|
|
|
|
cbare
Apr 18, 2005, 4:34 PM
Post #1 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 64
|
I helped teach a rappel master course to a SWAT team in Santa Fe last week. During the anchor building portion of the class I saw a diagram of this anchor in the text book. I usually use cordalettes or clove hitches to equalize my anchors, I have on rare occasion used the sliding X with tubular nylon, however, I have never seen an anchor like this. I asket the senior rappel master and he said this was a setup used for eqalizing pitons and other forms of protection. The original diagram had laid rope instead of the utility cord that I used to duplicate the anchor. I suspect this is an old anchor design used when climbers only had pitons, carabiners, and laid climbing rope, and had to use a minimalist approach to setting up their anchor. Many of the references for the text book came from ARMY mountaineering manuals, so perhaps this is a military type design. To the anchor's credit, it does equalize, however, if an anchor fails the system is shock loaded. I thought I would put this picture out and see if anybody has seen or used an anchor setup like this. I am curious as to it's orgin, and to see if my hypothesis' are correct. http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=52581 note, I updated the picture with a more exact copy of the anchor. Thanks, cbare.
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Apr 18, 2005, 4:41 PM
Post #2 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
It appears to lack redundancy. If the rope through the left anchor was severed the whole thing would fail. d.
|
|
|
|
|
chalkfree
Apr 18, 2005, 4:59 PM
Post #3 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 512
|
It'd be boned if any of the rope failed. This is as good as many other self equalizing anchors I've seen, while shockloading is a major problem , if your worried about your ropes failing, shouldn't you be buying a new one. I'd climb on it if all the pieces where bomber, but if one of them was questionable i'd secure the other two with cloves or overhand bights.
|
|
|
|
|
duckwalk
Apr 18, 2005, 5:02 PM
Post #4 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2003
Posts: 86
|
I have not seen or used such an elaborate anchor that still does not meet the no extension rule. I have noticed it is tricky to get a truly equalized, no extension anchor, especially when the direction of pull can change. I also have no idea of its origin. Oh, and I like the green alien in the window, BOMBER.
|
|
|
|
|
nonick
Apr 18, 2005, 5:21 PM
Post #5 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2001
Posts: 174
|
wierd..never seen or heard of anything like it
|
|
|
|
|
buglips
Apr 18, 2005, 5:34 PM
Post #6 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 4
|
Never seen an anchor exactly like that in a text book. It should not be in a text book if it was. Your hypothesis is correct. This system may work but is far from ideal. If either the left or right piece pulls the system is shock loaded and not necessarily in the direction of gravity. Also the other two pieces would not be equalized in this scenario, because the right piece has a significantly longer slack loop than the left. Besides if for some crazy reason one of the loops breaks the whole system fails, ouch. In general I believe that it would be nearly impossible set up this system in a manner that would be correctly equalized, even with all three pieces placed effectively. The angles, the lengths of rope, and the location of the knots would have to be perfect in order for the load to be evenly distributed. It would be very difficult to set up this anchor without a sideways force being applied to the right piece. The system also provides no directional protection in case of an upward load. Granted this will not be an issue is the anchor is used for rappelling only. This system can be easily modified using a standard cordelette method. Why even screw around with the extra two biners? It just complicates matters.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Apr 18, 2005, 5:40 PM
Post #7 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Aaaaaahhhhhh... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! cough cough "Sarge, I think I've come up with a new way to equalize an anchor." :D Edit: Shock loading isn't the biggest problem. Redundancy is. This thing is nothing more than an ADT with a bowline-on-bight-in the middle of it. Cut the cord anywhere but one of the two little inner loops or the single strand coming down from it and the whole system fails completely and catastrophically. Cut it in one of those two spots and you shock load an ADT.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Apr 18, 2005, 5:52 PM
Post #8 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
