|
lagarita
Sep 2, 2005, 3:35 AM
Post #1 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 356
|
Iv'e been searching through all the old threads about anchors. Although some of them got some people fired up; I found that the "what's wrong with this anchor" quizes were very helpful.
Someone also mention that it would a good addition to the list of forums, considering the importance of anchors in climbing. Just a thought.
Anyway, if anyone has any pictures of anchors that people could analyze for problems please submit them.
Yes, I am a beginner but please don't submit anchors that obviously would have no place in climbing.
Sean :?
|
|
|
|
|
lagarita
Sep 4, 2005, 4:48 AM
Post #2 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 356
|
Know one out there has any Good anchor Pictures?
|
|
|
|
|
sava6e
Sep 4, 2005, 6:04 AM
Post #4 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2004
Posts: 214
|
whoa! whats with the cam, its kinda hard to tell form the pics but looks cross loaded
|
|
|
|
|
sava6e
Sep 4, 2005, 6:05 AM
Post #5 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2004
Posts: 214
|
whoa! whats with the cam, its kinda hard to tell form the pics but looks cross loaded
|
|
|
|
|
anykineclimb
Sep 4, 2005, 6:13 AM
Post #6 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 3593
|
Nice, that anchor looks good. My only reccomendation would be to add another biner. You know, one of those big steel rescue kind? and ladder biner would be ideal but you'll have to work with what you have.
keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Sep 4, 2005, 7:13 AM
Post #7 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
In reply to: whoa! whats with the cam, its kinda hard to tell form the pics but looks cross loaded
What are you f'n serious..."it's kind of hard to tell from the pic". :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: if your serious you win the stupid award.
Looks bomber :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
lagarita
Sep 4, 2005, 4:19 PM
Post #8 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 356
|
Okclimbermatt, it looks like there is a quickdraw to the right of the cam, whats it connected to?
I was going to agree with sava6e, the cam does look cross loaded from the look of the picture. But that doesn't explain why the cam looks placed properly in the rock. Maybe part of the rock is blacked out. Please explain.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
joentia
Sep 4, 2005, 4:27 PM
Post #9 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2005
Posts: 11
|
i think this kinda thread is a very good idea, everyone can learn from each other about the differnt types of anchors. putting pics up is a damn good idea
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Sep 4, 2005, 4:40 PM
Post #10 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
In reply to: Okclimbermatt, it looks like there is a quickdraw to the right of the cam, whats it connected to? I was going to agree with sava6e, the cam does look cross loaded from the look of the picture. But that doesn't explain why the cam looks placed properly in the rock. Maybe part of the rock is blacked out. Please explain. Sean
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you are serious, then you have a ton of learning to do. If you're playing along, you play the part of n00b impeccably.
|
|
|
|
|
lagarita
Sep 4, 2005, 7:56 PM
Post #11 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 356
|
[quote :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you are serious, then you have a ton of learning to do. If you're playing along, you play the part of n00b impeccably.
Well, climbinginchico. Could you please explain how this anchor is set up.
Yes, I have a lot to learn and that's also why I posted this thread in the beginners forum.
Thankyou for your support.
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Sep 4, 2005, 9:51 PM
Post #12 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
In reply to: [quote :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: If you are serious, then you have a ton of learning to do. If you're playing along, you play the part of n00b impeccably.
Well, climbinginchico. Could you please explain how this anchor is set up.
Yes, I have a lot to learn and that's also why I posted this thread in the beginners forum.
Thankyou for your support.
