|
clayman
Aug 10, 2005, 5:39 PM
Post #1 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
is it possible to build an anchor that is dynamically equalized and at the same time does not violate the no-extension rule?
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Aug 10, 2005, 5:42 PM
Post #2 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
Not exactly, but you can build anchors that strike a balance between the two. The sliding "x" with stopper knots in the arms of each "x" dynamically equalizes two individual anchor points within a limited range of directions of pull, and greatly reduces (but does not eliminate entirely) extension should one of them fail.
-Nubbler
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Aug 16, 2005, 2:44 AM
Post #3 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
Yes. Use a cordelette made of 10 mm instead of 7 mm cord. Don't tie the big knot in it (so it can move). Then - here's the trick - route each of the legs through a Silent Partner, which will lock up in the event of a sudden impact while still allowing the anchor to slowly adapt to changes in load direction.
The cordelette loop will of course have to be longer than the standard 20 ft to allow for the SP hitches. I'll leave it up to you to determine the best length.
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Aug 16, 2005, 5:02 AM
Post #4 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
Dude you are *totally* describing the anchor rig I bring with me every time I climb!
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Aug 16, 2005, 5:15 AM
Post #5 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
If the anchor has to be sketchy enough to worry about it, you can build the truly equalized anchor and then back it up with slings or a second cord. so that if one of the pieces fail the back up is ready to catch the extension with minimal slack inbetween
Hope that makes sense
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
f_thomas
Aug 16, 2005, 6:48 AM
Post #6 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2003
Posts: 139
|
In reply to: Yes. Use a cordelette made of 10 mm instead of 7 mm cord. Don't tie the big knot in it (so it can move). Then - here's the trick - route each of the legs through a Silent Partner, which will lock up in the event of a sudden impact while still allowing the anchor to slowly adapt to changes in load direction. The cordelette loop will of course have to be longer than the standard 20 ft to allow for the SP hitches. I'll leave it up to you to determine the best length.
Could you possibly draw a diagram of this for the less experienced such as myself. Two Silent Partner's is a bit of gear (weight wise) and expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Aug 16, 2005, 4:52 PM
Post #7 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
please consult this LINK
|
|
|
|
|
f_thomas
Aug 17, 2005, 1:14 AM
Post #8 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2003
Posts: 139
|
OH! I get it = SPRACASM
Dynamically Unbalanced and Overextended
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 17, 2005, 1:18 AM
Post #9 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: is it possible to build an anchor that is dynamically equalized and at the same time does not violate the no-extension rule?
No. Then again, a truly equalized anchor is pretty much impossible by itself. So.............
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Aug 17, 2005, 1:23 AM
Post #10 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
so........what?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 17, 2005, 1:28 AM
Post #11 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: so........what?
So, if it's basically impossible to build an anchor that is truly equalized--it's somewhat nonsensical to ask if you can build an anchor with that attribute--plus being non-extending, isn't it?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Aug 17, 2005, 2:02 AM
Post #12 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
Curt,
Are you always this condescending or is it just a special occasion?
