|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 1:01 AM
Post #1 of 59
(8146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
I am new to trad and have been reading about anchors as much as I can. There is an older thread (~2 years, "Improved Sliding X: Is it really safer?") that inspired me to mess around with anchor systems. I came up with this (see links to pictures), but I figure it's already got a name.
It seems to me to work quite well! The only extra pieces beyond a normal setup is two rap rings. Is there any kind of bad pulley effect going on in it? The red sling is to prevent severe extension when the middle piece pops. When either side piece pulls out, there isn't too much extension. Additionally, the whole thing is done on a bite (on the far left the end of the bite is clove hitched), so I'm pretty sure that it's redundant, too?
I understand that it's easier to flame someone than it is to help them understand why what they did was incorrect. Yet, if there are problems in it, explain to me what exactly is wrong so I don't accidentally replicate it in another anchor.
Full structure:
http://i305.photobucket.com/.../spikeddem/macro.jpg
Left Side:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...keddem/leftmicro.jpg
Right side:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...eddem/rightmicro.jpg
Bottom:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...ddem/bottommacro.jpg
Here it is taking a pull from an angle:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...m/directionforce.jpg
Failure of middle placement:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...eddem/middlepull.jpg
Failure of side placement:
http://i305.photobucket.com/...keddem/sidepulls.jpg
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 1:04 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 1:11 AM
Post #2 of 59
(8130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
I predict Majid will cry triaxial loading on the master point biner (might use two biners there, one on each rap ring).
Extension in the case of anchor failure is unacceptably large (and nails, even 12d, make poor anchors).
Failure of any one strand (cut rope) means total anchor failure.
(This post was edited by shockabuku on May 23, 2008, 1:12 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 1:43 AM
Post #3 of 59
(8102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
shockabuku wrote: I predict Majid will cry triaxial loading on the master point biner (might use two biners there, one on each rap ring).
I suppose two biners would be good anyways.
In reply to: Extension in the case of anchor failure is unacceptably large (and nails, even 12d, make poor anchors).
The extension of the side arms is significantly less than the extension of the middle arm. Since we'll worry about the worst case scenario, I'll address just the middle arm pulling out. The extension is about 8" or 9" in this case. I think the extension would be directly correlated with the length, right? So as the system gets larger, this problem would probably get worse? Ideas to improve that?
Edit: This might start to blow the KISS away, but clipping a sling to the left-most biner and threading it through the rap rings, tying off an overhand knot (to adjust for sling length) then clipping below that knot on the right-most carabiner. That would really lower any extension at all on it. (Now its +2 rap rings +2 slings, as in extra equipment needed. Although slings are often used anyways.)
In reply to: Failure of any one strand (cut rope) means total anchor failure.
I'm pretty sure you can cut any one strand in the system and it is all still rock-n-roll. The ends do not move and are knotted, thus the strands are individual of one another in this case.
Thanks for your input! 
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 1:59 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 4:21 AM
Post #4 of 59
(8024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
spikeddem wrote: shockabuku wrote: I predict Majid will cry triaxial loading on the master point biner (might use two biners there, one on each rap ring). I suppose two biners would be good anyways. In reply to: Extension in the case of anchor failure is unacceptably large (and nails, even 12d, make poor anchors). The extension of the side arms is significantly less than the extension of the middle arm. Since we'll worry about the worst case scenario, I'll address just the middle arm pulling out. The extension is about 8" or 9" in this case. I think the extension would be directly correlated with the length, right? So as the system gets larger, this problem would probably get worse? Ideas to improve that? Edit: This might start to blow the KISS away, but clipping a sling to the left-most biner and threading it through the rap rings, tying off an overhand knot (to adjust for sling length) then clipping below that knot on the right-most carabiner. That would really lower any extension at all on it. (Now its +2 rap rings +2 slings, as in extra equipment needed. Although slings are often used anyways.) In reply to: Failure of any one strand (cut rope) means total anchor failure. I'm pretty sure you can cut any one strand in the system and it is all still rock-n-roll. The ends do not move and are knotted, thus the strands are individual of one another in this case. Thanks for your input!
Yeah, I mis-wrote, I meant if one of the three legs was cut. Some people don't consider that much of a threat, some do.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 5:45 AM
Post #5 of 59
(7982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
when you load this anchor, where do you think you load your biner? on the green line or the red line or both?
