|
jt512
Nov 9, 2009, 9:02 PM
Post #1 of 159
(19009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
We haven't had a good anchor analysis thread in a while. I saw this one at New Jack City (of all places) this weekend, and thought it might make for some interesting discussion. A climber had rigged this as a TR anchor for his kids. What do you guys think? (Click images to enlarge.)
Overview
Detail
|
|
Attachments:
|
overview.jpg
(146 KB)
|
|
|
nut.jpg
(132 KB)
|
|
|
middle2.jpg
(113 KB)
|
|
|
bottom2.jpg
(106 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
swoopee
Nov 9, 2009, 9:13 PM
Post #2 of 159
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Posts: 560
|
No AToD, no rope or slings through bolt hangers, no rotten, termite ridden tree stumps. I would say that it is "good enough". 
|
|
|
|
|
kylekienitz
Nov 9, 2009, 9:21 PM
Post #3 of 159
(18969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Posts: 256
|
In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup. Considering the two pieces were totally bomber and perfectly equalized, it would be alright. However, as it is, if the quickdraws aren't equalized under load then the weight is only on one piece.
I would equalize at least two of those with a sling and then go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
TarHeelEMT
Nov 9, 2009, 9:23 PM
Post #4 of 159
(18961 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724
|
Nothing but quickdraws. Intersting. That certainly gives you no mechanism for equalization, save for moving the primary placements until it's equalized. He's weighting nothing but one piece at a time, and that second draw in the chain coming from the top nut would have a good chance to open right up if the (loaded) piece below it failed - the whole force of it would come down on the gate in an orientation to open it (not to mention shock loading that piece even if the gate doesn't open).
Did you talk to the guy?
(This post was edited by TarHeelEMT on Nov 9, 2009, 9:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
raingod
Nov 9, 2009, 9:27 PM
Post #5 of 159
(18954 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 118
|
Just quickly
The rope end biners are neither opposite or opposed.
One of the 3 pieces is so out of equalization that it will only be weighted if the other fails.
A couple of the biners higher up look to be held gateside to the rock, possibly allowing the gates to be forced open.
I'm not fond of biner to biner chains in this application
|
|
|
|
|
budman
Nov 9, 2009, 9:29 PM
Post #6 of 159
(18949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 170
|
Equalization? Metal to Metal? Opposed biners? It's just Natural Selection at it's Finest. Too bad the kids see this as the what to do it. But for a top rope it will more than likely suffice.
|
|
|
|
|
madscientist
Nov 9, 2009, 9:29 PM
Post #7 of 159
(18949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2002
Posts: 159
|
Cannot really tell if the pieces are placed correctly, so I won't comment on them.
The draws present several problems. The one attached to the nut is close to an edge that may open it and loading the anchor might introduce some forces in a unusual and unwanted directions.
All the black draws clipped to the left anchor has many issues regarding equalization and gate position. The upper nut is not equalized, and failure of the upper cam could result in unclipping of the upper nut. Could of solved the unclipping issue just by clipping into the lower draw, but this still would not make a great anchor.
Not good enough if my kid was climbing on it.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Nov 9, 2009, 9:32 PM
Post #8 of 159
(18938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
U Stem Camalot
Old as dirt nylon slings
Wiregate carabiner clipped to another carabiner
Non existent Equalization
C+/B-
|
|
|
|
|
dagibbs
Nov 9, 2009, 10:18 PM
Post #9 of 159
(18867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2007
Posts: 921
|
Also, how solid is the rock these are in?
I seem to see a second crack coming down from a point a short distance above the upper part of the placement -- is this a flake? How solid/detached is teh flake?
|
|
|
|
|
dolphja
Nov 9, 2009, 10:24 PM
Post #10 of 159
(18858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2001
Posts: 298
|
madscientist wrote: Cannot really tell if the pieces are placed correctly, so I won't comment on them. The draws present several problems. The one attached to the nut is close to an edge that may open it and loading the anchor might introduce some forces in a unusual and unwanted directions. All the black draws clipped to the left anchor has many issues regarding equalization and gate position. The upper nut is not equalized, and failure of the upper cam could result in unclipping of the upper nut. Could of solved the unclipping issue just by clipping into the lower draw, but this still would not make a great anchor. Not good enough if my kid was climbing on it.
i'll totally agree with the madscientist on this one about where the biners are facing, questionable placement and equalization. i'm also kinda wondering where the locker is on this anchor, cause i don't see one.
|
|
|
|
|
IsayAutumn
Nov 9, 2009, 10:45 PM
Post #11 of 159
(18820 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
Bomber.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Nov 9, 2009, 11:06 PM
Post #12 of 159
(18796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
budman wrote: Metal to Metal?