You've been helpful, thanks
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 17, 2005, 2:06 AM
Post #13 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Curt, Are you always this condescending or is it just a special occasion? You've been helpful, thanks
If you consider it condescending to have your misunderstanding corrected, I'm sorry. Oh, and you're welcome.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Aug 17, 2005, 2:21 AM
Post #14 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
In reply to: In reply to: Curt, Are you always this condescending or is it just a special occasion? You've been helpful, thanks If you consider it condescending to have your misunderstanding corrected, I'm sorry. Oh, and you're welcome. Curt
Of course I don't that's why I'm asking, there's nothing nonsenical about it
unless I knew, a priori, that there wasn't such a thing a "truely" equalized anchor. I mean, jeez, lighten up
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 17, 2005, 2:34 AM
Post #15 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Curt, Are you always this condescending or is it just a special occasion? You've been helpful, thanks If you consider it condescending to have your misunderstanding corrected, I'm sorry. Oh, and you're welcome. Curt Of course I don't that's why I'm asking, there's nothing nonsenical about it unless I knew, a priori, that there wasn't such a thing a "truely" equalized anchor. I mean, jeez, lighten up
Well, "they" say there is no such thing as a stupid question. Still, why do you feel compelled to prove "them" wrong?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Aug 17, 2005, 2:41 AM
Post #16 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
point proven
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 17, 2005, 3:06 AM
Post #17 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
That you're an idiot, who ought to abandon climbing for croquet?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Aug 17, 2005, 3:37 AM
Post #18 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
wow,
I'll clue you in, this derisive attitude of yours isn't gonna serve you very well in life. Although considering that have been climbing, as you say, for 25 years it's probably a moot point by now. Most likely, you spend way too much time hunched over your computer nitpicking peoples genuine, albeit elementary, climbing questions with a jaded and bitter disposition. Futhermore, you are offering nothing except friction. How can someone with 25 years of climbing experience carry the tone you've demonstrated here. It's beyond the pale. cheers
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Aug 17, 2005, 3:40 AM
Post #19 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
If you tie an overhand knot in the middle strand of an Alpine Equalizer (down close to the rings) it will be fairly non-extending and still be able to equalize. That doesn't solve the redundancy thing however. I don't think there's any way you can build a SERENE anchor and still achieve dynamic equalization.
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Aug 17, 2005, 3:54 AM
Post #20 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
thanks,
I think that's the concensus. So for belay anchors, even ones that are maybe not as bomber as you might want, dynamic equalization takes a back seat to no-extension?
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Aug 17, 2005, 4:02 AM
Post #21 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
In reply to: How can someone with 25 years of climbing experience carry the tone you've demonstrated here. |
|
|
|
|
asandh
Aug 17, 2005, 4:46 AM
Post #22 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
lumberg
Aug 17, 2005, 4:55 AM
Post #23 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 21
|
In reply to: That you're an idiot, who ought to abandon climbing for croquet? Curt
Wow, don't we have forum moderators to spare the productive members of this community the pain of wasting time reading useless, negative input such as this? Curt contributed nothing to this thread, except to punish someone for asking one of the more important questions one can ask when it comes to climbing safety. Thanks Curt.
Clayman, thanks for asking an important question. I learned a bit from the answers myself. Curt, please try not to comment if you can't make a contribution. Last time I checked, online communities are formed to bring people together in a positive, productive manner; not to give grouchy people the opportunity to make relatively newer folks feel stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 17, 2005, 5:37 AM
Post #24 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: That you're an idiot, who ought to abandon climbing for croquet? Curt Wow, don't we have forum moderators to spare the productive members of this community the pain of wasting time reading useless, negative input such as this? Curt contributed nothing to this thread, except to punish someone for asking one of the more important questions one can ask when it comes to climbing safety. Thanks Curt. Clayman, thanks for asking an important question. I learned a bit from the answers myself. Curt, please try not to comment if you can't make a contribution. Last time I checked, online communities are formed to bring people together in a positive, productive manner; not to give grouchy people the opportunity to make relatively newer folks feel stupid.
Dear lumberg,
I gave him the correct answer in the first place. That, in fact, is being productive. Also, I can't make anyone feel stupid who actually, in fact, isn't.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 17, 2005, 6:04 AM
Post #25 of 187
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: wow, I'll clue you in, this derisive attitude of yours isn't gonna serve you very well in life. Although considering that have been climbing, as you say, for 25 years it's probably a moot point by now. Most likely, you spend way too much time hunched over your computer nitpicking peoples genuine, albeit elementary, climbing questions with a jaded and bitter disposition. Futhermore, you are offering nothing except friction. How can someone with 25 years of climbing experience carry the tone you've demonstrated here. It's beyond the pale. cheers
Oooh, you're onto me. I'm just a bitter old man who doesn't climb much anymore and who doesn't really know much about climbing at all. Please feel free to carry on and ignore any or all of my posts.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
