here.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
May 27, 2004, 10:04 AM
Post #57 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
The only thing i consider as wrong (apart from the forbidden pines) is the knot in the biner. Apart from this, the knot seems really good. As i see it it is an overhand with long strands comming out of it, so no need to call it death knot :x
From my experience trees of this size will be sufficient for toproping purposes, but i would back it up though (another tree).
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
taino
Jun 10, 2004, 7:16 PM
Post #58 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
I went back last week to build a TR anchor on that same spot, for the same route. Sadly, I didn't have a camera available to take pictures.
Those cams in the original picture were, in fact, most likely undercammed. The two cracks there are MUCH more shallow than I'd suspected, and flared out where the pieces were placed. The lower, black cam looked to be better than the top one.
I ended up making an anchor using a purple tricam placed in active-mode under a huge boulder about 15 feet away for one leg of the anchor, and three other pieces in those cracks - in different places than were shown in the picture. I put in two pieces and connected them with their own mini-cordalette (4'sling, redundant magic x), then a third piece as the last leg. I avoided using the trees completely. To tie all three (four) sections together, I used 40' of static line in a "web-o-lette" configuration - a backed-up fig8-bight at each end clipped into a piece, with the middle run through the third piece and the centers pulled into the classic cordalette anchor configuration. This was extended past the edge and tied into a powerpoint.
Next time, I'll try to have a camera available.
T
|
|
|
|
|
climbfrog
Jun 13, 2004, 7:17 AM
Post #59 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 101
|
1. There is a vertical crack above the TCU placement. This would cause the rock to be weaker at this point, and the TCU would just make the rock expand, and possibly break.
2. The #1 Camalot is too shallow, and it looks as though the crack is flairing. Tri-cams would've been better instead of SLCD's.
3. The tree is girth hitched. This will reduce the strength of the cord up to 50%. The knot will reduce the strength a further 30%. There is a knot resting on the biners. You are using 6 mill cord. It's too weak for a TR set-up. 6mill cord has a breaking strength of 800 kilos. Minus the 30% for the knot equals 560 kilos. Now there is a breaking strength of 560kilos left. Minus 50% for the girth hitch equals a breaking strength of 280 kilos. Thats too weak. Tube tape is stronger.
4. I would tied the two trees off seprately, just in case one goes. Pad the trees.
5. The edge the cordelette is resting on, is not protected.
6. The rock doesnt seem to be of the best quality, judging by the small stones imbedded in it.
I would'nt expect too much from this set-up. Sorry man. The whole system would be a bit better if 11mill static line where used. It will be far stronger, and it takes less time to rig.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Jun 13, 2004, 9:13 AM
Post #61 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
In reply to: 1. There is a vertical crack above the TCU placement. This would cause the rock to be weaker at this point, and the TCU would just make the rock expand, and possibly break. 2. The #1 Camalot is too shallow, and it looks as though the crack is flairing. Tri-cams would've been better instead of SLCD's. 3. The tree is girth hitched. This will reduce the strength of the cord up to 50%. The knot will reduce the strength a further 30%. There is a knot resting on the biners. You are using 6 mill cord. It's too weak for a TR set-up. 6mill cord has a breaking strength of 800 kilos. Minus the 30% for the knot equals 560 kilos. Now there is a breaking strength of 560kilos left. Minus 50% for the girth hitch equals a breaking strength of 280 kilos. Thats too weak. Tube tape is stronger. 4. I would tied the two trees off seprately, just in case one goes. Pad the trees. 5. The edge the cordelette is resting on, is not protected. 6. The rock doesnt seem to be of the best quality, judging by the small stones imbedded in it. I would'nt expect too much from this set-up. Sorry man. The whole system would be a bit better if 11mill static line where used. It will be far stronger, and it takes less time to rig.
:lol: :lol:
Anchor Nazi indeed. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
hippie_dreams
Jun 13, 2004, 2:17 PM
Post #62 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2003
Posts: 158
|
I really appreciate these posts. It gives those of us who are newbie's with anchors some experience with what not do. Thanks guys and gals!
|
|
|
|
|
grayzed
Jun 13, 2004, 3:06 PM
Post #64 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 53
|
personnally i think the anchor is fine the knot has a pretty long tail and is unlikely to come undone. the tree is relatively safe from damage unless it gets used over and over. but as long as nothing is pulling across the tree I cant see much harm done.