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 23, 2008, 6:38 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
docburner
May 23, 2008, 7:57 AM
Post #6 of 59
(7934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 192
|
I would think right side failure would produce severe extension.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 8:43 AM
Post #7 of 59
(7918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
shockabuku wrote: Yeah, I mis-wrote, I meant if one of the three legs was cut. Some people don't consider that much of a threat, some do.
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, that'd definitely be a problem.
majid_sabet wrote: when you load this anchor, where do you think you load your biner? on the green line or the red line or both?
Well, what about clipping each rap biner with it's own locker? For educational purposes, I'll guess an answer to your question: Both. (Maybe?) Is your point that it will be triaxially loaded?
docburner wrote: I would think right side failure would produce severe extension.
Now that I think of it, the extension here is probably exactly one-half the length of the arm, right? With a smaller setup like this it didn't seem too much, but I suppose it would get quite large on bigger setups.
That, combined with it's arm failure issue, means it'll probably be way too complicated to be of any use. From what I can see, at least.
|
|
|
|
|
reverse_dyno
May 23, 2008, 8:50 AM
Post #8 of 59
(7917 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2005
Posts: 69
|
Why not to use this anchor:
1. If you cut one strands of the cord, you will fall a very long way. Twice the distance between the master point and center anchor biner.
2. Your anchor will then consist of 1 strand of cord between the two outside biners. The middle biner will no longer be in the system.
3. Too complex
If you do not believe how far you will fall, cut one of the strands :)
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 11:35 AM
Post #9 of 59
(7877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
spikeddem wrote: I am new to trad and have been reading about anchors as much as I can. There is an older thread (~2 years, "Improved Sliding X: Is it really safer?") that inspired me to mess around with anchor systems. I came up with this (see links to pictures), but I figure it's already got a name. It seems to me to work quite well! The only extra pieces beyond a normal setup is two rap rings. Is there any kind of bad pulley effect going on in it? The red sling is to prevent severe extension when the middle piece pops. When either side piece pulls out, there isn't too much extension. Additionally, the whole thing is done on a bite (on the far left the end of the bite is clove hitched), so I'm pretty sure that it's redundant, too? I understand that it's easier to flame someone than it is to help them understand why what they did was incorrect. Yet, if there are problems in it, explain to me what exactly is wrong so I don't accidentally replicate it in another anchor. Full structure:  Left Side:  Right side:  Bottom:  Here it is taking a pull from an angle:  Failure of middle placement:  Failure of side placement: 
Why the fuck would someone link the pictures rather than embed them?
Then why would some douche bag quote it all and not fix it?
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 11:42 AM
Post #10 of 59
(7869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
Why not just use this....
???????????
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 3:09 PM
Post #11 of 59
(7785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
chossmonkey wrote: Why not just use this.... [image]http://www.trango.com/images/products/slings/alpineequalizer.jpg[/image] ???????????
monkeyman
That anchor looks like one of those "get one fits all" anchors sling. the other day I saw one of those on the wall and dude was belaying his partner with it. I looked at it and i thought it was made of some girls underwear.
WHY TF you want to use a anchor sling that has all these tight bends and all those rings .....etc ?
Today’s climbers are turning in to brainless can't do anything themselves. what is wrong with getting a 6 meter of cord and build yourself a nice solid multi point anchor and leave big mama jama fig8 as power point ?
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 3:26 PM
Post #12 of 59
(7772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
reverse_dyno wrote: Why not to use this anchor: 1. If you cut one strands of the cord, you will fall a very long way. Twice the distance between the master point and center anchor biner. 2. Your anchor will then consist of 1 strand of cord between the two outside biners. The middle biner will no longer be in the system. 3. Too complex If you do not believe how far you will fall, cut one of the strands :)
Unless you cut a whole arm worth of strands, it won't fall. However, I'm not willing to find experimental rather than theoretical results on this point! 
Also, I don't see how it is complicated:
1. Make a bite on a normal cordelette.
2. Stuff through right-most biner.
3. Stuff through rap ring.
4. Stuff through center crab.
5. Stuff through rap ring.
6. Clip left-most biner. Clove hitch.
7. Fasten down other end.
8. Clip sling from left to middle.
Done! Considering all the slack is off to one side, I think it is much cleaner looking than clove hitches and fig eights on an equalette.
