|
ptlong
Mar 4, 2010, 12:49 AM
Post #26 of 59
(4044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
You can most definately use an equalette to anchor to two pieces. Your memory of Long's book serves you well in this case at least.
If you took the time to search you would discover that this subject has been repeatedly discussed in various forums (and blogs). There have been many thousands of posts.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 4, 2010, 12:53 AM
Post #27 of 59
(4036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
ptlong wrote: You can most definately use an equalette to anchor to two pieces. Your memory of Long's book serves you well in this case at least. If you took the time to search you would discover that this subject has been repeatedly discussed in various forums (and blogs). There have been many thousands of posts.
That's the problem. Overdiscussed and over analysed. Josh's anchor is a simple, elegant and adequate in the hands of an experienced climber. It's good to overengineer an anchor when you're new, but once you know what's up, it's excessive. 7mm perlon is bulky.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Mar 4, 2010, 12:56 AM
Post #28 of 59
(4033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Yes, I realize that. I've read some of those threads, and Long's book. I was just curious about his definition because he was saying my setup wasn't an equalette. It is, except for how I clip the carabiners at the bottom. However, despite this small difference, I would still call what I use an equalette. Thanks for your recommendation, though.
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Mar 4, 2010, 1:01 AM
Post #29 of 59
(4029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
Josh, it isn't an equalette. You can call it that but the fact remains that it is a sliding X. If you read Long's book you would remember that he clearly distinguishes between the two both in form and performance.
Your method was already discussed previously in at least one of those threads. Whether or not it is the way to go is a matter of opinion. For what it's worth I don't like your approach.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 4, 2010, 1:05 AM
Post #30 of 59
(4024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
ptlong wrote: Josh, it isn't an equalette. You can call it that but the fact remains that it is a sliding X. If you read Long's book you would remember that he clearly distinguishes between the two both in form and performance. Your method was already discussed previously in at least one of those threads. Whether or not it is the way to go is a matter of opinion. For what it's worth I don't like your approach.
What's your basis for not liking that approach? 2 equalized pieces plus a backup make you nervous? No benefit from speed?
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Mar 4, 2010, 1:46 AM
Post #31 of 59
(4004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
The limiter knots are so far apart that it doesn't seem to me worth even tying them. I know that they have to be seperated like that because if they were closer like in an equalette they'd have to be adjusted frequently. The equalette, as you recall, is usually adjusted at the far end via clove hitches to the pro.
We could go into an exhaustive discussion about limiter knots, the tradeoffs between equalization and potential loading in a gear failure, whether or not shock loading even exists, the merits and disadvantages of nylon versus spectra, etc, etc, ad nauseum... but that's already been done and then done again and again.
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Mar 4, 2010, 1:46 AM
Post #32 of 59
(4002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
bandycoot wrote: It's been a while since I read it and I thought there were examples in the book where he equalizes two pieces. Maybe there aren't?
He calls it the "Quad", and is essentially your standard cord (7mm X 20') twisting it once over to make it doubled, then tie your limiter knots.
Look a little more than half way down this page to see the Equalette and the Quad described and shown:
http://splitterclimbinggear.com/Anchors.html
(This post was edited by acorneau on Mar 4, 2010, 1:50 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 4, 2010, 1:55 AM
Post #33 of 59
(3996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
ptlong wrote: The limiter knots are so far apart that it doesn't seem to me worth even tying them. I know that they have to be seperated like that because if they were closer like in an equalette they'd have to be adjusted frequently. The equalette, as you recall, is usually adjusted at the far end via clove hitches to the pro. We could go into an exhaustive discussion about limiter knots, the tradeoffs between equalization and potential loading in a gear failure, whether or not shock loading even exists, the merits and disadvantages of nylon versus spectra, etc, etc, ad nauseum... but that's already been done and then done again and again.
Ok, I'll just stick to speed=safety then.
|
|
|
|
|
rschap
Mar 4, 2010, 1:58 AM
Post #34 of 59
(3994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 592
|
"adatesman wrote: Two other people that come to mind would be Fish and Rschap (who just got himself a dynamometer and may be able to be talked into doing the test). -a.
