|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 4, 2007, 7:15 PM
Post #1 of 23
(8964 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
This rig is my Three-Point Equalette. The set-up is as easy as a cordalette, it self-equalizes perfectly, and extension is limited.
In the picture, yellow-and-red slings simulate three random pro placements. The red sling to the left is a power-point, which could be your belay loop.
The picture shows a pair of parallel 120-cm(4-ft) Dyneema slings, and three biners at the power-point. No knots.
Each of the three biners slides on its own strand (there is no knot).
Building the Three-Point Equalette:
1 - At your belay stance, place three pieces of pro. (I'll name them A,B,C.)
2 - With 3 pro pieces in place, clip a biner on each one.
3 - Clip your sling onto each of the pro biners so you'll have a strand from A to B, from B to C, and from C back to A (similar to cordalette).
4 - Clip the power-point biners:
- - 1st clip the A-B strand, and without doing anything else, drag the biner and its strand to the power point and clip it there, too.
- - 2nd clip B-C
- - 3rd clip C-A
5 - Done! Lean back, relax, and take care of you belay.
Three-Way Self-Equalizing
When the direction of pull changes, the sling slides in the biners. It slides in all 6 biners at once. This action is similar to the equalette, but it's three-way. The equalization is equal, the tension is distributed among all 6 biners.
Redundant
If any of the pro pops, you still have two. If any of the power biners fails, you still have two. Your belay loop is self-redundant. However if the sling is cut, you're airborne, so you must install two parallel slings.
The Equalette uses limiter knots to limit extension, and also to make the sling self-redundant. But with the Three-point Equalette, any knot in the sling will defeat equalization. That's why it needs two parallel slings.
Extension:
This rig has 3 legs. If you lose one (if a pro pops) the sling in that leg will get taken up by the other two. So, if the leg is a foot long, the total extension will be only 1/2 foot. I think that this is reasonable, and is on a par with limiter knots on the two-point equalette.
6 biners and 2 slings?
You might think that 6 biners on a sling is crazy. Well if you build a three-point quad, you'll use 5 biners, which don't equalize as smoothly as my rig.
You might think that 2 parallel slings is dumb. Well I agree, it seems inconvenient (and sometimes might not be possible). In fact I'd be tempted to use only one, but I won't because that's crazy.
I like this rig. It's real easy to set up, and it's comfortable to hang on.
Well guys, what do you think? Would you use a rig that needs 20 letters to spell (assuming that I've spelt it well?).
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Mar 5, 2007, 11:48 AM
Post #2 of 23
(8865 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
 wtf?
this is for some advandced high strengt rescuing rigging, right?
some of your ideas seem pretty good, but spending six biners and two slings on a simple 3 point belay?
i would say overkill, but then again im using the so called sliding x of death, so what do i know
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 12:26 PM
Post #3 of 23
(8858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
qwert wrote: wtf? this is for some advandced high strengt rescuing rigging, right? some of your ideas seem pretty good, but spending six biners and two slings on a simple 3 point belay? i would say overkill, but then again im using the so called sliding x of death, so what do i know qwert
That adds up to 5 biners and 2 slings, and the power-point biner really should be doubled.
Your two X's uses shorter slings, maybe shoulder-length, whereas my TPE needs longer slings.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Mar 5, 2007, 12:43 PM
Post #4 of 23
(8852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
it isnt a x exactly, but i follows the same principles.
so i need 3 biners, where you need six (asuming that one needs a seventh, clipped trought the three power points, to connect to harness and belay device, since i would consider it highly impractical and uncomfortable to have four biners on your belay loop)
qwert
|
|
Attachments:
|
Namenlos.jpg
(10.2 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Mar 5, 2007, 2:11 PM
Post #5 of 23
(8814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
A real monster. Is this what you actually climb on? Or are you just trying to please everyone over the controversy between sliding or knot.
There may never be a good system that works well in any situation. Knowing all your options and when to use them is the best system of all.
|
|
|
|
|
kevinheiss
Mar 5, 2007, 2:26 PM
Post #6 of 23
(8803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 272
|
not this discussion again. It was killed SO MANY times.
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 4:01 PM
Post #7 of 23
(8757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
qwert wrote: it isnt a x exactly, but i follows the same principles.
Hey Q! cool diagram! 
 Now, why didn't I think of that?  Your "sliding W" works pretty good!
qwert wrote: so i need 3 biners, where you need six (asuming that one needs a seventh, clipped trought the three power points, to connect to harness and belay device, since i would consider it highly impractical and uncomfortable to have four biners on your belay loop) qwert
I use two parallel slings for redundancy: if the single sling fails, you are airborne.
When you compare the Sliding-X to the Equalette, the difference is in the friction where the sling strands rub against each other, when the rig tries to self-equalize. According to John Long's "Anchor" book, that X friction under load stops the equalization. This makes it dangerous when it catches a fall. The equalette's extra biners solve that by routing each strand through its own biner.
