|
ihategrigris
Mar 22, 2006, 6:16 AM
Post #1 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 757
|
This has probably been addressed in the 'is the improved sliding-x really safer' thread.... but I can't find it (700+ replys!).
Largo had stated at the beginning of the sliding-x thread that their tests show that the equalized cordellet isn't really well equalized at all. I'm just wondering WHY the cordalette doesn't provide 'true' equalization.
Is it because each piece is loaded differently due to different angles between the piece and the load at the power point (this should be obvious to anyone with anyone with a highschool level understanding of physics) or is there something else i'm missing?
|
|
|
|
|
sactownclimber
Mar 22, 2006, 6:30 AM
Post #2 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Posts: 216
|
Read the thread, it's in there, probably in the first few pages. It has to do with the fact that the legs of the cordelette are different lengths.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 22, 2006, 6:48 AM
Post #3 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Yeah, start at the beginning and just start - the sooner you start the sooner you'll be caught up. Please do that rather than asking questions there that have already been answered or starting new threads...
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 22, 2006, 7:41 AM
Post #4 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
I'll disagree with forcing people to read that quaqmire just to get straight answers. If you don't want to answer, then ignore the thread. But sending everyone to page 1 of that monstrosity is cruel and unusual punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 22, 2006, 9:14 AM
Post #5 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Roy,
We'll have to disagree and I'll be waiting with baited breath on your concise summary post - or they can wait and buy John's new book but they'll be missing some interesting stuff. I think anyone that does lot of trad or alpine should consider wading through it...
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Mar 22, 2006, 12:58 PM
Post #6 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
HAHA, something really useful on Rc.com, and people complain that it is too much trouble to read it.
Make it into McThread, to go with McNewspaper, and read it while you eat your Mc Muffin.
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Mar 22, 2006, 2:12 PM
Post #7 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 22, 2006, 2:42 PM
Post #8 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started.
For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Mar 22, 2006, 2:48 PM
Post #9 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
I, too, gave up on that thread. Lazy? No, just a wiser user of time. And as far as a cordelette not being purely equalized, I believe it's because each leg is tied off at the power point-- they don't slide or adjust it one piece blows. Seems like a figure eight with three loops ("bunny ears" plus one) would adjust, though.
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Mar 22, 2006, 3:17 PM
Post #10 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
A Straight Answer
OK- I tracked down a few page #s for you. (can't get them to link)
1st basic explanation from John (Vivalargo) comes on pg 5 of the "sliding x " monster thread.
John elaborates more in the "solution to John Longs anchor challenge" thread (less pages to wade through). Look at pages 4 and 5.
Another way to get the information is just to go to Vivalargo's profile and read his posts from the last few weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 22, 2006, 3:29 PM
Post #11 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Yeah, the sliding-X thread is hideous... I mentioned in my own post on the monster that I'd be attending an AMGA course, which I did.
Conclusion? Well, there are a lot of options, many of which DON'T us the cordelette (or don't tie it off), and each of which is appropriate for certain scenarios. The equalized cordelette with 3 legs is pretty freaking strong, but you want to be equally confident in each of your anchors if you're going to use it... Like three bolts. Or a parallel crack taking three bomber placements... etc...
But if you think one of the legs is more likely to fail, you simply use a more appropriate anchor, potentially one that is self-adjusting (and there are and endless number of scenarios for this set up!) The important point is that you need to LIMIT the shockload potential, which can easily be done while still maintaining SELF equalizing properties.
I wish I had pictures... one example: a cordelette or sling on 2 or 3 anchors, you need it self equalizing, so tying off is not an option, but you're worried about a marginal piece. Personally, I'd look for a better leg if I had the time, but if it isn't an option, just tie a limiting not (simple overhand) just above the masterpoint on the marginal side. This can be done in a lot of different scenarios, and comes in quite handy.
IF the piece does pull, you'll be on your remaining pieces with limited shockload, and the anchor remains self-equalizing.
Without trying to sound like I'm making a plug... the course was extremely educational and definately worth the time! Learning from a guide with 30 years of experience is something else. I know it's no substitute for experience, but he really helped us to "THINK" for ourselves. Evaluating and choosing appropriate systems, rather than using the easiest thing that comes to mind... Not that I didn't already try to do that, but now my resources have grown tremendously. 4 days in the mountains with the AMGA was far more effective than 4 days of reading a thread on the internet!
