|
carabiner96
Oct 29, 2008, 3:03 PM
Post #51 of 87
(8701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
yeah, this was at live free or die wall, right next to fast and furious.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Oct 29, 2008, 3:58 PM
Post #52 of 87
(8678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
carabiner96 wrote: Acadian granite is 2.3x the density of normal granite. That boulder isn't going anywhere.
I have done some extensive field work to validate this claim and it appears to be erroneous. The test samples that we collected from Acadia proved to be well within average range of density for granite. We compared the values to that from samples collected at Yosemite, Squamish, Looking Glass, and the Home Depot in Shakopee Minnesota. We used wet density tests, theoretical calculation, and DEXA tests to account for fluctuation. I therefore am unable to explain why you would make such a claim Biner.
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Oct 29, 2008, 4:01 PM
Post #53 of 87
(8676 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
All of this said without being there to inspect the blocks.
Considering that you're using boulders for most of your anchor I'd personally be a little wary with the amount of active protection being used. I've used boulders that size to demo to nOObs how much force a cam can generate, ie I've moved boulders that size with cams. If the boulder really is the only option I'd use passive as much as possible, or sling he boulder rather than have a camming action. Boulders really depend on Gravity and Friction, lifting reduces friction and works against gravity on those fvckers.
It's one of those things where all of us can only speculate as to the integrety of the rock without actually being there.
Looking at the pic I'd be inclined to look for different pieces than what you've used.
Use the some passive gear or tricam in the crack extending back into the face from the right most hex rather than the location of that hex. There seems to be a crack to the left of your GriGri redirect that may take some passive pro. Slinging that furthest back block, using that big hex to keep the sling in may be a better option. Like I said we can only speculate, but I do think that a little more looking around for better pieces would be in order. For me a single baby angle in that horizontal crack to the left would inspire more confidence than the 5 pieces you have. Take that as pure speculation though.
I've built anchors with upwards of 15 pieces just to get something, I've also had to resort to single piece anchors, and imfamous "Don't fall" Alpine anchors... I also call the Great Canadian Chossies home. <---The rock only gets better from here, you either grow brass balls or resort to sport wanking in the Chossies.
Personally I like simple anchors. Sometimes you have something to really work with, sometimes you have to really work to get something.
|
|
Attachments:
|
Anchor.jpg
(99.0 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Oct 29, 2008, 5:42 PM
Post #55 of 87
(8632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
When I set up that anchor (which I believe is above wonderwall? at Otter Cliffs) and when the guides that I know do as well, I use a red camalot in that right crack (the one with a hex), a small cam (alien or tcu) in that horizontal, and another piece in that back crack (where you have another hex). It's not the greatest place for an anchor, though it is the only available; having multiple pieces in that horizontal is pointless (if the block moves, non of the pieces are any good) and also that back crack is kind of dependent on the block as well.
People reading might think that I just contradicted myself by saying you only need the pieces that I mentioned and then said they aren't that great. Building an anchor is always a compromise. Like I said, this is how I see the guides in the area do it, and I think if you saw it in action and heard it explained, you (the reader) would agree that this is the best setup. Take the red camalot in the right crack for example- BOMBER.
|
|
|
|
|
hansundfritz
Oct 29, 2008, 6:11 PM
Post #56 of 87
(8609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 139
|
cracklover wrote: hansundfritz wrote: I would have been tempted to head for the trees in the background of the picture for one leg of the anchor -- provided, of course, that you had enough of the lead rope left. IIRC, trees are off limit at Otter Cliffs. GO
That makes sense. Glad to hear it.
I am a tree lover myself, of course, and don't want to open the debate about the propriety of slinging trees -- but I see lots of folks these days building gear anchors in places where there are great natural anchors. In any event, that observation is what prompted my original reply about heading back for the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 29, 2008, 6:14 PM
Post #57 of 87
(8608 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Oct 29, 2008, 6:42 PM
Post #58 of 87
(8591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
Majid? WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
alleyehave
Oct 29, 2008, 8:37 PM
Post #59 of 87
(8563 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Posts: 461
|
That thing gave me a headache.
