Except for knot tightening, we did not observe rope hardening in the two impact drop. The rapid unloading after an anchor fails apears to reset the rope to its initial state. Testing on two-impact drops showed that a failing piece of climbing protection absorbs energy and reduces the total fall factor. In the example studied, about half of the energy was absorbed on the first impact.

Well, balanced or equalized means the same thing in my mind. You can easily build an anchor that is equalized, in one direction, and at the same time doesn't extend...

Who (who had no idea what they were talking about) told you that? It is actually almost impossible to construct a real-world anchor that is both equalized and non-extending. At best you will get some very unequal type of load sharing between the various anchor elements.

Curt

It is true that you cannot equalize multiple anchors perfectly and at the same time have absolutely no extension in case of a failure. However, it is possible to reasonably equalize multiple anchors in one major direction and at the same time have very little extension. Since I personally always want each of the anchors to be strong enough to support any potential force, I think it is more important to minimize the potential extension in case of a failure than to have perfect equalization. You can find many examples on how to equalize multiple anchors with minimal extension in any basic climbing book. Page 106 in How To Rock Climb (3rd edition) by John Long just to give you one example.

I find it interesting how often peoples expressed comprehension of a subject is inversely proportional with their experience with said subject.

That is a very good observation. Someone once told me the following that explains this in an interesting way:

Knowledge is like being inside an inflated baloon. The more knowledge and experience you gain the more the ballon inflates. The inner surface of the baloon is shielding you from everything you don't know - everything that's outside of th baloon. When the baloon is small it looks like the area of the surface is small but the more you inflate it the more the area of the surface increases. This basically tells you that the more you learn about any given subject, the more you realize how much more there is that you don't know.

Maybe I can help you get of your balloon: You're a beginner who climbed for less than a year 5 years ago, and has climbed for a few months this year. Your knowledge of anchors is essentially limited by what you've read in a single book that was written primarily for beginners. You have less experience (essentially none) than everyone else in this thread, and practically everyone else on this website. In other words, you don't know much at all. So, please, opine less, and listen more.

Jay

...I love climbing and as I am a beginner I am very eager to learn everything I can from all the more experienced climbers. One way I am going to continue to learn is by reading a lot from this forum and other sources, and participating in the discussions when I find a reason to do so. If you don't like that - sorry, you have to deal with it...

I love climbing and as I am a beginner I am very eager to learn everything I can from all the more experienced climbers. One way I am going to continue to learn is by reading a lot from this forum and other sources, and participating in the discussions when I find a reason to do so. If you don't like that - sorry, you have to deal with it.

To conclude this discussion...

Up the ante folks--put it into a rescue/raising scenario that has the victim, the litter-tender, and usually a medical person on the static line. With a 500+ lb. load on the non-dynamic system, a piece ripping could essentially create a catastrophe to the people involved.

If you are not convinced that "shock loading" is a real danger, go do some tests using yourself as the "live load"--you will not pose the question again.

John Long has amended his stance. Have you read the new anchor book?

Some people that can't climb 5.12 discussed shock loads in anchors with real test results here:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1306133#1306133

There are some summary threads around too if you wanted to search for them.

John Long has amended his stance. Have you read the new anchor book?

Some people that can't climb 5.12 discussed shock loads in anchors with real test results here:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1306133#1306133

There are some summary threads around too if you wanted to search for them.

In other words, the phobia about extension in the Sliding X (with limiter knots) producing "shock loading," or for that matter, ANY significant increase in loading, is looking almost certainly like another anchoring myth.