|
ufdigga
Mar 7, 2005, 3:03 PM
Post #2 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2005
Posts: 36
|
In reply to: particularly for a lead climber to continue to climb on through.
2. Why did you use 2 cams for the third arm of the anchor?
3. Why did you use 2 opposing biners with the Green Alien, but nowhere else?
I have zero trad knowledge (obviously), and I'm trying to understand and learn from all your pics.
Thanks, Harry
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 7, 2005, 3:28 PM
Post #3 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: In reply to: particularly for a lead climber to continue to climb on through. 1. Why is that? What made the first setup less condusive to a climb-through? 2. Why did you use 2 cams for the third arm of the anchor? 3. Why did you use 2 opposing biners with the Green Alien, but nowhere else? I have zero trad knowledge (obviously), and I'm trying to understand and learn from all your pics. Thanks, Harry
I don't care how many people are sick of these anchor threads; I love them!
1. The ropes are redirected through a quickdraw. This keeps the falling follower from loading the belayer's harness directly AND later, serves as the leader's first piece of protection on the next pitch. Originally, the quickdraw was only clipped to one of the two pieces. They later clipped it to the lower, but more bomber, master point of those two pieces.
2. This is the arm that acts as the redirect for the follower and the first piece of protection for the leader (see above). As such, it may be subjected to high fall forces (especially if the leader falls onto it). It's such a crucial piece of the anchor, Phil and Dave sought to make it nice and strong -- two pieces.
3. I don't think the two biners are really wasn't necessary. Screw you guys for being too safe! :P
Changes:
1. First of all, good work spreading the anchor out amongst different cracks. I know you're telling us the rock is bomber, but all those fused blocks would make me think of the exact same thing. However, the system as a whole doesn't look ideally rigged to absorb an upward pull. The diverse angles would make me think I need a piece down low to guard against it.
That's about all I got.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Mar 7, 2005, 4:25 PM
Post #4 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
Shouldn't the redirect go through a piece that's distinct from the anchor? If so, I would think the original setup was preferable in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
t-nutz
Deleted
Mar 7, 2005, 5:27 PM
Post #5 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
nice job on the belay setup. looks super bomber. Your tied in to four pices's, two backed up the rop with two piceses. looks good 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
thomaskeefer
Mar 7, 2005, 5:44 PM
Post #6 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 186
|
1. Why are you not using the reverso in the 'auto-lock' mode that is was designed to be used in?
2. Using my first point is actually the fastest was to let a leader follow through since he never has to tie in. The leader arrives and you finish pulling all the slack and then he can just hang of the engaged reverso. You hand him the rest of the gear, take his belay device put him on belay with what was his belay device. He unweights the reverso, breaks it down, clips it to his harness, clips a draw off one of the pieces to avoid the factor 2 and is on his merry way.
3. One of the pics shows an alien that is undercamed it looks like but pics are sometimes deceiving.
That stuff was all efficiency related..
As far as safety goes, it looked pretty bomeber, complex, but definintly bomber.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 7, 2005, 6:29 PM
Post #7 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: 1. Why are you not using the reverso in the 'auto-lock' mode that is was designed to be used in? 2. Using my first point is actually the fastest was to let a leader follow through since he never has to tie in. The leader arrives and you finish pulling all the slack and then he can just hang of the engaged reverso. You hand him the rest of the gear, take his belay device put him on belay with what was his belay device. He unweights the reverso, breaks it down, clips it to his harness, clips a draw off one of the pieces to avoid the factor 2 and is on his merry way.
That's the way I do it, too, Thomas, but Phil and Dave's method is also valid. The belayer can simply lock off and hold the climber (or tie a mule hitch to go hands-free). The climber can then re-rack and go with no belay-device switching.
Both methods are pretty quick.
|
|
|
|
|
aikibujin
Mar 7, 2005, 6:31 PM
Post #8 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 408
|
In reply to: Shouldn't the redirect go through a piece that's distinct from the anchor? If so, I would think the original setup was preferable in that regard.
Actually, the the redirect for the original setup was part of the anchor. Referring to pic #5, the purple alien alone is used as the redirect (and when the climber starts to lead the next pitch, as the first piece), yet the purple and red aliens were statically equalized to use as one arm of the anchor.
