|
chossmonkey
May 23, 2008, 5:05 PM
Post #26 of 59
(2664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
spikeddem wrote: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 23, 2008, 5:24 PM
Post #27 of 59
(2655 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
reno wrote: 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.
Agreed. So much easier and quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 5:25 PM
Post #28 of 59
(2655 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
majid_sabet wrote: Jay 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.
Please read the following with a grain of salt and correct me where I'm wrong. Thanks 
Anybody feel free to correct me, but from Jim Ewing's tests I got that if one stops imagining and actually calculates the forces, that the experimental evidence does not follow the logical conclusions about extension and the forces it produces.
Additionally, neither this anchor nor any of the other (equalette, sliding x's + limiter knots) would generally allow for 17" of extension.
Moreover, I offer this theoretical argument: In a cordelette, it has been concluded (I don't remember whether it was Jim Ewing or Professor Gold (?), I think it says in Climbing Anchors, 2nd ed.) that one arm sustains the majority of the weight (except in perfect, convenient conditions). Thus, because it is not well equalized before the failure of the piece, the "new" piece to receive the large majority of the force would, in effect, be "shock loaded."
The above is something I came up with as I was writing it . . . so there's probably a flaw in there somewhere.
Also, following a piece pulling on my anchor or the equalette, the force is perfectly (essentially, and at least in my anchor) equalized between two placements. So before the pull, each piece is holding its share, and after the pull each piece is holding it's share. That "shock load" would be split up "perfectly" between two different pieces.
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 5:26 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
May 23, 2008, 5:30 PM
Post #29 of 59
(2650 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
the extension is really the only thing that bugs me with this setup. If one of the side pieces pop you still get an extension of 1/3 of the length of that leg, right? that can still be significant. the sling also seems like too much extension. and what if your pieces are further apart? you can't link all placements with a 60cm sling.
I agree that it's very simple to set up, and I'm really not a scientist so take this with a grain of salt.
someone else asked why one wouldn't use the rope to build an anchor--I'm not a big waller or anything like that so I'm speaking from inexperience. but doesn't it take a big chunk of rope to build an anchor? what if you misguage your anchor points and run out?
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 23, 2008, 5:53 PM
Post #30 of 59
(2633 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Spikeddem, please understand that my following post is for your benefit alone. The following is not meant to be malicious or derogatory, rather, it is an appraisal of what I find to be a disconcerting phenomena of this website:
This online community is doing you a great disservice by entertaining the notion that these innovative anchors are at all better than the tried and absolutely true method of using a cordelette. People invent this shit while sitting at their keyboards and dicking around their dorm rooms -- these anchors are not viable real world solutions; its theoretical, hypothetical nonsense.
If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 5:59 PM
Post #31 of 59
(2634 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
fulton wrote: Spikeddem, please understand that my following post is for your benefit alone. The following is not meant to be malicious or derogatory, rather, it is an appraisal of what I find to be a disconcerting phenomena of this website: This online community is doing you a great disservice by entertaining the notion that these innovative anchors are at all better than the tried and absolutely true method of using a cordelette. People invent this shit while sitting at their keyboards and dicking around their dorm rooms -- these anchors are not viable real world solutions; its theoretical, hypothetical nonsense. If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it. Peace
There's a flaw in this logic. Would you prefer I use the first or second edition? I would end up with two significantly different conclusions!
Edit: My point being that there is no err in experimenting, especially on the ground. Indeed, I believe there is err in NOT experimenting. John Long himself encouraged it.
