There are threads galore about anchor building with sliding X's, cordelettes, equalettes, stupidlettes, and every other gizmo under the sun. Anchor books skim over the good old days when cave men in lycra or EBs simply used the climbing rope for building anchors. When they are described, they are always described at a disadvantage because they are presumably static with poor load distribution among anchor points. There is a strong contingent of climbers who eschew the 'lettes in favor of the rope.

For those who prefer to use the climbing rope, what is your preferred rope anchor design when in these two "ideal" conditions:
1. 3 bomber nuts in a vertical crack with a fourth set for an upward pull

2. 3 bomber cams in a horizontal crack

In scenario #1, I generally figure-8 to the top-most piece and clove hitch the remaining pieces trying my best to equalize them.

In scenario #2, I tend to focus on the two strongest pieces and tie in with a bowline on a bight and clove hitch the third somewhat snugly.

I'm curious what others typically do since most all of my partners use cords and slings in mystifying configurations.

For the bazillioneth time, here's what I do with horizontal pieces.

Thanks for the post (even if it was excessively redundant to what you have posted in the past). I was hoping for dialogue rather than a search.

If I recall, you said you climb most frequently on doubles ropes. What, if anything, changes with the configuration you've posted if you are on doubles?

My favorite way is almost exactly what you have pictured, except in opposite order...

I clove myself in to the first piece (the right piece in your picture), bowline on a bight to the second and third, clove the end of that back to my belay loop, master point is the same as in your picture.

It's quicker for the team if you can clove in to a bomber piece and go off belay, that way you can continue to construct the rest of the anchor while your belayer is doing stuff on his/her end of things.

I used to do that as well, until my bomber first piece wasn't as bomber as I thought. Though I was on a decent ledge, it still shook me up a bit (having called off belay already but only in a single piece that didn't hold so well). Yep, it should have been bomber before I trusted it, but at times it can be deceiving. The rock broke, in this case.

Since then, I have always tied the bowline on a bight first. I'm not convinced it slows me down enough to consider going back.

From my understanding of them, all three do an adequate job of dividing the forces between three pieces. All three anchors will, in an average case, put half the force on one of the pieces, and split the remaining load on the other two pieces. None attempt to split the load evenly between all three pieces. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just worth noting.

The Bazillianchor: One or two knots, and four clove hitches.

That second knot is just an illustration of something that might be done with the slack rope, so for comparison purposes you should say one knot if a power point is desired or else no knots if the biner at position 3 in the diagram is clipped to the tie-in knot loop. But, as indicated in the diagram, if you want to engage the entire anchor while escaping the belay, then you'll need another biner and another clove hitch.

It seems to me that of the three, the Bazillianchor would require more time than the other two for setup and breakdown, due to the number of knots and cloves.

A few benefits I see to my method owing to the fact that the figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x is the only one of the three that incorporates any dynamic equalization.

It might provide slightly better equalization between the two shared pieces than the other methods in all generic cases when the leader doesn't get the cloves perfectly equalized.

It could provide significantly better equalization if a load were to come unexpectedly from one side. Both other anchor methods would always feel the entire force on only one piece: the outer piece opposite the direction of load. The fig-8 on a bight plus sliding-x, however, in the same situation, could distribute forces between the middle and outer pieces.

If the piece feeling half the load on any of the three anchor methods were to fail, the method incorporating the sliding x would most likely do the best in distributing the load equally between the two remaining pieces, making further cascade failure less likely.

And a few (minor?) negatives...

However this is a selective case since you decided which piece would fail, if you randomly select a piece to fail you have a 2 in 3 chance the failed sliding X makes the situation worse. Since the objective in building belays is generally not to achieve the optimum solution for one case but to get the best solution for most or all cases then the X is clearly not desirable.

I don´t understand the reason for building a power-point into the belay, the belayers tie-in/belay loop is the focal point for the loads in multi-pitch trad climbing unless the belay points are of unquestionable strength in which case any methor of tying to them is acceptable. If escapingthe system is nescessary there are other ways of doing this.

The second one is good to go, that´s the sort-of usual traditional way to do it but with the powerpoint/adjustable length/escape issue neatly worked out.
Have a prize!

I agree with Jim about the power point; I put it in my diagram mostly so I wouldn't have to argue about it not being there. I rarely tie it.