Not to mention it is very easy to adjust after it is all put together.
chossmonkey wrote: Why the fuck would someone link the pictures rather than embed them? Then why would some douche bag quote it all and not fix it?
I'm sorry, I don't know how to embed pictures! I think I know now though. I will in the future.
chossmonkey wrote: Why not just use this.... [image]http://www.trango.com/images/products/slings/alpineequalizer.jpg[/image] ???????????
I'd rather not buy a limited piece of equipment, I guess. I've always got the rap rings, and already have the cordelette anyways. The rap rings can be put on easily (per above) during construction, so one wouldn't need to carry this system as a whole unit while he/she is climbing.
Thanks for everyone's input!
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 3:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 3:43 PM
Post #13 of 59
(7755 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
spikeey
'
The anchor is your life. Do not make an experimental project out of something that holds your life. Keep it simple and solid. Your rig up there is classified under CF.
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
May 23, 2008, 4:04 PM
Post #14 of 59
(7727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
It's not an unsafe anchor. Ok as a self equalizing system. Has a little built in extension limiting. However it is more complicated than necessary.
Really glad to see a newer climber experimenting and playing around with various anchor techniques. Keep doing it.. do super rediculous complicated stuff..do simpler stuff.. play with it a lot. The familiarity it breeds will serve you better than anything alse can .... especially if you get into wall climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 23, 2008, 4:11 PM
Post #15 of 59
(7711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
majid_sabet wrote: That anchor looks like one of those "get one fits all" anchors sling. the other day I saw one of those on the wall and dude was belaying his partner with it. I looked at it and i thought it was made of some girls underwear.
For posterity.
In reply to: what is wrong with getting a 6 meter of cord and build yourself a nice solid multi point anchor and leave big mama jama fig8 as power point ?
You haven't been reading much lately, have you? The shortcomings of the cordalette anchor system have been quite thoroughly discussed here and elsewhere.
Edited to add: I still don't get why people don't use the climbing rope to anchor in? It's simple, doesn't require extra gear, and vastly more safe than any cord tie-off set up.
(This post was edited by reno on May 23, 2008, 4:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 23, 2008, 4:15 PM
Post #16 of 59
(7705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Shrink the photos, please. The thread's a little hard to read.
My first impression is that your red sling, while well intended, also increases the impact force to the single piece of gear that ends up holding it. If so, that makes cascade failure of the entire anchor system more likely. How much more likely? I don't know. I also really hate that your master point is a biner. I think that's a mistake, the beginnings of which we're already seeing in the tri-loading mentioned above.
Majid responded that a pre-equalized tie-off is a better option, because he still doesn't believe the test results Long and Ewing experienced -- namely that shockloading from extension is largely a myth and that, under high fall forces, cascade failure is actually a bigger concern. In this case, however, he may be right. A pre-equalized tie-off, while flawed in some respects, is probably better than this anchor in more circumstances than not.
Way to use your noodle, but like you said, you're new to the game. Experiment all you want in your garage, but for now, it might be a good idea to stick with more established methods in practice. Just a suggestion. Not a flame.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 4:22 PM
Post #17 of 59
(7691 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
majid_sabet wrote: chossmonkey wrote: Why not just use this.... ??????????? monkeyman That anchor looks like one of those "get one fits all" anchors sling. the other day I saw one of those on the wall and dude was belaying his partner with it. I looked at it and i thought it was made of some girls underwear. WHY TF you want to use a anchor sling that has all these tight bends and all those rings .....etc ?
Today’s climbers are turning in to brainless can't do anything themselves. what is wrong with getting a 6 meter of cord and build yourself a nice solid multi point anchor and leave big mama jama fig8 as power point ?
I personally wouldn't use either version, but since there is a version that would likely work better than what was posted I thought I'd mention it.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 4:30 PM
Post #18 of 59
(7679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
Thanks for your comments J_ung. They were helpful!
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 4:35 PM
Post #19 of 59
(7675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
spikeddem wrote: chossmonkey wrote: Why the fuck would someone link the pictures rather than embed them? Then why would some douche bag quote it all and not fix it? I'm sorry, I don't know how to embed pictures! I think I know now though. I will in the future. chossmonkey wrote: Why not just use this.... [image]http://www.trango.com/images/products/slings/alpineequalizer.jpg[/image] ??????????? I'd rather not buy a limited piece of equipment, I guess. I've always got the rap rings, and already have the cordelette anyways. The rap rings can be put on easily (per above) during construction, so one wouldn't need to carry this system as a whole unit while he/she is climbing. Thanks for everyone's input!