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 23, 2008, 6:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 23, 2008, 6:16 PM
Post #32 of 59
(2620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Yes, you are right. But, perhaps, in addition, you might consider an ancient Chinese proverb:
Not every girl wants you to stick a finger up her butt.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 23, 2008, 6:40 PM
Post #33 of 59
(2587 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
fulton wrote: Spikeddem, please understand that my following post is for your benefit alone. The following is not meant to be malicious or derogatory, rather, it is an appraisal of what I find to be a disconcerting phenomena of this website: This online community is doing you a great disservice by entertaining the notion that these innovative anchors are at all better than the tried and absolutely true method of using a cordelette. People invent this shit while sitting at their keyboards and dicking around their dorm rooms -- these anchors are not viable real world solutions; its theoretical, hypothetical nonsense. If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it. Peace
So what you are saying that anything else out of the book is no good and JL is the god of anchors ?
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 7:02 PM
Post #34 of 59
(2571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
majid_sabet wrote: fulton wrote: Spikeddem, please understand that my following post is for your benefit alone. The following is not meant to be malicious or derogatory, rather, it is an appraisal of what I find to be a disconcerting phenomena of this website: This online community is doing you a great disservice by entertaining the notion that these innovative anchors are at all better than the tried and absolutely true method of using a cordelette. People invent this shit while sitting at their keyboards and dicking around their dorm rooms -- these anchors are not viable real world solutions; its theoretical, hypothetical nonsense. If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it. Peace So what you are saying that anything else out of the book is no good and JL is the god of anchors ?
I think he's probably recommending this to someone that isn't experienced enough with anchors to judge it sufficiently on-the-fly.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 7:24 PM
Post #35 of 59
(2567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
chossmonkey wrote: shockabuku wrote: Just to piss you off, asshat. That was real mature. [image]http://www.climbeasterncanada.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif[/image]
As much so as your rather sophomoric response.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 23, 2008, 7:28 PM
Post #36 of 59
(2564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
fulton wrote: Yes, you are right. But, perhaps, in addition, you might consider an ancient Chinese proverb: Not every girl wants you to stick a finger up her butt.
That's right, some are too naive to know they want it.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 23, 2008, 8:27 PM
Post #37 of 59
(2546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Hoo boy. I thought I wasn't going to get involved, but here we go.
First of all, I cannot disagree forcefully enough with those who say that experimenting with anchor configurations is "dangerous" or "stupid". Rather, I think that discussions like this speak to the heart of what it is to be a trad climber - self sufficiency and knowing one's tools (counting the mind and body amongst them) as well as you possibly can.
Now to the point.
spikeddem wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Jay 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. Anybody feel free to correct me, but from Jim Ewing's tests I got that if one stops imagining and actually calculates the forces, that the experimental evidence does not follow the logical conclusions about extension and the forces it produces.
Exactly which logical conclusions are you referring to? I don't believe there was much of a problem in modeling the forces they found. The fact that there was not a huge increase in force (shock load) on a fall where the anchor suddenly extended several inches in the middle of force on a many-meter-long rope surprised absolutely no-one who'd put much thought into the matter. Logical conclusions are as good as the precepts that go into them and the rigor of the logic. No better or worse.
In reply to: Additionally, neither this anchor nor any of the other (equalette, sliding x's + limiter knots) would generally allow for 17" of extension.
Not so. I won't go over every version of the 'lettes out there, just the one you're asking about. Let's say your cordelette is 20' in diameter (10 feet long). Your spikelette would be hang around 3' 1/3 below the placements, assuming it was set up the way you have it in your picture. If the outside arm without the limiter on it failed, the rig would extend to 5' below the pieces. Subtract 3 1/3 from 5, and see what you get...
In reply to: Moreover, I offer this theoretical argument: In a cordelette, it has been concluded (I don't remember whether it was Jim Ewing or Professor Gold (?), I think it says in Climbing Anchors, 2nd ed.) that one arm sustains the majority of the weight (except in perfect, convenient conditions). Thus, because it is not well equalized before the failure of the piece, the "new" piece to receive the large majority of the force would, in effect, be "shock loaded."
I'm not sure what your point is. If it is that when a piece in an anchor blows, that the force on the other pieces increases... well that's kind of a no-brainer. If the force pulling down hasn't gotten lower, (and I'll leave that alone for now) then the same force divided by fewer pieces = more force per piece. This is not a shock-load, as the total amount of force on the anchor has not increased. It's simply a redistribution of load onto fewer pieces.
