When building an anchor using this method with cord, either standard equalette or quad, you are essentially hanging the master point between 10 or so inches of cord in between the 2 extension limiting knots. Now what the hell happens when either side blows? The master point would then slide down to the knot, about 5 inches, putting the load on the knot and then shock loading the surviving anchor/s?

When building an anchor using this method with cord, either standard equalette or quad, you are essentially hanging the master point between 10 or so inches of cord in between the 2 extension limiting knots. Now what the hell happens when either side blows? The master point would then slide down to the knot, about 5 inches, putting the load on the knot and then shock loading the surviving anchor/s?

I think james provides a reasonable response.

Compared with some rigging systems where you can fall a meter or more when a leg of the anchor blows, 5 inches is not signicifant (unless, of course, that ledge is 4.75 inches below you....). There does not appear to be a way to simultaneously have smooth load distribution and absolutely zero extension if a point fails. So, we try & find the best compromise between them.

Strong - critically important
Equalized - important
Redundant - very important
No Extension - important

Others may disagree with my priorities here, but the SERENE (or equivalent) ideology is a guide for what you should approach - you may not be able to satisfy every item perfectly...but it's not a bad idea to try.

Why not use a separate sling for each anchor, equalize, tie master point?

Why not use a separate sling for each anchor, equalize, tie master point?

Why not use a separate sling for each anchor, equalize, tie master point?

I think james provides a reasonable response.

Compared with some rigging systems where you can fall a meter or more when a leg of the anchor blows, 5 inches is not signicifant (unless, of course, that ledge is 4.75 inches below you....). There does not appear to be a way to simultaneously have smooth load distribution and absolutely zero extension if a point fails. So, we try & find the best compromise between them.

Strong - critically important
Equalized - important
Redundant - very important
No Extension - important

Others may disagree with my priorities here, but the SERENE (or equivalent) ideology is a guide for what you should approach - you may not be able to satisfy every item perfectly...but it's not a bad idea to try.

I do this quite a bit when belaying off bolted belays. I'm not to hesitant about loading two bolts independantly, and in most cases for bolted belays equalization is not life of death (I feel the flames coming already).

Any time I have self built anchor I equalize, but then again I usually have 4+ pieces on my natural anchors so a simple equalette doesn't cut it.

Bolted belays, sure, no big deal.


What? The Equalette is designed for 4-piece anchor systems:
[image]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q22/ecjoe/equalette_4_2.jpg[/image]

FYI,in typical climber's anchor rigging, 5" blow is probably not a significant factor if your working rope is not that far out from the master anchor but , 5" blow in static rigging like high line, or long vertical rescue work can become an issue. For example, 5" blow on El cap where you got a single 1200 feet of fixed line can become several feet of drop at the other end. That is even with low stretch rope which can turn around and blow anchors on top.

I hate to steal a thread, but don't think this question deserves it's own and this is a decently relevant place. I've been seeing these pictures of equalette riggings and keep wondering the same thing:

Why clip only one strand on the "masterpoint" with each 'biner?

I haven't read Long's book, and although I plan to (I loved Luebben's) I was wondering if someone could answer this beforehand.

Bolted belays, sure, no big deal.


What? The Equalette is designed for 4-piece anchor systems:
[image]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q22/ecjoe/equalette_4_2.jpg[/image]

I don't understand the appeal of the 3-4 piece use of the equalette. I don't believe that the equalette effectively distributes the load beyond two pieces. That picture is a perfect example. The 2nd piece from the left probably has no load on it (look at the slight slack in the leg as it twists around the strand from the 1st piece on the left). With shock loading a relative myth when you're connected with a dynamic rope, I put my extra pieces in as back up to a two piece equalette system and don't try to get them equalized. It's obscenely faster, and I don't think there's a real trade off in safety.

Josh

Edit: Referring to picture in post 12.

that is one of the most inefficient four legged anchor I have ever seen. the two side pros almost do nothing . very poorly constricted.

It's so poorly constricted, it's like it's boa constricted.

But in all seriousness, what the fuck are you talking about Majid? Besides the fact that it looks fine, when are you going to realize that most people don't whip out graphing calculators and tape measures every time they place pro? There is a big fucking difference between setting up rigging or doing what ever the fuck you do, and actual climbing.

I think that one of the great disservices to the community has been the use of the term "equalization." Most anchoring systems actually perform "distribution." The load on each piece of the anchor will not be equal except in uncommon circumstances. Rather, our systems should distribute the load onto the pieces in such a way that each piece feels less load than if the fall were directly on it.

That said, the equallette has the advantage of distributing the load between it's two sides, and adjusting to varying directions of pull.