only thing i would change is putting a knot in the section of rope in b/w the two screws. without the knot, the gear pulls or the rope gets cut (however unlikely) the anchor is poop.

with a knot its redundant.

other than that, assuming the ice is good and there's more than a single thread in the ice, gtg.

The ropes coming down from the screws are connected to the powerpoint. One by a screw-gate carabiner and the other going into the fig-8 knot that makes the powerpoint. If the rope you mention gets cut the powerpoint will still be connected to both icescrews. Sorry that the picture is a bit obscured by my sloppy rigging.

If you put a knot in the rope between the ice-screws you do not get dynamic equalization.
The slack I think you have in mind, is there to allow dynamic equalization.
Incorporating both ropes in my self belay gives me a redundant powerpoint.
Maybe it looks complicated, fact is that I rig this in a minute wearing mittens. Knitting a pair of mittens is complicated rope management, rigging this anchor isn't.

alright

let me ask you this

if I get puller and start pulling those ice screws out (one by one), How many KN do you think it requires to pull them out ?

alright

let me ask you this

if I get puller and start pulling those ice screws out (one by one), How many KN do you think it requires to pull them out ?

sorry, you aren't obsessed by it. like i said, its prob fine.

but my way won't put all the force on one piece, either- fairs fair.

I probably would have lowered the power point. Looks like the angle is close to 90*.

I probably would have lowered the power point. Looks like the angle is close to 90*.

The question of equalization vs. shock loading may never get answered. It seems to be an even more convoluted question with ice screws as far as I can tell. I just did a quick search and came up with a paper I hadn't read before.
http://www.mra.org/..._IceScrews_Final.pdf
They did some drop tests at Ouray. Seems that screws can fail anywhere between 4 and 15kN in 'good' ice. Experience in placing screws is perhaps more important than for placing rock gear.

With FF2 drops they never got above 9kN which is probably due to the maximum impact force properties of the ropes. The data points over 9kN and up to 14kN were FF1+ and the highest were FF1.4+ in simulated lead falls.

Given that seemingly well placed screws can fail at surprisingly low loads means that answering the equalization vs. shock loading question could be of great value. It also shows that the pulley effect must also be taken into account when planning for the worst case scenario.

That' my only real comment, though I would have clove-hitched the screws.

The screws are clove hitched. It says so in the first post: "two clove hitches".

when i tie anchors like this i use a double loop knot (usually an 8, though a bowline on a bight works too).

i also try and incorporate as much "stance" into alpine anchors as possible, which helps the most with a pendulum. though, for the second the fall will pull from the last piece of pro (a known place), and the pull for the leader will be from the first piece of pro (a piece one can take a good guess about). and a ff2? well, that will pull straight down.

again, i want to stress that i would prob climb on it, and have climbed on similar anchors before. i was just saying what i would have done differently in a similar situation. not saying yours is wrong, just saying i apparently have different priorities (apparently).

I wouldn't call shockloading a myth*. It's a question of knowing in what situations shock loading is dangerous. Rigging an anchor with dyneema and clipping to it with a dyneema sling would make shock loading a worry whereas using dynamic materials may reduce the effect. It's understanding the transition between the two regimes that needs to be explored.

Although, tbh, if I'm reading the situation right you are leading on twins or doubles, right?
I would have cloved one to each screw, then just sat back and belayed off myself. Though having said that, this will be my first season with an autoblocker so my tactics will probably be changing.

The way shockloading has been hyped here at this forum is worthy of mythology imho.
The anchor has no static components, myth or not, there is not much more I can do to take the myth into consideration. Maximum equalization between two good placements is the method I chose to avoid shock loading. The question is, do I know what constitutes a good ice-screw placement?

Edited to add quote tags

Yes and no, it is a 1/1 rope and a 1/2 rope. Used as doubles.

What if you collected the ropes between you and the screws and tied a fig 8 on a bight on it? Then you could have one rope run through a carabiner in this powerpoint. If the leader where to fall on the anchor you would not have him hanging only from your belayloop and belay carabiner. One rope would go directly to the leader and one rope upward, through the powerpoint, and then to the leader.