That cam is placed like you would wedge a stopper.
|
|
|
|
|
devonick
Sep 4, 2005, 10:04 PM
Post #13 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2005
Posts: 298
|
i think that the cam in that photo is not just cross loaded, its not even placed right at all, if you look at the arm of the cam they are not cammed at all, i think that whoever placed it did not actually use that as a top rope,
the quick draw out the side is the draw of the cam
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Sep 4, 2005, 10:52 PM
Post #15 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: In reply to: Please explain. In a whisper...pssst... over here. Yeah you. Shh, don't tell anyone I told you, but that photo is a joke. G:roll: |
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 4, 2005, 11:47 PM
Post #16 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
harrumph.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
sava6e
Sep 5, 2005, 12:41 AM
Post #17 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2004
Posts: 214
|
so wtf you who disagree wiht me are saying that cam is fine, damn just remind me never to climb with you. geniouses in no way does it even meet 1 requirement of SRENE.
|
|
|
|
|
handtraverse
Sep 5, 2005, 1:30 AM
Post #19 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2005
Posts: 153
|
I think that picture is dangerously misleading as far as anything safe goes. That cam is definately laying out unloaded (not in the rock) and to REALLY understand the anchor arrangement merely by looking at the picture, one must have either a good imagination or E.S.P. of some sort. The picture has nothing to offer.
What' this picture really all about???? :roll:
Handtraverse
____________________________________________
"Mountains are not fair or unfair - they are just dangerous." - Reinhold Messner
|
|
|
|
|
lagarita
Sep 6, 2005, 3:01 AM
Post #20 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 356
|
Well, now that has been determined, does anyone else have another anchor to put up for critique.
|
|
|
|
|
devkrev
Sep 6, 2005, 10:02 PM
Post #21 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 933
|
oh, me!ME!ME!me!
http://devkrev.redmartian.org/anchor.jpg
pretty much 2 peices are statically equalized and the stopper is then tied off with a third sling, all powerpointed together, I can already think of a couple of issues with this anchor but I would like to hear whatelse some folks have to say
later
dev
|
|
|
|
|
lagarita
Sep 7, 2005, 2:01 AM
Post #22 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 356
|
Ok, I'l go first. The only thing I'd say would be not to put all your pro in one crack, if it is only option so be it. Also, is it me or does that flex cam look over camed?
What were you using the anchor for?
|
|
|
|
|
foilball
Sep 7, 2005, 2:35 AM
Post #23 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2004
Posts: 29
|
All the Pro in one crack
None of the placements seem that great, particularly the cam, while well cammed is in a flarred crack and doesn't seem to have the best surface area on the top. I can't tell what the deal is with the stopper or hex or whatever is the far climbers left piece.
Also two pieces seem equalized but not the third.
|
|
|
|
|
foilball
Sep 7, 2005, 2:38 AM
Post #24 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2004
Posts: 29
|
Is the beiner facing the rock a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
4togo
Sep 7, 2005, 3:04 AM
Post #25 of 88
(12909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 134
|
How about changing those wiregates out for lockers?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 7, 2005, 3:35 AM
Post #26 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Looks fine to me. From left to right:
1 - The cam: Bomber. Textbook placement - about 80% cammed, in a parallel crack, and right up against a wall in the back so it can't walk out of position. I'd give it a score of 10 out of 10.
2 - The tricam: The size is appropriate to the crack, the direction of pull is correct, the nose appears to be behind some sort of rugosity in the rock, and the rails have full contact with the rock. Score - 10/10.
3 - The nut: The size is appropriate, but there are several problems with this piece. A - the direction of force does not seem to be the direction the nut is placed in, so a hard fall would torque the piece - can you anticipate what would happen? Without seeing the details of what the crack looks/feels like on the inside, I certainly wouldn't merit a guess. B - The crack the nut is in appears to constrict in two directions - towards the outside, and to the left. Unfortunately, since the central point of the anchor is to the right of this piece, a fall will pull it *away* from the constriction to the left, and *towards* the wider section. C - The constriction appears to be pretty slight - is the nut set hard enough that it won't just jiggle out? Is the constriction even enough to assure you that the nut won't pull right out? From what I can tell, I'd give the nut a 5/10.
Everything else:
- Non-locking biners are fine on individual pieces.
- Hard to tell if anything is equalized without seeing the whole anchor. It doesn't look like there's tension on all the strands, though.
- Redundancy is good with three pieces.