A couple of my search and rescue friends have been testing stuff with my dynos, if Fish falls through I could throw it in the pile. I don’t get the accuracy Aric does but it does the job. PM me if you want to send it to me.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 4, 2010, 3:02 AM
Post #35 of 59
(3973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
I totally agree with your assessment of the equalette and have stated your same reasons on other threads. Your way of anchoring is plenty simple and efficient enough for me. Like I said, most of the time I'll use the rope. The mooselette hardly fits into the needs of many belay anchors but to me it's simple for somewhat equalizing 3 pieces. If the situation calls for it, I'll use it, most belays, not. If all I get is 2 pieces, so be it, I'll work with what I got.
They're all situational anyway.
Climb On
Moose
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Mar 4, 2010, 6:22 AM
Post #36 of 59
(3939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
ptlong,
I completely understand where you're coming from. There are so many different ways to view anchoring, and a lot boils down to personal perception and opinion. It seems like you value the equalization and prevention of extension more than me. I don't view them as significant problems. I remember vaguely from either Long's book or one of the threads that my way of attaching the carabiner (sliding x) results in sub-optimal equalization. However, it will still result in some equalization. I'm only attached to the anchor via the climbing rope, as are my partners. If one leg blows, then the extension of 6-10" doesn't really worry me too much, especially since the majority of my anchors have 3 pieces. In any case, I can totally see your side of the issue. We're just different sides of a short fence.
I guess I just think of it as an equalette because it's so similar in my mind, just marginally reduced equalization. I'll try to clarify in the future to prevent confusion.
Cheers,
Josh
Edit: rschap, thanks for the offer. I'll contact you if I'd like them tested. :)
(This post was edited by bandycoot on Mar 4, 2010, 6:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Mar 4, 2010, 4:34 PM
Post #37 of 59
(3899 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
Josh, you're half right. I value prevention of extension. As for equalization, I think it's pointless in most cases and prefer the simplest and quickest method of anchoring, devoid of specialty doo-dads.
Unless your partner falls on the anchor and all of your pieces suck it's all just fun and games.
edit: I agree with this quote from John Long:
"...the vast majority of belay anchors are built on such bomber individual pieces that complex rigging systems are a waste of effort and time. An A1 placement does not normally fail, and the incidence of three A1 placements (a normal trad belay anchor has three pieces) failing becomes virtually unheard of. Any rigging system will work with A1 placements - that’s why so many trad climbers simply tie in with the rope. The fancier self-equalizing rigging systems are in fact required only in those rare circumstances where the primary placements are poor, the climbing above is unprotected, etc."
(This post was edited by ptlong on Mar 4, 2010, 5:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Mar 4, 2010, 5:11 PM
Post #38 of 59
(3876 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
ptlong wrote: Unless your partner falls on the anchor and all of your pieces suck it's all just fun and games.
Then what happens?
Edit for cheestitesque post.
(This post was edited by johnwesely on Mar 4, 2010, 5:13 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ianmeister89
Mar 4, 2010, 8:08 PM
Post #39 of 59
(3832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2009
Posts: 140
|
moose_droppings wrote: What's so strange about the name. [image][url=http://www.mysmiley.net/free-animal-smileys.php][img]http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animals/animal0024.gif[/img] [image]http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s46/jct54/moosellette.jpg?t=1267602650[/image]
Thanks for all the input guys! If I'm not mistaken , the mooselette isn't anything more than a sliding "W" with a limiter knot on the center piece? Seemingly, most of these new anchors are a bit excessive, but I could see their usefulness in some situations... Moose said something along these lines: "More tools in the toolbox." I couldn't agree more. I probably won't use these tools, but They're good to have, just in case.
Just get out and climb!
-Ian
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Apr 5, 2010, 11:13 PM
Post #41 of 59
(3633 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
moose_droppings wrote: Does anyone that criticizes these simple anchors actually take the short time it takes to try one? An equallette can be a little stifling to someone the first time or two also. Toolbox full of tools dude.
I don't like these anchors because they have significant extension. Extension is BAD as it can result in a significantly increases in load at the worst possible time. The conclusions by John Long that extension isn't a problem have been shown to be wrong.
So remind me why we should universally accept anchors that have extension?
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Apr 5, 2010, 11:24 PM
Post #42 of 59
(3625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
patto wrote: moose_droppings wrote: Does anyone that criticizes these simple anchors actually take the short time it takes to try one? An equallette can be a little stifling to someone the first time or two also. Toolbox full of tools dude. I don't like these anchors because they have significant extension. Extension is BAD as it can result in a significantly increases in load at the worst possible time. The conclusions by John Long that extension isn't a problem have been shown to be wrong. So remind me why we should universally accept anchors that have extension?
Citation please?