Since the two aliens were equalized anyway, personally I think it's more preferable to clip into the equalized point as the redirect (pic #6), to spread the force of a possible (lead) fall over two pieces.
|
|
|
|
|
larryd
Mar 7, 2005, 9:29 PM
Post #9 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 77
|
Well, Phil, the reason you have everybody stumped on this one is that they didn't read carefully. You said "...classic old school trad route..." so obviously Dave should have wedged himself into a chimney and used a shoulder belay for the second, then switched to a hip belay when his partner led through.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Mar 7, 2005, 9:37 PM
Post #10 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Now I finally see what's wrong in all the pics.
They're not upside down. Everyone knows that in Australia, people stand upside down, so you need to rotate the pics in Photo Editing software by 180 degrees.
Or just turn your monitor upside down.
When you do this, each anchor piece looks perfect.
No need to thank me... that's why I'm here.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Mar 7, 2005, 9:45 PM
Post #11 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Personally I would be belaying using the auto lock mode on the Reverso. I would not redirect the rope through a top piece for belaying a second. I like to clip in to the power point with a Daisey thus placing me a lot lower than the power point. I will place the Reverso in the power point. I really do prefer high anchors so I have room to move and work in case anything goes wrong.
Once the leader is sorted I would then prefer to belay off my belay loop and then clip a high piece/s before they sally forth.
In the first pic I believe that if the redirect piece had failed then the seconder would be in trouble as the belayer may have had problems controlling the shock load on the belay device. There would certainly have been some rope burn to contend with because in effect the Reverso would for all intents and purposes become a pulley. It would take a very cool headed belayer to lock off a Reverso if the top piece failed.
If the Reverso had been rigged on the belayers belay loop and the belayer were anchored to a power point via a daisey and the rope redirected through the power point then that would be acceptable. I still however prefer to use the Reverso in the auto lock mode.
I`m always risk assessing the what ifs in any belay scenario. What if the belayer gets donked on the head (he is wearing a helmet so that is not such a concern for small rocks). If the belayer were to be taken out then the second effectively begins to solo using the pictured setup. Using the Reverso in auto lock mode protects the seconder from any untoward circumstances at the belay short of the whole anchor being taken out by huge rockfall or other disasterous happenings.
Yep, j_ung, I too like these critique threads. Note to all that I see the above setup as a valid way of doing things especially once we tweaked the anchor for a better setup. It is just that we should all strive for perfection in any given anchor and belay scenario and critiquing setups is beneficial to teach the thinking behind what is good and what is less than perfect through to the downright dangerous.
I say keep the anchor critique threads coming. Lotsa pictures from all sorts of angles is beneficial for understanding what is going on too. I think next time some macro shots of the placements would be beneficial too.
Feel free to continue the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
adnix
Mar 7, 2005, 10:38 PM
Post #12 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 584
|
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=49698
This is my typical stand. If the two pieces are really good (I wouldn't consider those good), I won't bother for a third piece. I prefer having one nut and one cam, if possible. In addition, I use the reverso on autoblock and tie it right net to the HMS when belaying a second.
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Mar 7, 2005, 10:45 PM
Post #13 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
Tell the climber to smile more! Sheesh is he having fun up there? Or is he too bumed out that he has to climb with an ugly bloke like you instead of his beautiful sweetheart in America?
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Mar 7, 2005, 11:41 PM
Post #14 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
adnix, if I am reading you right you seem to think that these two pieces are the only pieces that make up the entire anchor. That is not correct. There are four pieces that make up the anchor. All the pics in the first post in this thread are of the same anchor. They need to be viewed as a whole.
JR, bite me, hee hee. Poor old Dave he`s got it bad mate. All I heard all day was, my sweeties coming over, oooh, I`m so in love, oooh I can`t wait till my girl lands at the airport, oooh can`t wait till I head up to Maleny and spend three days in the tree house hotel with her. I was just about being sick by the end of the day from all the mooning over his girl he was carrying on with. Hence the look on Daves face, he`s lovesick. :lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
ricardol
Mar 8, 2005, 12:09 AM
Post #15 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1050
|
My impressions ..
1 - I dislike when the belayer ties himself into the anchor, rather than making a proper powerpoint, and anchoring himself to the powerpoint and redirecting through the powerpoint.
.. what if you have to escape the belay -- you can't do that easily if you are part of the anchor.
2 - no need to use 2 biners opposed on the green piece
thats all i noticed
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 8, 2005, 12:17 AM
Post #16 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: Poor old Dave he`s got it bad mate.
....b.t.w. those top two cams were certainly bomber. I even used them to be lowered to the ground so I could go and take a dump.... my concentration was becoming 'tainted'.... but managed a decent belay nonetheless....