- The crack looks like it's part of a major feature. Unless the bottom part shows that it is disconnected outside of the frame of the picture, I wouldn't be too concerned about all three pieces in one crack.
- Too many red pieces. More variety in color please. ;)
Overall, from what I can tell - 7/10
GO
|
|
|
|
|
salamanizer
Sep 7, 2005, 3:56 AM
Post #27 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2004
Posts: 879
|
I give this anchor creativity points. Though obviously inadiquate and lacking redundency in every reguard, one must remember that every situation is not always ideal and sooner or later there comes a time when you don't have exactly what you need. Now, depending on the situation (difficulty of climb, stance of belayer, how well the second has the climb in hand etc...) this anchor is certainly better than nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
devonick
Sep 7, 2005, 5:06 AM
Post #28 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2005
Posts: 298
|
i like the second anchor set up because
a- it has 3 peices of gear
b- that cam looks pretty bomber to me
c- it is well colour coordinated
although i probably wouldnt use single nonlocking biners they are fine and i also probably would have put that nut there maybey a cam on the angle even though the crack is slightly flaring away from the nut.
generally i think this anchor could do with a couple of minor readjustments but it is fairly good
|
|
|
|
|
devkrev
Sep 7, 2005, 11:28 AM
Post #29 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 933
|
yeah, thats what I thought.
The rock is absolutely bomber (gunks quartzite) so that wasn't an issue. This anchor was set at the top of the cliffs, so had someone been leading off it I would've used a cordellete or something.
The stopper was bomber, the way the rock contoured around it, I would have to torque it pretty far to the right for it to come out.
The whole reason I took the photo was because the color coordination :-)
later
dev
|
|
|
|
|
aikibujin
Sep 7, 2005, 1:17 PM
Post #30 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 408
|
The idea behind threads like this is nice, but the technology isn't there. Unless we can post high resolution holograpic 3-dimensional photos in which we are free to pan/zoom in/zoom out/rotate/spin without any loss of detail, so we can look at the placement and the rock much like we can in real life (surprise surprise). Anything less than that is an exercise in futility, you only get educated guesses at best, based on low-resolution flat photos in which you can hardly tell with certainty how each piece is interacting with the rock.
I understand it's a nice way to pass time at work/school/home/whenever you are, but to really learn anything from it, you need to do this exercise at the crag.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Sep 7, 2005, 1:28 PM
Post #31 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
^^ Oh, I don't know... I've learned a lot about this thread from the shot of the Forged Friend levered into the crack. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Sep 7, 2005, 2:14 PM
Post #32 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
I'm so proud, people are trolling for me.
I guess I'm moving up in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
tirroth
Sep 14, 2005, 2:53 PM
Post #33 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2005
Posts: 17
|
so has anyone notice that he placed a biner in one of the cam heads?
I am also guessing on this but did he place the quickdraw on the other end of the cam?
|
|
|
|
|
franko
Sep 28, 2005, 3:29 AM
Post #34 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2005
Posts: 73
|
[quote="tirroth"]
The biggest problem with this placement is that he uses a solid shaft cam. If he had used a felxible shaft cam instead, the shaft would flex and dynamically absorb some of the energy of a long leader fall, & thus be less likely to rip out.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Sep 28, 2005, 4:20 AM
Post #35 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
ok, 2 issues
First with the single cam anchor, I think it does satisfy part of serene because there are about 8 biners and 3 slings, if that's not redundant I don't know what is.
Second, where do you guys get off calling this a rigid stemmed cam? That looks like an old school flex stem to me, kinda like the old bd's so it would flex to absorb some of the force
:D
|
|
|
|
|
reunionron
Sep 28, 2005, 4:36 AM
Post #37 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 74
|
Definitely multi-directional, might want a few more biners. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Sep 28, 2005, 5:06 AM
Post #38 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
In reply to: Second, where do you guys get off calling this a rigid stemmed cam? That looks like an old school flex stem to me, kinda like the old bd's so it would flex to absorb some of the force :D
It very much looks like a forged friend. Zoom in a bit and you'll see it's quite rigid.