Actually, that rubbing also depends on the size of the locker. Using my gear, the W actually jams under load with most of my lockers, and it slides smoothly through the big end of a Petzl Attache.
Should try cord instead of sling, I bet that would solve the jam problem. 
(This post was edited by dan2see on Mar 5, 2007, 4:13 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 4:09 PM
Post #8 of 23
(8751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
kevinheiss wrote: not this discussion again. It was killed SO MANY times.
That's not a fair comment, Kevin.
I know that "Sliding X" has been talked to death, and "Equalette" has been around, too.
I have searched RC.com, SummitPost, Spadout, and UKClimbing for comments on a rig like this. I have found the words "three" and "equalette" and sometimes "X" on the same pages.
But no actual discussion about "Three-Point Equalette". No instructions, no analysis, and certainly no diagrams.
So there!
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Mar 5, 2007, 4:20 PM
Post #9 of 23
(8739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
dan2see wrote: Your "sliding W" works pretty good!
In reply to: No, you need 4, and the power biner should be doubled, which makes 5.
In reply to: I use two parallel slings for redundancy: if the single sling fails, you are airborne.
of course there can be situations where the risk of you slings getting cut is high (rescuing/ working scenario, or somewhere where rockfall is very likely to occur), but for most cases i will stay with one sling, until it is scinetifically proven otherwise
In reply to: When you compare the Sliding-X to the Equalette, the difference is in the friction where the sling strands rub against each other, when the rig tries to self-equalize. According to John Long's "Anchor" book, that X friction under load stops the equalization. This makes it dangerous when it catches a fall. The equalette's extra biners solve that by routing each strand through its own biner.
would the added friction be a good thing, since it should act as a kind of shock absorber should one piece blow?
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 4:30 PM
Post #10 of 23
(8732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
rocknice2 wrote: A real monster.
rocknice2 wrote: Is this what you actually climb on?
To be fair, the real test is only on the rocks. I'll get there soon.
rocknice2 wrote: Or are you just trying to please everyone over the controversy between sliding or knot.
rocknice2 wrote: There may never be a good system that works well in any situation. Knowing all your options and when to use them is the best system of all.
As soon as I can get out on the rocks, I'm going to try this stuff on a safe hill, and get a good feel for the options. 
So if you see reports about how great my rig is, then you'll know it worked. But if my RC.com account suddenly goes silent, then you'll know my rig was not quite good enough
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 5, 2007, 4:37 PM
Post #11 of 23
(8725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Dan,
Though this does equalize some what, I found that all the biners and 2 runners created quite a bit of friction while reorientating the power point. Try it. As you slide the weighted power point along its arch, feel the tension on the outer left strand as you move it left, and you'll find that the tension in that strand is quite loose as compared to the other strands. Same goes with weighting it and moving it in the other direction with respect for the right strand.
This really is a simple design and the extra biners aren't that big a deal to me, making this another possibility to file along with the rest. Never hurts to know.
Small detail; when you exclaim "done"in your setup, you've actually got one more step which is to clip in your tie in loop to the power point. You also then need one more additional biner for the belay device itself.
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Mar 5, 2007, 4:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 4:46 PM
Post #12 of 23
(8719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
qwert wrote: ... i dont wear two hanresses, and i dont use two belay devices,...
Yes you do!
Your leg-loops is one, your belt is another. You tie into both at once.
Look at your belay loop: you have two, sewn together.
Your belay device doesn't have be redundant, because the climber's rope is looped around a locking biner.
Your rope is the only item that is not doubled, because it is supposed to survive the abuse. Unless you climb with two.
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 4:52 PM
Post #13 of 23
(8715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
moose_droppings wrote: Dan, Though this does equalize some what, I found that all the biners and 2 runners created quite a bit of friction while reorientating the power point. Try it. ...
It's winter! I am getting antzy to get out into the hills to try this stuff, and a lot of other tricks I've picked up this winter.
moose_droppings wrote: ...Small detail; when you exclaim "done"in your setup, you've actually got one more step which is to clip in your tie in loop to the power point. You also then need one more additional biner for the belay device itself.
Oops!
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 5, 2007, 5:21 PM
Post #14 of 23
(8677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Dan, now normally I don't make this sort of comment, but get a grip, dude - in 2006 you couldn't be bothered to read one of the more in-depth and interesting threads ever done on the subject as per your post back late last year:
In reply to: Well Smorg, if you know how to set-up the basic sliding-X, I'd say don't worry about all the pages and pages of opinions.
And then you post this thread, where you "explore" a poor extension (literally) of the sliding-X while apparently managing to confuse the use of the term "Equalette" given it is now commonly associated with a specific design which is not this one. For anyone who hasn't, please go back and read at least a few pages of the Sliding-X thread before posting/discussing stuff like this...
Bone up on the "Improved sliding x: Is it really safer?" thread here:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
(This post was edited by healyje on Mar 5, 2007, 5:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bbentley77
Mar 5, 2007, 5:30 PM
Post #15 of 23
(8665 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 1, 2007
Posts: 145
|
For superior equalization why not try 2 equalettes with 4 anchors? Clip the strands of the power points together seperated with two biners. That would equalize better.