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Oct 29, 2008, 8:40 PM
Post #60 of 87
(8558 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
hansundfritz wrote: cracklover wrote: hansundfritz wrote: I would have been tempted to head for the trees in the background of the picture for one leg of the anchor -- provided, of course, that you had enough of the lead rope left. IIRC, trees are off limit at Otter Cliffs. GO That makes sense. Glad to hear it. I am a tree lover myself, of course, and don't want to open the debate about the propriety of slinging trees -- but I see lots of folks these days building gear anchors in places where there are great natural anchors. In any event, that observation is what prompted my original reply about heading back for the trees.
Just wanted to elaborate on this. The trees at Otter aren't the strongest, as they can't get very good root systems in the rock. Regardless, that's what people did for many years. As a result, a tree would get pulled out/killed from being used as an anchor. This would cause the loose soil remaining to erode away, thus further exposing the other nearby trees. That combined with the obvious erosion from being on a cliff, plus being next to the ocean, has resulted in the vegetation retreating from the cliffs. It's moved back about 20 feet in as many years. Seeing this, and the plentiful trad anchor options up top, the park asked climbers to stop using vegetation. Also, to the right of this picture (facing away from the ocean) they installed two giant stainless steel staples, because there was no trad anchors to be had.
All in all, probably the best choices that could be made while still allowing climbing
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 29, 2008, 8:40 PM
Post #61 of 87
(8556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
You mean you guys to rack and I-beam, a stump, a tire with rim, a recently cut down deciduous tree, and a boulder that can all defy the laws of physics?
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Oct 29, 2008, 8:41 PM
Post #62 of 87
(8556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
majid_sabet wrote: [IMG]http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/9454/screenhunter005ry7.gif[/IMG]
Also, I can really appreciate this. I especially enjoy the selection and placements of biners
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Oct 29, 2008, 10:25 PM
Post #64 of 87
(8509 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
Also Swaghole, I noticed in your captions you mention that you were lowering with a grigri. While this can be done safely, I recommend lowering with a munter off of the anchor, with an autoblock backup on your harness. It's the bee's knees when lowering a climber on a top side managed top rope setup. When the climber gets to the bottom, throw the grigri on.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 29, 2008, 10:36 PM
Post #65 of 87
(8505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
diebetes wrote: Also Swaghole, I noticed in your captions you mention that you were lowering with a grigri. While this can be done safely, I recommend lowering with a munter off of the anchor, with an autoblock backup on your harness. It's the bee's knees when lowering a climber on a top side managed top rope setup. When the climber gets to the bottom, throw the grigri on.
Much simpler than using an ATC guide.
|
|
|
|
|
swaghole
Oct 29, 2008, 10:53 PM
Post #66 of 87
(8498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 371
|
diebetes wrote: Also Swaghole, I noticed in your captions you mention that you were lowering with a grigri. While this can be done safely, I recommend lowering with a munter off of the anchor, with an autoblock backup on your harness. It's the bee's knees when lowering a climber on a top side managed top rope setup. When the climber gets to the bottom, throw the grigri on.
Have you ever tried lowering someone repeatedly from a munter? Lowering from a munter really twists up the rope. With a top rope setup where you need to lower the climber down so he can climb back up, a Grigri with a redirect is safe, quick and effective.
Edited for typo. Bad spellers of the world, untie.
(This post was edited by swaghole on Oct 29, 2008, 10:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Oct 29, 2008, 11:05 PM
Post #68 of 87
(8482 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: majid_sabet wrote: [IMG]http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/9454/screenhunter005ry7.gif[/IMG] What a deathtrap, you should at least put an opposite and opposed biner on there, if not a locker.
Are you talking about the anchor or the major?