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Sep 28, 2005, 5:09 AM
Post #39 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
Biner on biner is generally a bad idea. Other than that... what are those things your nuts are on? They don't look like hangerless bolts, are they rock features?
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Sep 28, 2005, 6:11 AM
Post #40 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
kobaz wrote:
In reply to: what are those things your nuts are on?
ahh how many times have I been asked that? :D
and you are right, i didn't look closely enough at the cam it is a rigid stem, so maybe we should back it up, or at least add another biner
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Sep 28, 2005, 6:13 AM
Post #41 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
In reply to: kobaz wrote: In reply to: what are those things your nuts are on? ahh how many times have I been asked that? :D
I dont know, I've never seen your picture before, and noone asked on this thread yet except for me.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 28, 2005, 12:46 PM
Post #42 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I assume you mean the anchor on the left, yes?
You've got a reverso set up on it - does that mean you actually used this POS?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
pinkydancer
Sep 28, 2005, 12:51 PM
Post #43 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Posts: 29
|
Oh he used it all right- I was like 'WTF' when I came up around the rock at the top.
:lol:
That was an awesome anchor. 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Sep 28, 2005, 1:19 PM
Post #44 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
Ah chicken heads, you gotta' love them!
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Sep 28, 2005, 1:42 PM
Post #45 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
lagarita: get john long's book(s) on climbing anchors. tons-0-analysis! and pic's too!
|
|
|
|
|
nurocks
Sep 28, 2005, 1:48 PM
Post #46 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2003
Posts: 788
|
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photo/photo_show.php?list_sort=highest_first&list_keyword=&list_category=0&list_filter_user_id=&list_comment_user_id=&list_per_page=25&list_album_id=&list_CountryStateID=&list_AreaID=&list_SectionID=&list_mode=my&list_period=None&list_start=6&id=61867
http://Left arm of anchor...http://www.rockclimbing.com/photo/photo_show.php?list_sort=highest_first&list_keyword=&list_category=0&list_filter_user_id=&list_comment_user_id=&list_per_page=25&list_album_id=&list_CountryStateID=&list_AreaID=&list_SectionID=&list_mode=my&list_period=None&list_start=10&id=61868
http://Right arm of achor...http://www.rockclimbing.com/photo/photo_show.php?list_sort=highest_first&list_keyword=&list_category=0&list_filter_user_id=&list_comment_user_id=&list_per_page=25&list_album_id=&list_CountryStateID=&list_AreaID=&list_SectionID=&list_mode=my&list_period=None&list_start=3&id=61869
Entire anchor...
I have watched these threads for a while now...and have been curious to post a pic or two of my own. These were aimed at being excessive, rather than sketchy...let me know what y'all think.
Jason
edit...trying to make pictures work. It's been almost a year since I have posted pics in a thread. If this doesn't work...Could someone point me in the direction of how to do it? The search function isn't working well at all.
|
|
|
|
|
pinkydancer
Sep 28, 2005, 2:02 PM
Post #47 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Posts: 29
|
Hm picture post didn't work for me either nurocks. : P
|
|
|
|
|
lagarita
Sep 28, 2005, 2:25 PM
Post #48 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 356
|
reg: I actually just picked up mountaineering FOH, but I'll consider getting that as well. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 28, 2005, 4:22 PM
Post #49 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I believe this is what you meant to say:
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Sep 28, 2005, 4:54 PM
Post #50 of 88
(11782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: I believe this is what you meant to say:
JL
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 28, 2005, 6:17 PM
Post #51 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
And Nurocks - the only obvious thing wrong with that anchor is that it looks like it'd take a long time to set up and break down.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
taino
Sep 28, 2005, 6:44 PM
Post #53 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
F'in double post...
T
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 28, 2005, 7:02 PM
Post #54 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: The only quibble I have is that, on the left arm, the cam and the tricam (on the right) are over the 90-degree mark.