My advice? Just find people you trust, who have something valuable to teach you, and at it to your library of climbing knowledge. Then go out and keep getting the experience! It's not a quick process... stay humble, don't get killed.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 22, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #12 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
bighigaz,
You must be some sort of magican if u can look at a piece and tell whether it will fail our not.
I'd bet most people here have had a piece they thought was bomber blow.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 22, 2006, 4:58 PM
Post #13 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Yeah, the sliding-X thread is hideous... I mentioned in my own post on the monster that I'd be attending an AMGA course, which I did.
Hideous, hmmm. Given you posted on that thread when it was only 8 pages long and even then your post started with:
I didn't read the entire forum, (I apologize), but wanted to share my .02...
Clearly if you couldn't make it through 8 pages then, 50+ might understandably be challenging now. But you said you were going to read it on returning from that course, did you?
And are your conclusions based on your having attended the top roping course, or on the course and having read through the sliding-X thread? Given your conclusions are still those of someone biased and "trained in the cordalette" I suspect the former.
In reply to: Without trying to sound like I'm making a plug... the course was extremely educational and definately worth the time! Learning from a guide with 30 years of experience is something else.
Well, I'm sure that top roping course was great, but right off the top of my head I can think of just six folks taking part in the sliding-X thread that collectively represent over two hundred years of high caliber experience.
In reply to: I know it's no substitute for experience, but he really helped us to "THINK" for ourselves.
Well, I would "THINK" that anyone that was motivated to shell out $500+ for a course would run, not walk, to the sliding-X thread and soak up every shred of it. That is if they are the type of person that thinks for themselves and doesn't need to be spoon fed by an "instructor".
In reply to: and actually Evaluating and choosing appropriate systems, rather than using the easiest thing that comes to mind... Not that I didn't already try to do that, but now my resources have grown tremendously. 4 days in the mountains with the AMGA was far more effective than 4 days of reading a thread on the internet!
Kind of speaks for it self, James - again, a challenging proposition no doubt.
In reply to: My advice? Just find people you trust, who have something valuable to teach you, and add it to your library of climbing knowledge. Then go out and keep getting the experience! It's not a quick process... stay humble, don't get killed.
Amazing. A thread filled with "climbing knowledge" and discussion from some of the better minds in climbing who do have "something valuable to teach you" and you call it hideous. But then, as you said reading it and playing along with a piece of cord and some biners takes time - "It's not a quick process..."
So, if you aspire to or do a lot of trad or alpine, "THINK" for yourself, and are willing to put in effort to learn something new it might be worthwhile to suck it up and read the sliding-X thread instead of the bogus cliff notes here...
|
|
|
|
|
ontherocks
Mar 22, 2006, 4:59 PM
Post #14 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2001
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: I'm just wondering WHY the cordalette doesn't provide 'true' equalization. Is it because each piece is loaded differently due to different angles between the piece and the load at the power point (this should be obvious to anyone with anyone with a highschool level understanding of physics) or is there something else i'm missing?
I didn't read the thread, but the general reason why a cordelete does not equalize well is that the expected direction of pull is likely different than the real one, then one piece (the one closer to the direction of pull) will receive the whole load of the falling climber.
However, if the direction of pull is close enough to what the person that rig the anchor expected, the elasticity of the anchor (knots getting tighter, nylon stretching, etc) may help to compensate a bit, and load other pieces too, but don't expect much. If the direction of pull will change use either other method or at least make sure that the most solid piece is the one that most likely will be loaded.
But still.. I didn't read the thread..
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 22, 2006, 5:29 PM
Post #15 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
A suggestion not for everyone: Grokking all of the thread in one sitting would be a strain/pain/drain. Similar to healyje's suggestion, put some anchor building gear in a small bag and stow it in a handy place. Find somewhere convenient to build anchors; it was a tall rack in the kitchen for me. Start building anchors while working through the thread. Take a break for a day or so every now and then. If something doesn't make sense, jot it down (your question, relevant person who posted, and what thread page) BUT keep reading - the answer will likely be on a later page. Good mojo. One thing that might provide motivation to work through it is to first read this thread if you haven't:
Fatal accident at Tahquitz 10/19/03
Bill L.
Edit: fix url
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 22, 2006, 5:30 PM
Post #16 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Healyje, out of the nearly 60 pages, there are perhaps 12 good posts buried amongst the detritus. It's now so full of BS and rehashing and death systems pretending to be safe that the thread is actually becoming dangerous for many readers.