WTF is that thing? Why dont they just use a sliding x? not even nearly that complicated as that thing, 100% self equalizing, and easy to reduce the shockloading. jusst tie of the ends of each arm with an overhand. Depending on the position of the knot, you can vary between equalization or non extending/shockloading as you main goals. qwert
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Apr 18, 2005, 6:07 PM
Post #9 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
I have a question about the bowline part of the anchor- it seems as if a double loop figure eight would be the way to go on that one- if i remember correctly the two sides of the bowline shouldn't be pulled in opposite directions like that. its also possible i'm completely reading the picture wrong....things like that are known to happen
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Apr 18, 2005, 6:12 PM
Post #10 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
It looks like an overly complicated anchor that has little or no practical use in real world applications. I'm sure someone will now chime in with a scenario or two where this would be ideal, but please, let's not fool ourselves. In nearly every anchor situation we are making choices about which part of SERNE are most critical. An anchor without any possibility of extensions necessarily means we sacrific equalization options. Make an anchor that will equalize in all directions and you've likely introduced the possibility of extensions, or maybe even eliminated redundancy. Anchor choices are always situational, and it's best to know what are the advantages/disadvantages of our choices in each situation. Besides, who wants to live forever. Tie off that nubbin, sling the freaking bush, and call it an anchor fer cryin out loud... Ed
|
|
|
|
|
cbare
Apr 18, 2005, 6:18 PM
Post #11 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 64
|
I would not teach this anchor to anybody ( not redundant, and as stated earlier it is as extended as you can get), about the only thing it does is equalize. Still I wonder why it is in a manual. I would think that you could tie a cordelette with laid rope before going to a setup like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
Apr 18, 2005, 6:33 PM
Post #13 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
the sliding X is a simpler set up to accomplish what this tries to do..... This set-up unecessarily introduces an extra knot and two carabiners to accomplish the same goals. And I'm having trouble conceptualizing how all the forces would behave if this anchor was in use, but I think it's possible force could be applied in strange directions or unequally - or maybe it would behave just the same as a sliding x. I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
shano
Apr 18, 2005, 6:53 PM
Post #14 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2002
Posts: 98
|
I can't remember if the 'S' in SRENE was for "safe" or "simple." That there monstrosity appears to be neither... -s
|
|
|
|
|
shano
Apr 18, 2005, 6:56 PM
Post #15 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2002
Posts: 98
|
urghhhh - I piss on thee, thine double-post bug
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Apr 18, 2005, 7:36 PM
Post #16 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
What a bunch of clueless newbs. Not one of you has demonstrated an understanding of the anchor in question. The people advocating a sliding x do not understand that the anchor in question is a three point version of the sliding x. Same flaws, except for the lack of redundancy due to the use of the rope. I pretty much avoid active equalization. If I was in such a bad position as to need to consider active equalization, then three point would be better then two point. re: the claim of a lack of redundancy. If you built an all rope anchor with the rope over a sharp edge, then yes it could be a problem. Otherwise the problem with a single rope is from a fall with the rope over an edge or from rockfall. And something like 99.5% of the time, it is not going to be at the anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Apr 18, 2005, 7:53 PM
Post #17 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Edit: Nevermind, others are doing a better job of it than I.
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
Apr 18, 2005, 8:00 PM
Post #18 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
I disagree agree alpinclimber. This is not a "three point version of a sliding X." This is an unnecessarily complicated set-up that appears to attempt the same thing as a three anchor point sliding-x. I'm not debating the merits of a sliding-X. Obviously, the biggest two downsides are the potential for extension if any one anchor point gives way, and complete anchor failure if the cord itself fails at any point. All I'm saying is that this is a far inferior way of accomplishing something (whatever its merits) for which most climbers have a much easier, simpler, and effective technique .
