... One comment, the same one people gave mine. If the cord is cut anywhere outside of the leg that is tied in a loop, the whole thing comes undone. I modified mine with two more knotted loops that got clipped which would prevent that...

Could you provide a more detailed description for your system or a link to a previous post? I’m curious. I did run some searches on your username but you’re pretty prolific and I did not find it.

About a year ago I got back into trad leading after yet another longish interruption and read the Long&Gaines book to refresh my memory and get up to date on advances. I really got caught up in the whole srene belay anchor thing. Before diving into the large threads on this topic mentioned in the book, I wanted to see what I might come up with. I quickly (re-)discovered the idea used by Paul Raphaelson and others of turning the sliding X upside-down and extending the loop upward to make the middle arm of a 3-pro anchor sling. However, I also saw the shortcomings that, for the self-equalization to work, the cord must be able to run through the biner of each individual pro (or at least through 2 out of 3, as in the ACR system), which eliminates the possibility of internal redundancy and extension limitation.

I eventually came up with what I felt at first was a significant improvement that maintained the dynamic self-equalization while incorporating internal redundancy and low-extension characteristics, and with a reasonably even load distribution of 37.5-25-37-5. I then started trawling through the threads and found the ACR, the Trango Alpine Equalizer, and others. I also found a description of a neat « binary » system (ie 2 arms off of the central biner that can each be subdivided into two), similar to the Long&Gaines equalette but with better characteristics for dynamic self-equalization. This was described, if I remember correctly, in a healyje post. The binary nature of this system (and of the equalette) means that, for a 3-pro anchor, you get a 50-25-25 or 25-50-25 load distribution (assuming that the angles are sharp enough to be ignored), which is also what you get by stacking two sliding Xs.

I liked the more even distribution that I was getting out of my system but, after further testing, I realized that there were a few too many little things that one needed to pay attention to while setting it up in order to allow it to work optimally. A full description of the basic set-up and the various « little things » in a post would have been quite lengthy and I could just picture getting flamed on the length of the post alone, never mind the unorthodox look of the system.

I also had to admit that 37.5-25-37-5 is not really that much better than 50-25-25 or 25-50-25. For most 3-pro anchors, there is going to be at least one bombproof one on which to clip the « 50 » arm and, for those situations, I concluded that I was happy simply using stacked, extension-limited sliding Xs (except that I use my « sliding double X » instead to avoid the clutch effect and improve the dynamic self-equalization). I also figured that if not a single one of the 3 pros were super-bombproof, it would be a fine time to place a 4th one and go for a 25-25-25-25 load distribution instead. I have not yet found anything better than « healyje-like » systems for this situation, nailing the whole dynamic self-equilization/redunda. They nail the whole dynamic self-equalization/redundancy/low-extention thing right on. Unfortunately, they require quite a lot of 7mm cord.

Anyway, I look forward to checking out any other systems that I may have missed in my searches.

I'm not smart enough to start calculating that one out...and it does look nice and fancy, but I see a lot of obtuse angles happening there. I see the benefit of the extension limiting setup, but aren't you creating unnecessarily high loads in your anchor? Just trying to understand all these different anchor setups. I'm still new to trad (spoken "I have no idea what i'm doing") so I say this as a learner.

I'm not smart enough to start calculating that one out...and it does look nice and fancy, but I see a lot of obtuse angles happening there. I see the benefit of the extension limiting setup, but aren't you creating unnecessarily high loads in your anchor? Just trying to understand all these different anchor setups. I'm still new to trad (spoken "I have no idea what i'm doing") so I say this as a learner.

Then stick to tried-and-true and let those of us who've been at it for a while work on the cutting edge stuff.

Thanks, that's really useful advice. I didn't intend for the question to be a personal insult. Hell, I even threw in the newbie line.

Thanks Cracklover. I'd come across the name "mooselette" before but not the description. Now, this does better than the ACR, Trango, etc. on the extension limitation thanks to the two biners linking the centre arm to the outside ones but there is still no internal redundancy. Cut the cord at any point on either of these arms and the whole thing goes or am I missing something?

Thanks Cracklover. I'd come across the name "mooselette" before but not the description. Now, this does better than the ACR, Trango, etc. on the extension limitation thanks to the two biners linking the centre arm to the outside ones but there is still no internal redundancy. Cut the cord at any point on either of these arms and the whole thing goes or am I missing something?

Now with your system, it's the extension in case one of the outside pieces pops that's a bit long for my taste. So I guess if I combine your back-up loops for redundancy and the mooselette's extension-limiting biners I'll get the best of both worlds.

So I guess if I combine your back-up loops for redundancy and the mooselette's extension-limiting biners I'll get the best of both worlds.

Thanks, that's really useful advice. I didn't intend for the question to be a personal insult. Hell, I even threw in the newbie line.