In reply to: Also, following a piece pulling on my anchor or the equalette, the force is perfectly (essentially, and at least in my anchor) equalized between two placements. So before the pull, each piece is holding its share, and after the pull each piece is holding it's share. That "shock load" would be split up "perfectly" between two different pieces.
No, it would not be divided equally. If (using the anchor you displayed above) the piece on the right fails, then the one in the middle would take 1/3 of the remaining force, and the one on the left 2/3.
And there are two big issues relating to extension that did not get covered in JL's latest books.
The first one is simple - if the anchor extends, you as belayer risk losing your stance and/or losing control of the belay.
The second issue (one which I was clamoring for them to test while the tests were ongoing) is this: If you are at a hanging belay, if one piece rips, your anchor now extends a foot and a half, with you the belayer attached directly to it! I don't know what the forces are in this case, because cordelette cord isn't rated for dynamic catches. But suffice it to say that the force *may* be very severe.
This is not to say that there are not ways to mitigate it (such as tying in with the rope, minimizing extension, using dynamic cord, etc), but the point is that extension should not be ignored altogether, as it may be a serious issue if the belayer can fall directly on the anchor.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
fenderfour
May 23, 2008, 8:49 PM
Post #38 of 59
(2534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 177
|
This anchor is called Tufa King Much.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 9:16 PM
Post #39 of 59
(2521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
cracklover wrote: In reply to: Additionally, neither this anchor nor any of the other (equalette, sliding x's + limiter knots) would generally allow for 17" of extension. Not so. I won't go over every version of the 'lettes out there, just the one you're asking about. Let's say your cordelette is 20' in diameter (10 feet long). Your spikelette would be hang around 3' 1/3 below the placements, assuming it was set up the way you have it in your picture. If the outside arm without the limiter on it failed, the rig would extend to 5' below the pieces. Subtract 3 1/3 from 5, and see what you get...
When I build it and pull off the arm that does not have a sling, it extends 6 inches (+/- one-sixteenth of an inch). The red sling did not limit any extension except for the middle arm.
In reply to: In reply to: Moreover, I offer this theoretical argument: In a cordelette, it has been concluded (I don't remember whether it was Jim Ewing or Professor Gold (?), I think it says in Climbing Anchors, 2nd ed.) that one arm sustains the majority of the weight (except in perfect, convenient conditions). Thus, because it is not well equalized before the failure of the piece, the "new" piece to receive the large majority of the force would, in effect, be "shock loaded." I'm not sure what your point is. If it is that when a piece in an anchor blows, that the force on the other pieces increases... well that's kind of a no-brainer.
My point is that it seems like it would be easier for an anchor to go from x force to 2x (double is just an example) force rather than 0 force to 2x force. I'm not much for physics, so maybe that isn't true. My point is that the amount of force that is "surprising" the placement is less. Whether or not that makes an actual difference? I don't know.
In reply to: In reply to: Also, following a piece pulling on my anchor or the equalette, the force is perfectly (essentially, and at least in my anchor) equalized between two placements. So before the pull, each piece is holding its share, and after the pull each piece is holding it's share. That "shock load" would be split up "perfectly" between two different pieces. No, it would not be divided equally. If (using the anchor you displayed above) the piece on the right fails, then the one in the middle would take 1/3 of the remaining force, and the one on the left 2/3.
That was one of my original questions, actually. I was curious if that red sling would have a pulley effect or anything. My new version doesn't have the red sling (see below).
In reply to: And there are two big issues relating to extension that did not get covered in JL's latest books. . . .
Those other two points are interesting. I'll make sure to keep them in the back of my mind in the future!
Thanks for giving me some help!
As for the set-up, here is a newer version, adjusted for some concerns (Less the single biner problem, I forgot to take the photo with two biners instead of one. Just use your imagination!).