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Apr 5, 2010, 11:30 PM
Post #43 of 59
(3622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Please take a look at the first pic I posted in this thread. While there is some extension, it is very small. No one is asking you to except an anchor with extension, but I hope you never need an anchor that can adjust to different directions of pull. You can't have both and this is nothing new to anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Apr 6, 2010, 12:14 AM
Post #44 of 59
(3608 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
johnwesely wrote: Citation please?
The discussion has been done to death. Simply put John Long only considered anchors that had negligable mass attached to the anchor. Testing wasn't necessary, basic high school physics tells you that such anchors wont experience significant increased load.
In contrast any anchor that has a load mass directly to it will experience 'shock loading' at a large multiple of the attached mass. Again this is high school physics.
In practice the belayer will often be the mass attached to the anchor and significant 'shock loading' on extension is likely.
For emperical results:
http://www.shariconglobal.com/...g_Anchor_Systems.pdf
In this testing shock loading increased the load 7.5x and resulted in 15-20kN total on the anchor. This testing isn't exactly representive either because it used a 260kg mass attached to the anchor which clearly is on the high side.
Neither John Longs testing procedure nor this one at all models are real scenario. In a real scenario with a belayer attached to the anchor extension lets assume a shock load multiple of around 5x, this is not unrealistic (though is completely dependent of anchor stretch). If the falling climber loads the anchor at peak 7kN, and the (heavy) belayer is loading it at 1kN, then the extension and resulting peak will be 7kN+1kN*5=13kN as opposed to 7kN+1kN=8kN.
(This post was edited by patto on Apr 6, 2010, 1:00 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
thechef
Apr 6, 2010, 12:41 AM
Post #45 of 59
(3593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2005
Posts: 11
|
Good God,
20ft of 7mm cord
20 wasted minutes
Way too much gear needed.
Just use the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 6, 2010, 3:45 AM
Post #47 of 59
(3562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
moose_droppings wrote: Please take a look at the first pic I posted in this thread. While there is some extension, it is very small. No one is asking you to except an anchor with extension, but I hope you never need an anchor that can adjust to different directions of pull. You can't have both and this is nothing new to anyone.
Hey Moose, in the pic you posted there are no biners, so the extension would be pretty big.
The version of the mooselette I use is posted upthread a post or two. It has minimal extension. The CharlesJMM anchor has even less, and while it doesn't equalize as well as the moose, it's a hell of a lot better job of or equalizing than the equalette, or quad, or whatever the hell JL calls it.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Apr 6, 2010, 4:03 AM
Post #48 of 59
(3556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
cracklover wrote: Hey Moose, in the pic you posted there are no biners, so the extension would be pretty big. The version of the mooselette I use is posted upthread a post or two. It has minimal extension. The CharlesJMM anchor has even less, and while it doesn't equalize as well as the moose, it's a hell of a lot better job of or equalizing than the equalette, or quad, or whatever the hell JL calls it. GO
Gabe,
Take a close look at the two loops that go back to the biners on the outer two pieces. Now if you lose any one piece of pro there is hardly any extension, though it does cut down a little on the available arc at the PP from side to side. The knot on the middle leg in the pic is just the knot tying the two ends of the cord together. Something I figured out at a hanging belay one time. A couple less biners than the original.
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Apr 6, 2010, 4:04 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Apr 6, 2010, 4:26 AM
Post #49 of 59
(3548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
thechef wrote: Good God, 20ft of 7mm cord
Yeah, 20' of 7mm can't be used for anything else either, so what a waste. It's awfully heavy too.
In reply to: 20 wasted minutes
Doesn't take anyone that's tried a time or two no twenty minutes and you shouldn't be trying it for your first time midclimb.
In reply to: Way too much gear needed.
Outside of the 7mm cord, nothing extra. What do you use if you've already used up all the rope and all your slings just to get where you are? Tic toc tic toc tic toc.
I understand where your coming from and I use the rope to anchor in with too at times. The rope alone isn't a solve all solution. Neither is this way.
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Apr 6, 2010, 5:11 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
thechef
Apr 6, 2010, 4:39 AM
Post #50 of 59
(3545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2005
Posts: 11
|
"The rope alone isn't a solve all solution. Neither is this way. "
Very true indeed.
The moose seems to be a anchor most likely seen in a wall arena, not so much for the fast and light free climb.
Belay changes are where you lose valuable time, the simpler the better.
Honestly though, how often do you run out of rope on an established route?
|
|
|
|
|
|