I guess I'd consider rap rings extra gear unless I'm establishing rap routes. It also seems like it would take quite a bit more time to set up if you need to thread and build the whole thing every time you use it. Not to mention the possibility of dropping parts. I personally, if using that setup would want to have the rings threaded differently so that if an outside biner broke you wouldn't have possible complete anchor failure. A longshot yes, but why have questionable links?
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 4:39 PM
Post #20 of 59
(7667 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
majid_sabet wrote: spikeey ' The anchor is your life. Do not make an experimental project out of something that holds your life. Keep it simple and solid. Your rig up there is classified under CF.
This from a guy who "raped" on two strands of a core of a rope. Even though it was only 20' which normally isn't to life threatening. Not like how a 30' rap would have been.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 4:44 PM
Post #21 of 59
(7660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
chossmonkey wrote: spikeddem wrote: I am new to trad and have been reading about anchors as much as I can. There is an older thread (~2 years, "Improved Sliding X: Is it really safer?") that inspired me to mess around with anchor systems. I came up with this (see links to pictures), but I figure it's already got a name. It seems to me to work quite well! The only extra pieces beyond a normal setup is two rap rings. Is there any kind of bad pulley effect going on in it? The red sling is to prevent severe extension when the middle piece pops. When either side piece pulls out, there isn't too much extension. Additionally, the whole thing is done on a bite (on the far left the end of the bite is clove hitched), so I'm pretty sure that it's redundant, too? I understand that it's easier to flame someone than it is to help them understand why what they did was incorrect. Yet, if there are problems in it, explain to me what exactly is wrong so I don't accidentally replicate it in another anchor. Full structure: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/macro.jpg[/image] Left Side: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/leftmicro.jpg[/image] Right side: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/rightmicro.jpg[/image] Bottom: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/bottommacro.jpg[/image] Here it is taking a pull from an angle: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/directionforce.jpg[/image] Failure of middle placement: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/middlepull.jpg[/image] Failure of side placement: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/sidepulls.jpg[/image] Why the fuck would someone link the pictures rather than embed them? Then why would some douche bag quote it all and not fix it?
Just to piss you off, asshat.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 4:49 PM
Post #22 of 59
(7652 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
j_ung wrote: My first impression is that your red sling, while well intended, also i ncreases the impact force to the single piece of gear that ends up holding it. If so, that makes cascade failure of the entire anchor system more likely. How much more likely? I don't know. I also really hate that your master point is a biner. I think that's a mistake, the beginnings of which we're already seeing in the tri-loading mentioned above. Majid responded that a pre-equalized tie-off is a better option, because he still doesn't believe the test results Long and Ewing experienced -- namely that shockloading from extension is largely a myth and that, under high fall forces, cascade failure is actually a bigger concern. In this case, however, he may be right. A pre-equalized tie-off, while flawed in some respects, is probably better than this anchor in more circumstances than not.
I guess I was to busy PC++ing to fully follow those threads, but how would the extension of this anchor be different than if it was (for argument sake) a sliding X?
Perhaps I have missed some important details in the whole "shockloading not a big issue" idea.
Have those threads ever been trimmed down so they are readable? They seem to me like they would be a bit like GUing the BET now.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 4:55 PM
Post #24 of 59
(7638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
chossmonkey wrote: Have those threads ever been trimmed down so they are readable? They seem to me like they would be a bit like GUing the BET now.
If one of the threads to which you are referring is the "imrpoved sliding x: is it really safer?" then I'd say it hasn't. It's about 33 pages long, and I could hardly get through I think eight or so pages before I couldn't handle anymore. Haha. A lot of the images are actually dead links now, too.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 5:03 PM
Post #25 of 59
(7625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Jay
If you take a rope and attach one end to an anchor put an inline prusik and leave 6 inches of slack between prusik and the anchor, have a climber 50 feet below and then cut the prusik. The 6 inches of slack on top may only stretch the top rope few more inches but the climber who is hanging down below will see over several feet of drop in yoo yoo action.
Now imagine you are belaying your partner from the top and somehow he falls and one of the anchor protections blows off and you add 17 inches of additional slack to your rope under fall. That extra 17 inches of slack on top becomes the acceleration in fall forces. Defiantly something you do not want in rope work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