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 6:13 PM
Post #16 of 23
(8625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
healyje wrote: Dan, now normally I don't make this sort of comment, but get a grip, dude - in 2006 you couldn't be bothered to read one of the more in-depth and interesting threads ever done on the subject as per your post back late last year:
Well actually I did read some of it. It was 37 pages of postings, though.
healyje wrote: [quote=dan2see]Well Smorg, if you know how to set-up the basic sliding-X, I'd say don't worry about all the pages and pages of opinions.
healyje wrote: ... For anyone who hasn't, please go back and read at least a few pages of the Sliding-X thread before posting/discussing stuff like this. Bone up on the " Improved sliding x: Is it really safer?" thread here: http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
I did scan some of the pages in that thread, and found references to a lot of techniques, especially the quad. I also tried to search for keywords. Again, I found "quad", and three-point quad.
In December 2006 I asked RC, "What is an Equalette?" and got plenty of replies, but I still did not actually understand the key features of the rig, not until I got John Long's new "Anchors" book.
Now I'm going off-topic, and comment on "Levels of Difficulty".
Last fall, I hiked 1/2 way up a small mountain. My buddy was unable to proceed, so we went back down. The steep, ragged rock tore my shoes apart, and the wind almost prevented us from coming down.
That was not difficult.
Last weekend I drove two hours to get to Johnson's Canyon, hiked two hours on snow and ice, slid down ice-cliffs and scrambled 50 up the bank through rocks and trees and ice, to re-join my group.
That was not difficult.
This weekend I will hike up Mount Lady Macdonald to see the tea-house and maybe reach the summit. The route is 1000 meters, in 3 kilometers. On ice, slush, mud, and gravel.
That is not difficult.
But absorbing 37 pages of postings?
That is too difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 5, 2007, 6:40 PM
Post #17 of 23
(8600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
It's actually about 80 pages, though I think most of the goodness is in the first 58 or so. Anyone willing to buy John's book should read through those posts to see some of the explorations of various concepts there. I think the best of the thread is to not take it so much about competing individual anchor designs so much as an exploration of the various component designs that make them up.
Overall the basic design challenge being explored is around the mutually exclusive demands of equalization vs. extension. Equalization is about loading placements equally; Extension is about limiting "shock loading" when one of those placements fail. Solutions to one by and large necessarily limit the other.
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 6:59 PM
Post #18 of 23
(8568 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
Yes, Healy I agree 100%.
I can't wait to get out there and try these things out.
I have a location for this. It's a low-angle rocky hill, with lots of mini-cliffs, with real cracks and blocks, I can go crazy with gear and self-rescue.
Then I'll really be ready for some multi-pitch fun!
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 7:12 PM
Post #19 of 23
(8555 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
bbentley77 wrote: For superior equalization why not try 2 equalettes with 4 anchors? Clip the strands of the power points together seperated with two biners. That would equalize better.
I don't know about that, Bentley.
Suppose you find two vertical cracks, conveniently placed side-by-side.
You put two pieces in the left-side crack, with an equalette.
You put two pieces in the right-side crack, with another equalette.
You clip both of these to your belay loop.
I think this would be OK when you move yourself up and down, but there is no self-equalization left-to-right.
What I think you should do is place a third equalette between the first two. The hardware count, counting the anchor and PP: 10 biners, 3 slings.
devils_advocate posted this picture of a quad:
The hardware count: 6 biners, one cord.
|
|
|
|
|
bbentley77
Mar 5, 2007, 7:26 PM
Post #20 of 23
(8544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 1, 2007
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: Suppose you find two vertical cracks, conveniently placed side-by-side. You put two pieces in the left-side crack, with an equalette. You put two pieces in the right-side crack, with another equalette. You clip both of these to your belay loop. I think this would be OK when you move yourself up and down, but there is no self-equalization left-to-right.
No you'd put the equalette in between cracks, so left crack to right crack, and then left crack to right crack.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 5, 2007, 7:29 PM
Post #21 of 23
(8540 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
dan2see wrote: ... this picture of a quad: [image]http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jupsu/equalette_4_2.JPG[/image] The hardware count: 6 biners, one cord.
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Mar 5, 2007, 7:41 PM
Post #22 of 23
(8528 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
billl7 wrote: dan2see wrote: ... this picture of a quad: [image]http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jupsu/equalette_4_2.JPG[/image] The hardware count: 6 biners, one cord. That is not the Quad. It is the Equalette.
Rats! !! !!!
Back to the basement ...
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 5, 2007, 10:24 PM
Post #23 of 23
(8479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
dan2see wrote: billl7 wrote: dan2see wrote: ... this picture of a quad: [image]http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jupsu/equalette_4_2.JPG[/image] The hardware count: 6 biners, one cord. That is not the Quad. It is the Equalette. Rats! !! !!! Back to the basement ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