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Nov 9, 2009, 11:08 PM
Post #13 of 159
(18790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
justroberto wrote: budman wrote: Metal to Metal? Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?
Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
TarHeelEMT
Nov 9, 2009, 11:12 PM
Post #14 of 159
(18784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724
|
justroberto wrote: budman wrote: Metal to Metal? Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?
As I understand it, the issue isn't metal on metal, but rather biner on biner - if they get twisted, the gates can press against the other biner and open - a problem that's alleviated by connecting via a sling.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Nov 9, 2009, 11:12 PM
Post #15 of 159
(18782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
TarHeelEMT wrote: Did you talk to the guy?
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Nov 9, 2009, 11:13 PM
Post #16 of 159
(18780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
I think it looks like shit.
If I was building a TR anchor for the typical kid I would probably incorporate a sliding-x/equallette design because most kids that TR don't seem to stay on route. That would probably solve most of the problems here since, other than the placements, it would be a totally different anchor.
I think the main problem is that he didn't make his kids lead it.
Wait, isn't New Jack City a sport crag? Aren't there top anchors already?
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Nov 9, 2009, 11:18 PM
Post #17 of 159
(18767 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
If the direction of pull changes, then one of the legs in the anchor would take no load. If the rope now twist those carabiners 180 degrees, so that the loaded carabiner gets the unloaded quickdraw between itself and the rock, the gate on the loaded carabiner could get forced open.
In that case the anchor would suddenly be somewhat scary since they would be top-roping from one open carabiner, backed up by another carabiner that would have the gate facing the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
bennydh
Nov 9, 2009, 11:18 PM
Post #18 of 159
(18764 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2005
Posts: 368
|
justroberto wrote: TarHeelEMT wrote: Did you talk to the guy? Doubtful. My guess is it's something Jay rigged up and took pictures of to get all the tardies in a tizzy. Now he's sitting back, enjoying the carnage.
I hope that is the case, and that he didn't just mutter ::plonk:: as he snapped photos then continued on his way. 
Anyway... that thing is shit.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Nov 9, 2009, 11:20 PM
Post #19 of 159
(18758 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
You can quibble on all details of the pro and rigging, but it's all just that compared to the real problem here (as a TR setup), which is the lack of opposing gates on rope.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Nov 9, 2009, 11:21 PM
Post #20 of 159
(18756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
johnwesely wrote: justroberto wrote: budman wrote: Metal to Metal? Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse? Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
budman
Nov 9, 2009, 11:32 PM
Post #21 of 159
(18738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 170
|
In the olden days, and yes I'm old, the term metal to metal denoted 2 biners clipped together. As someone mentioned they have a tendency to unclip in certain situations. I will be more diligent in the future with my wording. I suggest you climb with a few crusty old dudes and dudettes so as not to let these things fade away. I surely suffer in the writing department as Sister Mary Agony beat it out of me. And yes I came from a time when that not only was legal but encouraged.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 9, 2009, 11:51 PM
Post #22 of 159
(18697 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
kylekienitz wrote: In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup.
Otherwise known as a 3-piece anchor.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Nov 10, 2009, 12:03 AM
Post #23 of 159
(18675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
justroberto wrote: johnwesely wrote: justroberto wrote: budman wrote: Metal to Metal? Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse? Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves. "Tendency" isn't the word you're looking for. "Minute possibility" is more like it. It would be way down on the list of concerns for the instance above.
It may be a minute possibility, but so what? Why use a locking carabiner for belaying. It is a minute possibility that it will come undone. It is a top rope anchor. If the route wanders, the thing will jiggle around, and the biners could unclip. I agree with you that it is not the biggest issue with the anchor. The biggest issue is that Jay probably set the thing up himself.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Nov 10, 2009, 12:13 AM
Post #24 of 159
(18662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
cam looks good.
the other side of the anchor (nut and cam) is fine, but the nose of more than one carabiner facing the rock on that arm is worrisome. those two pieces could have been clipped together at the end of the draw on the nut for pretty good equalization- then slung down to the power point for a less cluttered arm.
as for the non-opposed- i'd rather have the gates facing away from the rock in this instance. i'd have also put a locker or two in there, depending on my mood.
of course, as a TR anchor...the gates against the rock is somewhat worrisome, but in all reality, probably not that big of a deal as even open gate, the forces on the anchor arent going to touch the open gate strengths anyway. and you'd have to really get bouncing on that thing to worry about the biner to biner connections...meh, it works. easy enough to clean it up and make it worry free, though.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 10, 2009, 12:25 AM
Post #25 of 159
(18640 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
johnwesely wrote: The biggest issue is that Jay probably set the thing up himself.
I didn't set the anchor up. It was an actual top rope anchor set up by another climber, as I wrote in the OP.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