Actually, I don't think they are. I think the almost straight-on perspective causes foreshortening in the angle. If you look at the last pic, they look like they have an angle closer to around 65 degrees.
Still - fine with me either way, since the amount of load those pieces are likely to feel is pretty small, and even if for some reason both those pieces blow, you've got a perfectly good other piece on that arm of the anchor, and no extension.
If I really wanted to quibble, I'd be more curious to try to figure out the forces generated by that wierd american-triangle looking situation of the blue spectra sling connecting the three pieces on the left-hand arm. But... I've gotta get back to work! Clearly, the right arm gets half the force, and the left arm gets half the force. Inside the right arm, the load is shared more or less equally between the two pieces. But how the force is distributed amongst the pieces that make up the left arm is more complicated. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
devonick
Sep 28, 2005, 9:47 PM
Post #55 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2005
Posts: 298
|
im also thinking about how not so great that webbing is on the gate of the biner (snaplink?) on the right arm,
i dont htink i would trust this entirely there is a less gear intensive way of doing it that would be safer in my eves such as a simple 3 anchor set up instead of 5 peices of gear unless the rock is real crappy there this anchor is a little over kill and the slings and angles of some peices give me the shits
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Sep 29, 2005, 4:33 AM
Post #56 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: im also thinking about how not so great that webbing is on the gate of the biner (snaplink?) on the right arm,
In reply to: i dont htink i would trust this entirely there is a less gear intensive way of doing it that would be safer in my eves such as a simple 3 anchor set up instead of 5 peices of gear unless the rock is real crappy there this anchor is a little over kill and the slings and angles of some peices give me the s---
JL
|
|
|
|
|
nurocks
Sep 29, 2005, 2:29 PM
Post #57 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2003
Posts: 788
|
In reply to: If I really wanted to quibble, I'd be more curious to try to figure out the forces generated by that wierd american-triangle looking situation of the blue spectra sling connecting the three pieces on the left-hand arm. GO
Gabe, I appreciate yours and Tai's insite and the other guy...whose name I just forgot. Thanks.
I have one question for you Gabe...Does the "american-triangle" principle still exist if all the pieces are equalized via clove hitches? I did that in the Pic hoping to avoid the whole american triangle business.
Tai, you are right, it did take a whole assload of time to set up...but I didn't mind. After blowing that dyno...32.8 times...I'm glad I spent that time.
Anyway...I have to get back to being a busy ass grad student. I miss climbing in newengland more that I though I would.
Later,
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Sep 29, 2005, 2:52 PM
Post #58 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
Looks like the clove hitches negate the American triangle problem to me.
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Sep 29, 2005, 2:57 PM
Post #59 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
Nice work Fshizzle. You win the troll award.
So it seems obvious that there are a few of you trolling on the one cam side ways pic. I seriously believe that there are a few of you that are actually stupid enough to believe it's an actual anchor. To the latter I say *slap* Check your feckin head.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 29, 2005, 3:21 PM
Post #60 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: If I really wanted to quibble, I'd be more curious to try to figure out the forces generated by that wierd american-triangle looking situation of the blue spectra sling connecting the three pieces on the left-hand arm. GO Gabe, I appreciate yours and Tai's insite and the other guy...whose name I just forgot. Thanks. I have one question for you Gabe...Does the "american-triangle" principle still exist if all the pieces are equalized via clove hitches? I did that in the Pic hoping to avoid the whole american triangle business.
No, definitely it's not an actual AT, I was just trying to find a way to be clear about which sling I was referring to.