Long's book should be a bit clearer. But there's another anchor book coming in a few months that should be even better. When they're both out, we can start all over again :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 22, 2006, 7:02 PM
Post #17 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Dangerous if one dips into the thread and picks out a rig that strikes one's fancy and then takes it out on the rock. But that person is already dangerous. On the other hand, one wading through it will likely be struck with: "Hmmm, I tried the rig on page X in my living room and like it but now see on page X+11 that there is an issue with it that keeps it out of my bag of tricks!"
In my opinion, almost anyone wading through that thread will come away with improved ability to evaluate anchors - whether it is their partner's anchor or one in a book - not unlike the traditional cordelette!
Bill L.
Edit: "bag of tricks" implies more than I wanted. I intended to say something like "rigs that interest me"; whether to actually use something in that thread is of course a personal choice.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 22, 2006, 9:03 PM
Post #18 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Roy,
Like I said we totally disagree on this on. Even with all its flaws that thread still has one of the highest levels of quality technical content on this site. Anyone coming up into a lot trad or alpine and bothers to buy technical books or take course is really missing out not sucking it up and wading through it. Anyone not able to sort the grain from the chaff as they go along will drop out as they get saturated. And the conversation, even after 50+ pages is not without merit. As for John's, Craig's, or anyone else's book - well, they're books and will represent some select solution subset reflecting the author's beliefs, biases, and interpretation of whatever research was at their disposal. Some of the rigs discussed in the sliding-X thread, like mhabicht's contribution were posted after Largo finished his book so there is just one case of some interesting concepts that won't be included.
That folks would roam these forums day-in-day-out soaking up a marvelous level of inane b#llshit and then not dig into a thread with some actual "meat" is somewhat amazing to me. C'est la vie - but people shouldn't cast the thread as a jabberwock simply because of the effort involved or that no single "uber" rig emerges...
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 24, 2006, 2:49 AM
Post #19 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
$5 says everyone who's hating on the sliding x thread will go read it after they see John's published data.
You don't have to read all 50 pages to learn something new. Read John's posts on the first few pages, look at what he recommended...rig it yourself, and see the advantages 1st hand.
There was more possitive energy and revolutionary concepts in that thread than anywhere else I've seen on the site. I haven't seen anything this useful since the PTPP wall index thread...and the sliding x certainly takes the cake.
I'm with healyje, pay attention class!
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 24, 2006, 3:37 AM
Post #20 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Revolutionary? Puhleez. Turn to page 189 of Freedom of the Hills, 2nd edition, 1964. The concepts have been around a long time, only the gear has improved and the internet wasn't born yet.
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Mar 24, 2006, 4:50 AM
Post #21 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started. :lol: For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise. Bill L.
Uhh...I guess I mistook curt's standard "you're an idiot" for a trend. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 5:05 AM
Post #22 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started. :lol: For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise. Uhh...I guess I mistook curt's standard "you're an idiot" for a trend. Sorry.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 24, 2006, 5:12 AM
Post #23 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started. :lol: For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise. Uhh...I guess I mistook curt's standard "you're an idiot" for a trend. Sorry. Well said. Hmmm, didn't even phase me; perhaps I've become numb to that "standard" stuff as you say and should rather be after Curt with a pitchfork? But seriously, I am surprised that stopped anyone who would spend time on RC.com. For the thread's volume, it's just not that rough of a thread as you suggested. Bill L.
Sorry, but my "you're an idiot" comment in that thread was dead on. Go back and re-read the senseless BS I was commenting on.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 6:07 AM
Post #24 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: Revolutionary? Puhleez. Turn to page 189 of Freedom of the Hills, 2nd edition, 1964. The concepts have been around a long time, only the gear has improved and the internet wasn't born yet.
So I don't see why you are sticking on the word "revolutionary" when so much else has been said in this thread and elsewhere of late.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 6:20 AM
Post #25 of 54
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I read and read, until the bullsh!t personal attacks started. :lol: For anyone else, start at page 1 and you will get through most of the thread without encountering any such noise. Uhh...I guess I mistook curt's standard "you're an idiot" for a trend. Sorry. Well said. Hmmm, didn't even phase me; perhaps I've become numb to that "standard" stuff as you say and should rather be after Curt with a pitchfork? But seriously, I am surprised that stopped anyone who would spend time on RC.com. For the thread's volume, it's just not that rough of a thread as you suggested. Sorry, but my "you're an idiot" comment in that thread was dead on. Go back and re-read the senseless BS I was commenting on. Curt
I'll repeat a point: For the thread's volume, it's simply not as rough as originally suggested by mesomorf.
Bill L.
Edited for clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