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Oct 30, 2008, 12:40 AM
Post #69 of 87
(8453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
swaghole wrote: diebetes wrote: Also Swaghole, I noticed in your captions you mention that you were lowering with a grigri. While this can be done safely, I recommend lowering with a munter off of the anchor, with an autoblock backup on your harness. It's the bee's knees when lowering a climber on a top side managed top rope setup. When the climber gets to the bottom, throw the grigri on. Have you ever tried lowering someone repeatedly from a munter? Lowering from a munter really twists up the rope. With a top rope setup where you need to lower the climber down so he can climb back up, a Grigri with a redirect is safe, quick and effective. Edited for typo. Bad spellers of the world, untie.
No actually, I'm in the business of recommending techniques that I've never tried. I was just passing some advice along- that's how I learned to lower climbers at Otter. It's smoother, you're less likely to drop somebody ie safer (especially if you use the back up) AND you don't look like a grigri noob. Do you know about grigri noobs? And repeatedly lowering climbers? You lower a climber once, they climb up, and voila, the rope is ready for the next climber. Is that what you mean by repeating? Cause I've never had a problem with a rope kinking while doing this (at least not that I blamed the Munter, and not my rope management on). You don't own a Beal do you?
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 30, 2008, 12:45 AM
Post #70 of 87
(8447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
Mrrrrow.
|
|
|
|
|
marde
Oct 30, 2008, 4:30 PM
Post #71 of 87
(8387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2006
Posts: 169
|
swaghole wrote: Have you ever tried lowering someone repeatedly from a munter? Lowering from a munter really twists up the rope.
Just hold the strands parallel not like you do it with tube style device.
If you use the munter like a tuber it kinks your rope for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Oct 30, 2008, 4:43 PM
Post #73 of 87
(8380 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
marde wrote: carabiner96 wrote: ...In the freeze thaw seasons, you can almost see car sized boulders move up and down, just like the cliff was breathing. Holy shit  Wearing a helmet there is not enough! Safe your ass 
LMAO
|
|
|
|
|
davidwebb1969
Oct 31, 2008, 7:07 AM
Post #74 of 87
(8331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2008
Posts: 21
|
My personal comments on the anchor setup are:
1. Over engineered
2. When I create an anchor using artificial gear, two pieces of gear make one anchor point.
3. If i am going to use clip gate biners I use 2 and I opposite and oppose them,
4. As someone has already stated that if the right anchor point fails, the load will be redirected onto the left anchor point thus shock loading a possibly leaving one of the 5 pieces you have in the left supporting the entire system,
5. Your main knot on the left anchor point is sitting on the edge, if you are using this for a long period of time it COULD affect the integrity of the cordalette,
6. If the anchor point on the right was to fail I would envisage the 2 x .75 camalots could be left taking the entire load.
Overall a good system that could be simplified to clear up some clutter within your system.
My personal preference is to always use locking biners within a anchor system, but that is just my preference.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
swaghole
Oct 31, 2008, 10:57 AM
Post #75 of 87
(8144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 371
|
davidwebb1969 wrote: My personal comments on the anchor setup are: 1. Over engineered 2. When I create an anchor using artificial gear, two pieces of gear make one anchor point. 3. If i am going to use clip gate biners I use 2 and I opposite and oppose them, 4. As someone has already stated that if the right anchor point fails, the load will be redirected onto the left anchor point thus shock loading a possibly leaving one of the 5 pieces you have in the left supporting the entire system, 5. Your main knot on the left anchor point is sitting on the edge, if you are using this for a long period of time it COULD affect the integrity of the cordalette, 6. If the anchor point on the right was to fail I would envisage the 2 x .75 camalots could be left taking the entire load. Overall a good system that could be simplified to clear up some clutter within your system. My personal preference is to always use locking biners within a anchor system, but that is just my preference. Dave
Thanks for the good feedback. Very good reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