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Mar 8, 2005, 12:22 AM
Post #17 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Hey what took you Dave, bout time you showed up. It`s no fun talking about you if you don`t join in mate.
Yep, those top two cams were indeed bomber.
I`m still giving you top marks for an awesome bomber anchor. How did the other pics turn out.
|
|
|
|
|
toejam
Mar 8, 2005, 2:04 AM
Post #19 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 358
|
I'd trust it. I'd add an upward directional as a matter of course, and prefer to redirect off the power point. Carabiners, esp. the one on the red camalot should be rotated to face away from the rock.
Love the anchor threads!
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Mar 8, 2005, 3:07 AM
Post #20 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: I'd trust it. I'd add an upward directional as a matter of course, and prefer to redirect off the power point. Carabiners, esp. the one on the red camalot should be rotated to face away from the rock. Love the anchor threads!
Aha, someone picked up this one too, I was wondering how long it would take for this to be found. Go to the head of the class.
As far as needing a directional piece goes. There have been a couple of comments in regards to this aspect of anchors. I don`t see the need for a directional for an upwards pull in the scenario portrayed. Each piece has its own omni directional pull. We are also on an easy ramp that in fact we are virtually traversing along in an admittedly upwards trend.
The anchor is quite long and has 4 omnidirectional pieces. As I pointed out previously if a daisey were to be employed then the anchor becomes that much longer to absorb any potential for lifting the belayer out of his position.
If nuts were employed as protection then yes I would have no hesitation in advising of the need for an upwards pull piece of pro to keep the nuts seated.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Mar 8, 2005, 5:13 AM
Post #21 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Let's see
8 Four pieces of gear(1 biner each)
2 slings
3 (1 draw)
2 free biners
1 rabbit runner
2 lockers
1 something yellow?
19 total (that is quite a few)
My comments would be that:
All the action is on two pieces. That was your anchor, the rest was a back up.
In one of the pictures, every biner is oriented with the gate facing the rock.
None of those cams look bomber or omnidirectional to me. The purple cam in particular. The green cam would only be any good if you took the time to clean it properly.
You didn't incorporate the rope anywhere in the anchor
The anchor doesn't seem to take into account the traversing nature of the route.
Classic funkness device potential
The gear looks brand new
The whole anchor comes down to a single biner. (at the belayer's harness) That is the deal killer for me. 19 pieces and you come up with a 9kn anchor. (Scenario, disregard the lead rope, the belayer climbs above the anchor to deal with an emergency, falls and takes a static 6 foot fall onto a cross loaded locker, resulting in his death.)
|
|
|
|
|
norushnomore
Mar 8, 2005, 10:25 AM
Post #22 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
This is one messy looking anchor.
Will take a full day to set and clean up a couple of those. Do you plan on climbing at some point?
|
|
|
|
|
newbierockstar
Mar 8, 2005, 10:19 PM
Post #23 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2004
Posts: 1010
|
In reply to: ....I even used them to be lowered to the ground so I could go and take a dump.... my concentration was becoming 'tainted'....
....[indigo]classy[/indigo]!!!..... :lol: :shock: :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
cadaverchris
Mar 8, 2005, 10:35 PM
Post #24 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 323
|
alpnclmbr1 - what would you suggest to fix this anchor?
my thought was that the belayer should use his end of the climbing rope to attach himself to the power point of the anchor, rather than 1 HMS 'biner.
-the purple alien looks sketch, its too close to the edge of the crack, you can see a whole lobe.
-cadaver
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Mar 8, 2005, 11:14 PM
Post #25 of 28
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Trust me when I say that the purple Alien was bomber. A lot of the cracks on Tibro are more like pods than parrallel sided true cracks. When you stick a cam in a crack it is usually in a crack that is narrower at the outside than on the inside. Thus cams nest perfectly. Not only that but the rock is incredibly hard and has lots of friction.
norushnomore point conceded that this is an overly built anchor.
alpnclmbr1 I agree too much gear was used to build this anchor. As for the webolette, I like them and we used it to keep the rope free so that Dave could climb att pitches. If we were swinging leads then incorporating the rope into the anchor would not be an issue. As it turned out on the next bolted anchor Dave did indeed incorporate the rope as an integral part of the anchor. It then necessitated that we had to swap ends so that Dave could continue to do all the pitches as leader.
Lemme have a rummage around in my pics of the day, hmm, here it is.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=49871
As has been noted elsewhere Dave has a bad habit of belaying from his harness thus making escaping from the belay a nightmare. Tis better to belay from the power point. I have no idea why he only has one shoe on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