But while it's not an AT, and won't generate those forces, neither is it just one sling coming from each piece, going to a central point. If there was slack in the line between the two girth hitches, the two sides would share the force more or less equally, and that would be that. But because there is tension in the blue sling between the two pieces, any downward force on the Omega locking biner connecting those two pieces to the green sling will transmit force through the clove hitch on the red biner and into the bent purple-gate biner connected to the yellow cam on the left. Exactly what kind of force, I'm not certain, though, and I'm not motivated to get out graph paper and start scratching. My gut feeling is that the amount of force will be small. It certainly doesn't look dangerous, just curious.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
njclimber23
Oct 25, 2005, 11:08 PM
Post #61 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2005
Posts: 23
|
this anchor looks bomber. i wouldnt mind taking a 30 footer on it.
jk
|
|
|
|
|
crimpstrength
Oct 25, 2005, 11:19 PM
Post #62 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 285
|
How can you take a 30 foot fall on a TR anchor?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 26, 2005, 1:43 AM
Post #64 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Perfectly safe, but I wouldn't want to do that to my rope. I'd also think that with you shifting around it would not be so great for the tree, either - unless you're taking most of the load on your legs, and the tree is just backup.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jacobg
Oct 26, 2005, 3:10 AM
Post #65 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 103
|
it works.. but useing webbing or a sling would be much better around the tree, and for your rope.. and i would use atleast 1 other point in it, just to be on the safe side.
|
|
|
|
|
wpxc05
Oct 26, 2005, 4:26 AM
Post #66 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 4
|
Stupid question, but would someone mind telling me what kind of knot that is there??
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 26, 2005, 12:26 PM
Post #67 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: Stupid question, but would someone mind telling me what kind of knot that is there??
There are NO stupid questions, just stupid answers, which seem to be plentiful here. But, anyways, it is just an overhand tied with the two strands of rope. And Gabe and Jacob, I am weighting the rope, so there is very minimal rubbing of rope on tree. And with a thick enough tree, you certainly don't need a backup. Doesn't hurt, but you don't need one.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 26, 2005, 1:03 PM
Post #69 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Yikes! That is precisely why I don't climb with 5 people. Looks like your rack exploded and landed right on the bolts.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
heiko
Oct 26, 2005, 1:09 PM
Post #70 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 1505
|
oh well, we were in three, but the other party insisted on joining our little "webbing party". ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Oct 26, 2005, 1:46 PM
Post #71 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
Okay, just to pick a nit...
On the forward bolt, I'd at least flip the top biner of the blue quickdraw so it's facing away from the rock. I'd prefer to use lockers (especially with so many people shifting around at the station).
On the bolt further away, I'm not wild about how all those biners are interacting. The blue biner is resting entirely on the other two rather than the ring. It's hard to tell what they're all doing, but it looks like part of the problem could be relieved by shifting the red biner with the daisy to the top of the stack. That should allow the two other biners to settle into a position where they're less likely to load against one another.
It's hard to tell what all is going on there, so that's all I have.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 26, 2005, 2:17 PM
Post #72 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
hahaha! Nice clusterfuck! It's been a while since I've seen one that good. :righton:
One little piece of advice, and it has nothing to do with what biners are facing in which directions: :roll:
When you're in an anchor like that, and someone needs to mess with it, to unclip or something, do *not* unweight the anchor to make it easier for them to unclip. Go ahead and unweight it to shift things around, but when any unclipping is to be done - fuck 'em if they can't get out without me unweighting the anchor. It's too hard to see what's what with one of those messes, and you read every year or two about someone getting unclipped accidentally and falling to their deaths.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
heiko
Oct 26, 2005, 2:21 PM
Post #73 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 1505
|
cracklover, thx for the advice, I never thought about it that way. indeed unweighting the biners that I hang from could be really fatal... :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Oct 26, 2005, 2:56 PM
Post #74 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: One little piece of advice, and it has nothing to do with what biners are facing in which directions: :roll: GO
Thanks for going out of your way to be an ass. I guess open gate vs. closed gate strength and proper loading of biners doesn't mean much to you. My mileage obviously varies.