The red sling is no longer involved, but rather a dyneema dental floss sling is. Clipped into each side carabiner and passing through the rap rings. A tiny, tiny bit more complex, but this thing is damn adjustable and fast to set-up:
Extension of either side arm, it retains full equalizing ability (6 inches of extension in this set-up +/- one-sixteenth of an inch):
Extension of middle arm, also retains full equalizing ability (3 inches of extension in this set-up +/- one-sixteenth of an inch):
Some have said this is too complex, but it can be set-up in less than a minute, and there are only two knots (equalette either four or five with three placements). Not to mention it does not suffer any limit to reasonable directions of pull.
Main things it doesn't do well:
1) Powerpoint is a carabiner(s)
2) A complete arm chopped off (both strands) = catastrophic failure.
3) One could drop rap rings (but even then the cordelette is still OK, so this is versatile).
4) If the OUTER two placement blow, there will be an insane amount of extension (the distance would equal the length of the shorter arm)
5) If a side biner breaks, also catastrophic failure.
Haha, this is kinda fun (considering I'm on the ground for now!).
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 23, 2008, 9:18 PM
Post #40 of 59
(2520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
fenderfour wrote: [image]http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/spikeddem/macro.jpg[/image] This anchor is called Tufa King Much.
Are you arguing that fewer knots, but an additional two rap rings and one sling is too much for the equalization and adjustability it gives? I guess I could understand that standpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 24, 2008, 12:30 AM
Post #41 of 59
(2480 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: reno wrote: 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. Agreed. So much easier and quicker.
Safer, too.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
May 24, 2008, 2:07 AM
Post #42 of 59
(2465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
reno wrote: 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.
I hope you and I are not the only 2 people that use it.
Anchoring with a rope is the quickest, simplest way to go.
OP should look into it as well.
|
|
|
|
|
catbird_seat
May 24, 2008, 5:39 AM
Post #43 of 59
(2433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Posts: 425
|
How many times can you say that? There are as many ways to anchor in using the rope as there are ways to do it using slings and cordelettes. You aren't saying much at all.
|
|
|
|
|
no_email_entered
May 24, 2008, 1:36 PM
Post #44 of 59
(2404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2008
Posts: 558
|
fulton wrote: If you can't find the method in a John Long anchor book, then don't do it.
what about my man Luebben? i like that he has photos of anchor setups with his 2year-old belaying. (of course with a grigri and helmet----a good reason to have kids imo)
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
May 26, 2008, 12:38 AM
Post #45 of 59
(2293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
catbird_seat wrote: How many times can you say that?
A million. If I only wanted to do so.
In reply to: There are as many ways to anchor in using the rope as there are ways to do it using slings and cordelettes. You aren't saying much at all.
Anchoring with sling is too static if you ask me.
Instead of picking on me try to add something useful to this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 26, 2008, 12:49 AM
Post #46 of 59
(2289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
tradrenn wrote: catbird_seat wrote: How many times can you say that? A million. If I only wanted to do so. In reply to: There are as many ways to anchor in using the rope as there are ways to do it using slings and cordelettes. You aren't saying much at all. . Instead of picking on me try to add something useful to this thread.
WHAT do you know about anchors n00b ?
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 26, 2008, 12:54 AM
Post #47 of 59
(2285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
In answer to the second half of your subject, the answer is no, provided you never deploy such a system on the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 26, 2008, 12:54 AM
Post #48 of 59
(2284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: reno wrote: 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. Agreed. So much easier and quicker.
good idea except if Sh*t hits the fan and you must escape belay, you "the belayer" and he/she "the leader/follower" are married to the anchor .
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 26, 2008, 12:58 AM
Post #49 of 59
(2281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
majid_sabet wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: reno wrote: 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. Agreed. So much easier and quicker.good idea except if Sh*t hits the fan and you must escape belay, you "the belayer" and he/she "the leader/follower" are married to the anchor .
|
|
|
|
|
|