:D
|
|
|
|
|
grayzed
Jun 13, 2004, 3:10 PM
Post #65 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 53
|
all though i probably would have set it up differently but I definately have to be honest I would have used the tree.
again I wouldnt of hurt the tree..
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
Jun 13, 2004, 5:26 PM
Post #66 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
"It is hard to see the cam placements or to know if the plates can be trusted, but whoever said that the black cam is too small to trust is a bit off. Maybe you meant a different brand (alien??), but that looks like a black metolius to me and if so is the size of a 3/4 camalot. The small metolius cams are grey and purple."
I'm the one who said this, and you're right -- I was thinking of the black alien. -ben
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Jun 16, 2004, 3:58 PM
Post #67 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: In reply to: you can't tell what knot it is...what, an overhand? Correct - overhand knot, with no backup. Should have been a grapevine; overhand knots like that - silimar to an EDK - have a tendency to roll unless backed up tight to the first knot. T
No, it's not an Offset Overhand: it's a an Offset Fig.8, but in an unusual
*stopper* orientation. Positioned as it is around the 'biners, it's okay;
I'm not sure how vulnerable it is to being moved from that position, though.
As for needing a back-up, no, the EDK properly tied should not, for abseil
(where loads are minimal). Here, the issue was adjusting the length of the
long runner to the trees, and I think that the way to do this was to form a
long runner (grapevine or Fit.8 (NOT Offset!) or Ashley's Bend), and to tie
a Bowline to get the adjustment. Or hitch the runner around the tree
(ignoring, yes, the entire argument against tree use--not a knotting point)
with a Munter (end bight of runner around itself) finished/secured with Two
Half Hitches, 'biner clipped end. Actually, this hitch would be better set on
the 'biners, which is where the user can best make the length adjustment
also.
--knudenoggin
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Jun 16, 2004, 4:43 PM
Post #68 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
In reply to: 6. The rock doesnt seem to be of the best quality, judging by the small stones imbedded in it.
Um, it's called quartzite conglomerate.
Besides that, most of what you said was spot on. However, I use 5mm myself, and have never worried about it.
But, as someone mentioned above, the #1 cam looks shallow.
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Jun 23, 2004, 10:05 PM
Post #69 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: 3. The tree is girth hitched. This will reduce the strength of the cord up to 50%. The knot will reduce the strength a further 30%. There is a knot resting on the biners. You are using 6 mill cord. It's too weak for a TR set-up. 6mill cord has a breaking strength of 800 kilos. Minus the 30% for the knot equals 560 kilos. Now there is a breaking strength of 560kilos left. Minus 50% for the girth hitch equals a breaking strength of 280 kilos. Thats too weak. Tube tape is stronger. ... The whole system would be a bit better if 11mill static line where used. It will be far stronger, and it takes less time to rig.
You don't add the weaknesses of parts of the system to some total: rather, the weakest link
determines the limit. The Girth Hitch would be stronger were the loaded lines led around the tree in a
straight line, rather than pulling so much on the end bight. The strength of the Fig.8 Stopper knot positioned
at the 'biner pair is unknown to me--never seen strengths for stoppers--, but 30% is probably optimistic.
Using your figure of 800k for 6mm, you double that for the paired-rope runner ( = 1600k),
then reduce it by whichever weakness is greatest (let's take 50% as a tie: = 800k).
As for making the anchor with "stronger" material, you might be better off with dynamic stuff,
if doubling it in cordelette arms & runners, esp. over short spans.
--knudenoggin
|
|
|
|
|
climbfrog
Jun 26, 2004, 11:45 PM
Post #70 of 70
(7804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 101
|
Why would you double 800k for a paired rope runner knude? What happens if a single strand breaks anyhere in that cord? I still think each tree should have been tied off seperately, and with something way beefier than that 6mm cord. And tied off perferrably with something besides a girth hitch.
I am learning from this too by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
