|
psprings
Mar 9, 2007, 4:52 PM
Post #51 of 67
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Sorry bout that GO; not sure how that happened; I think I was quoting a quoted section so it quoted both of you. Should be fixed now.
PS
|
|
|
|
|
skinnyclimber
Mar 9, 2007, 5:07 PM
Post #52 of 67
(3485 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 406
|
Thank you very much for that Rgold
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Mar 9, 2007, 8:45 PM
Post #53 of 67
(3439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
rgold wrote: I too use Gabe's back-up knot, but I learned from Knudenoggin that it matters which strand you put it in.
ALSO, in his prior-posted image, the relation of the ropes in the OOB
were backwards, with the roll-initiating rope being there the THICKER,
and thus having a less substantial (thinner) rope to roll around--exactly
the wrong way, and pointing to a doublEdged aspect of the OOB which
should be used to advantage--why the OOB is (can be) GOOD for joining
ropes of different sizes: one can use the big boy's bulk to advantage.
In reply to: If the EDK is going to roll, the roll is initiated by a turn that lengthens under the pressure of the rappel strands. That longer turn can then pass over an adjacent turn and the roll begins.
to those quick-pic posters!) which shows the point of making that orange
rope (in RGold's image) make one full wrap/turn around the loaded
ends before being tucked out through the knot; this full wrap pretty
much stifles the prying-open effort.
In reply to: So, the stopper knot should be placed in the tail that will keep the roll-initiating turn from lengthening.
the case of diff-sized ropes will be thin tied around thick). As for the two
Overhands (OOB & stopper) having opposite handedness, well, I'd have gone
the other way on the stopper, naturally, but I doubt it much matters.
In reply to: This is the turn most immediately in contact with the rappel strands
can suffice (w/o stopper, i.e.).
In reply to: Edit: Before someone scolds me, I purposely tied the ends shorter than usual so that they'd fit in a closeup of the knot.
"it's fine, just leave really long tails" is well shy of inspiring confidence.)
And I think DMT's got it re the fear (coupled with that recommendation
wording): "EDK" preceded any reports of troubles, or testing.
And as for that lone OOB failure, as noted, the report begs a lot of
questions. (I tried to ask, e.g., if the knot was against rock, or was it
well clear--as some sort of rubbing might have induced the roll.)
Finally, on the letter to R&I, it is "DAVID Drohan" (not Peter), IIRC,
and there's some wording glitch early--"the EDK being is likely to jam ..."
Was that to be "the EDK being LESS likely...", I guess?
A fair reply, which has been voiced more than once in the
"EDK" discussions is that many climbers with decades of climbing
report no problem using the Grapevine (and, e.g., Tom Moyer
openly doubts the problem in the introduction to his testing).
*knudeNoggin*
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 9, 2007, 11:14 PM
Post #54 of 67
(3400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Knude and RG, I agree that both your ideas (that tying it so that the thinner strand is "trying" to roll over the thicker strand, and tying the "backup" knot in the strand that is "trying" to roll) will, in principle, make it harder to roll the knot.
However, in practice, I suspect you're both gilding the lily. I doubt it makes any difference how you configure it, since I believe the failure mode for all of these would be the same, with the rope breaking inside the knot. I doubt you could get any of these to roll over the "backup" knot even once.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 9, 2007, 11:44 PM
Post #55 of 67
(3388 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Adding a backup to the OOB makes as much sense as adding a backup to a figure-8 tie-in...useless steps for the anal retentive.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 10, 2007, 4:18 PM
Post #57 of 67
(3345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
camhead wrote: it doesn't matter. we're talking about the EDK, not the OOB. heh.
Same thing if you were paying attention.
|
|
|
|
|
norushnomore
Mar 11, 2007, 10:12 AM
Post #58 of 67
(3315 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
pspring, I have used edk with 9.8 rope and 5.5 technora cord just fine for a couple years now.
Knot never rolled on me but granted I never put more then a body wieght on it
malcom, rgod, thanks for a clove info, not what I was lead to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
Mar 12, 2007, 2:30 PM
Post #59 of 67
(3287 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Hey, thanks. I don't think I'm willing to go that low, but it eases my fears for a 7mm :D
PS
|
|
|
|
|
shermanr6
Jan 13, 2008, 7:11 AM
Post #60 of 67
(3141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 79
|
Does anyone have any test results of what would happen if you tied the edk with a stopper in each tail?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 13, 2008, 8:11 PM
Post #61 of 67
(3092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
shermanr6 wrote: Does anyone have any test results of what would happen if you tied the edk with a stopper in each tail?
No, but we have test results that show that the stopper knot is unnecessary.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
drjghl
Jan 13, 2008, 9:58 PM
Post #62 of 67
(3070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 135
|
Been using the EDK with long tails for years (back up knots optional). I see no reason to use any other knot.
I climb with a 9.5 lead rope and trail a 8 mm static line. EDK seems to work fine.
I was anxious when I first started using the EDK and when I first started using the 8 mm static line.
Now, using any other knot and trailing any other rope/cord seems ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
shermanr6
Jan 14, 2008, 7:51 PM
Post #63 of 67
(3010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 79
|
jt512 wrote: shermanr6 wrote: Does anyone have any test results of what would happen if you tied the edk with a stopper in each tail? No, but we have test results that show that the stopper knot is unnecessary. Jay
By the same logic could we not decide having two bolts at an anchor would be a unnecessary? I thought climbing safety was all about being redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jan 14, 2008, 8:06 PM
Post #64 of 67
(3005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In that case are you tied to 2 (two) 10 mil ropes when you lead?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 14, 2008, 8:12 PM
Post #65 of 67
(2999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
shermanr6 wrote: jt512 wrote: shermanr6 wrote: Does anyone have any test results of what would happen if you tied the edk with a stopper in each tail? No, but we have test results that show that the stopper knot is unnecessary. Jay By the same logic could we not decide having two bolts at an anchor would be a unnecessary?
No, we could not.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Jan 14, 2008, 8:38 PM
Post #66 of 67
(2990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
jt512 wrote: shermanr6 wrote: Does anyone have any test results of what would happen if you tied the edk with a stopper in each tail? No, but we have test results that show that the stopper knot is unnecessary. Jay
it takes a lot to roll an edk.
jay: do you know that number?
plus - if your worried - tie another edk on top of the frist - better then 2 stoppers on the tails
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 14, 2008, 8:47 PM
Post #67 of 67
(2983 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
reg wrote: jt512 wrote: shermanr6 wrote: Does anyone have any test results of what would happen if you tied the edk with a stopper in each tail? No, but we have test results that show that the stopper knot is unnecessary. Jay it takes a lot to roll an edk. jay: do you know that number?
See the other thread with nearly an identical title.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