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Apr 18, 2005, 8:02 PM
Post #19 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
This anchor violates the KISS principle in my newb eyes. It's a lot of fricken knots and layout to be NOT redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
Apr 18, 2005, 8:03 PM
Post #20 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
I disagree alpinclimber. This is not a "three point version of a sliding X." This is an unnecessarily complicated set-up that appears to attempt the same thing as a three point sliding-x. I'm not debating the merits of a sliding-X. Obviously, the biggest two downsides are the potential for extension if any one anchor point gives way, and complete anchor failure if the cord itself fails at any point. All I'm saying is that this is a far inferior way of accomplishing something (whatever its merits) for which most climbers have a much easier, simpler, and effective technique.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Apr 18, 2005, 8:11 PM
Post #21 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
alpnclmbr1-before you lose your cool and deride everybody for being such stupid useless noobs think before.... 1)0 You can make a magic x anchor, with webbing or a cordellette, with TWO or THREE pieces of gear. The same principle holds. Want more info-check out the AMGA, NOLS, etc. 2) The problem with extension in a magic x anchor can be mitigated in a number of ways a) if the pieces are close enough to use a single length sling you need not do anything else-method "b" will hinder the self equalization to make the magic x a useless choice b) if they are far apart enough that you need to use something like a double, or seriously god forbid a triple, runner you can tie overhand knots in each arm to prevent full extension of the sling. for a further caveat of tying knots in the webbing see part "a" above 3) if i understand curt's addition to the thread, the clove hitch/alpine butterfly rework of the anchor takes care of the redunancy problem 4) active equalization can be great as a sub component to a larger trad anchor-if i need to place four pieces instead of four, or if i need a BOMBER anchor to haul a pig up with, set up a hanging bivy, etc. one can use the magic x to bring two pieces together to act as one piece-this is a perfectly safe, quick, simple and accepted method of the magic x (see long's anchor book) 5)did you know that 89.67% of the time statistics are made up on the spot? i do. can you tell us where you found your statistic? i can tell you where i got mine: my stats teacher told me. so thwwwwwwwwpt! 6) when setting up a top rope on bomber bolts in solid rock (a little redundant...) on a somewhat wandering climb there is NOTHING wrong with a magic x anchor being the sole anchor. again, look to the amga, nols, john long, etc. 7)you see those references to things other than numbers pulled out my arse? see point numberr 5. 8) if you aren't able to reduce the extension then, NO, a three point active equalization anchor IS IN NO GODLY WAY better than a two point anchor!!! 9) dlintz, chalkfree, buglips, j_ung, qwert, epic_ed, cbare, curt, ben87, and shano have all demonstrated a good understanding of at least one of the shortcomings of the anchor in one way or another they either pointed out the lack of simplicity, redunancy or lack of extension in the OP's rendition of the anchor 10) and this is really the whopper (though it kinda makes some of my other points useless)-as has been pointed out to you already, THIS ANCHOR IS NOT MEANT TO REPLACE THE MAGIC X!!! THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE MAGIC X!!!! please go back and read the OP's thread. get back on track (though i am kinda horrible off track...:oops: ) go straight to jail, do not pass go (well, maybe you should pass go, you might undestand what this thread is about...) so before you go about and accuse others of being fucking stupid moronic noobs please ensure that you understand completely both what it is you are accusing others of doing and what you are saying in response. cause buddy, you missed the mark on both those points. no need for hostility-but if you bite i'm gonna fucking bite back
|
|
|
|
|
shano
Apr 18, 2005, 9:27 PM
Post #22 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2002
Posts: 98
|
GO GET 'EM ALTELIS! :lol: I completely agree w/ 97.638% of your post! -s
|
|
|
|
|
tradalltheway
Apr 18, 2005, 10:17 PM
Post #23 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Posts: 133
|
I couldn't load the original picture; however, with the description and the simplification by curt, I think I'm seeing a setup that my US Army Chaplain does very often for sport rappel anchors. It's a solid setup and most of his individual anchors are trees, glue-ins, or 2-ton boulders. I've never been afraid of the setup. And yes, I believe it came out of some ancient military manual.
|
|
|
|
|
cbare
Apr 19, 2005, 4:24 PM
Post #24 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 64
|
tradalltheway: I posted a second picture that more accurately replicates the anchor in context. I would scan it from the book, but that is just bad ju ju will all of the copyright implications attached. At this point I agree with you, it is probably out of some military manual, and as you well know the military is really centered around tradition even if there are better and safer ways. ie. Anybody who has rappelled off of a swiss seat, laid rope, and a non locking carabiner with a military hookup (not a munther hitch) knows what I am talking about. Not to say this is bad all the time, because the military must take a minimalist approach to getting the job done when equipment is limited.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Apr 19, 2005, 4:33 PM
Post #25 of 41
(5798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
That is a monster. I woul dnever use it. so many better ways to set up/ equalize
|
|
|
|
|
|