I do agree that it's vital to cover yourself to make sure someone isn't unwittingly unclipping your anchor. Keeping a load on until you're certain they're removing their biners is good advice.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 26, 2005, 3:59 PM
Post #75 of 88
(11433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: One little piece of advice, and it has nothing to do with what biners are facing in which directions: :roll: GO Thanks for going out of your way to be an ass. I guess open gate vs. closed gate strength and proper loading of biners doesn't mean much to you. My mileage obviously varies. I do agree that it's vital to cover yourself to make sure someone isn't unwittingly unclipping your anchor. Keeping a load on until you're certain they're removing their biners is good advice.
Mostly I was pointing out that my reply was not meant to be a critique of the anchor, as such. I didn't mean to come across as an ass. But truth be told, I just happen to think it's silly to pick nits from such a clusterfuck. Especially since the photo was obviously a joke. There's probably plenty worse things going on in that anchor that we can't see. It's like looking at a picture of a bad car crash and pointing out that the car has a flat tire.
But whatever bloats your float, man, no worries!
G:D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Oct 26, 2005, 4:12 PM
Post #77 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
I think the guys face says it all Dingus
|
|
|
|
|
landgolier
Oct 26, 2005, 4:14 PM
Post #78 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 714
|
dude on the left needs more fiber in his diet. As for the anchor, I'd Rap Off That™
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Oct 26, 2005, 6:06 PM
Post #80 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: Mostly I was pointing out that my reply was not meant to be a critique of the anchor, as such. I didn't mean to come across as an ass. But truth be told, I just happen to think it's silly to pick nits from such a f---. Especially since the photo was obviously a joke. There's probably plenty worse things going on in that anchor that we can't see. It's like looking at a picture of a bad car crash and pointing out that the car has a flat tire. But whatever bloats your float, man, no worries! G:D
No worries. I didn't take it as a joke, as this is something you could run into. As you said, there is plenty you can't see. I was dealing with the few things I could. My line of thinking is that small things can add up for a significant positive or negative impact. By shifting the negatives to positives, we can move in the right direction.
Happy climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 26, 2005, 6:34 PM
Post #81 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I don't know what it's holding, but that biner on the upper left side should probably be a locker, right markc? Hehehe. Hey, ouch, no kicking!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Oct 26, 2005, 6:54 PM
Post #82 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: I don't know what it's holding, but that biner on the upper left side should probably be a locker, right markc? Hehehe. Hey, ouch, no kicking! GO
Well I would have used one! And why isn't there a back-up on that figure 8?!?
Sorry about the kick, cracklover, I get these involuntary leg spasms sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 26, 2005, 9:12 PM
Post #83 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Ooh, Ooh, Mr Kotter, Mr Kotter! I know what's wrong with the pitcher, Mr Kotter! It's that botched chop job on the old bolt to the right of the anchor, right?
G:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Oct 26, 2005, 10:43 PM
Post #84 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
The only really bad thing I can find about this otherwise first-class anchor is the microfractures on the biner at the power point.
:mrgreen:
JL
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 27, 2005, 1:01 PM
Post #86 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Dingus,
How many climbers are we talking about on this climb? It looks like you have 5 ropes and 3 daisies. The anchor isn't in question, being a solid 2 bolter but it looks like another clusterfuck. What is the situation?
Can we get some gear/inventive anchors? We have enough 2-bolt fusterclucks.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
lagarita
Dec 5, 2005, 4:53 AM
Post #87 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 356
|
Haven't seen any new anchors in a while... Anyone been out ice climbing recently? Possibly ya'll up in montana...
|
|
|
|
|
iclime
Dec 9, 2005, 2:27 AM
Post #88 of 88
(11319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2005
Posts: 47
|
While I am glad to see people taking seriously their anchors (particularly at the beginner level), remember that for top rope anchors, they are top rope anchors.
So if you can, grab yourself a big ol' tree/rock/whathaveyou or two, equalize them, give the system a once-over (SRENE, ERNEST, whatever), and you're on belay. I love blueeyedclimber's tree anchor (although I'd probably opt for another piece just for kicks and giggles).
M
|
|
|
|
|
|
