If you present this to few expert riggers, I am sure they will all agree that you need some major help.

I'd be willing to play with the idea a bit. My initial thoughts are that this looks like a fiddly time consumer.

If one can get it together in advance it works kinda. But in the more realistic world of a trad anchor with unequal legs all the knots and playing looks from a glance to be slower than I would choose.

Well, the drawback to the figure 8 (likewise in the equalette) is that if one arm of the equalette cuts, you have the knot loaded across two strands coming out of the same end of the knot.

Have you tried a overhand knot on each side and an double overhand knot on the standing ends of the rope?

I like it better

I like your last image better.

To be clear, I was not discounting your modification.

A lot of folks will like the idea of "explicitly" loading two strands instead of loading each strand via isolated and hopefully same-sized biners. And before you mentioned it, I hadn't considered accesibility of the master point under load.

It's exactly the same thing, just without the text and leading lines. So tell me why a "master rigger" like yourself wouldn't approve.

Majid,

Assuming by shock load you mean the initial impact from the fall, trenchdigger's modification has two strands taking the load just as would the unmodified equalette. So the stiffness and equalization is the same. Now, if the 3rd strand is much shorter than the other two then there could be some unecessary loading of that strand, the limiter knots, as well as the two arms of the rig. So make all 3 strands the same length (might already be the plan).

Majid,

Assuming by shock load you mean the initial impact from the fall, trenchdigger's modification has two strands taking the load just as would the unmodified equalette. So the stiffness and equalization is the same. Now, if the 3rd strand is much shorter than the other two then there could be some unecessary loading of that strand, the limiter knots, as well as the two arms of the rig. So make all 3 strands the same length (might already be the plan).

Would it be better to clip into the strand going from anchor to anchor (what you have drawn as the top strand) and have one of the strands near the end be the third, backup, loop?

I used a quad for multipitch sport at Potrero this year, and it was easy to use and felt super secure clipping into 2 of the four strands for a power point.

The only reason I made one strand slightly shorter was to make it simple to clip 2 of the three. A slight difference in length shouldn't make a difference. In fact, it might make the system slightly stronger because it will prevent the knot from being loaded directly onto the carabiner. That's another thing I'd like to test in a load cell.

Interesting thoughts. It would propably be a good idea to have the difference as minimal as practical to not load the knots. You would also have to determine which knot would be most effective/safest.

Having it prerigged like a quad would be the way to go. Looks like it would be easy enough to suppliment with a sling for anchors with more than 2 or 3 peices.... addaptable in that sence maybe.

I think I'll reserve my other thought for now untill I can rig up a couple mock anchors to test a couple ideas... I may have a solution to the ideal knot, but I'm not sure yet (computer wires are not ideal to mock with).


And Majid, I don't think this is another cluster f$ck of a system, it has the potential to be much more simple than a quad. And, this IS what the Lab forum is for... to through ideas on the table and discuss, to see what better or alternative ways there are to make climbing as safe as possible. I've yet to find one way to rig an anchor that I use even 70% of the time... every situation is different. just go with the flow on this one as se what "possitive ideas" you can come up with. OK?

B

Ideally, it shouldn't matter which 2 of the three strands you clip, so long as the knot properly fixes the line.

I agree with your sentiment on the Quad. It's just bulky overkill. This takes only about 60% of the cord required for a Quad. This is my attempt at finding something simpler.

Thanks for your feedback.

Thanks. I'd love to see the knot(s) you come up with. With a little luck, I'll be able to pull test some ideas and see what is best.

Majid doesn't like me because I always give him shit. He does post an occasional valid and productive point though. If nothing more than for his entertainment value, he's a beloved contributor to these forums.

Thanks. I'd love to see the knot(s) you come up with. With a little luck, I'll be able to pull test some ideas and see what is best.

Majid doesn't like me because I always give him shit. He does post an occasional valid and productive point though. If nothing more than for his entertainment value, he's a beloved contributor to these forums.

I am glade you admit that you give me hard time on every post but I hate no one on this site or any where else.

Anyway, build your anchor for the job not just because the book said so.

Nice anchor pix, but I don't see one equalette in there. This thread is about the equalette - more specifically, my "improved" equalette.

Majid,
$2200 and eight days, is that for a Rigging for Rescue course??

yap

you.....Post then delete it all.....



WELCOME back Majid!



Someone been use your computer.

I paid with my frozen hands for those photos , can't just leave them out there for every one plus he said, " those images are not related to his topic " so I took them back.

In these discussions on the merits of the cordalette and equalette, little mention has been made lately of the web-o-lette.

I swithed to the web-o-lette several years back and won't bother to sing its praises over the cordalette (there are many), but I'm wondering why, when the web-o-lette is out there, people seem to be switching to the equalette lately. Is there some advantage to the equalette I'm missing? I suppose if you already have long enough cord currently tied in a cordalette and you just want to retie in the equalette - fine...

http://mountaintools.com/cat/mt/webolette/webolette.html

Equalizes easily and has four strands at the master point. Just a doubled up slidingX with limiter knots

What is this thing you call a "book".

Exactly. The drawback is that it uses almost twice as much cord as the idea I proposed and it way bulky. And yes, it does achieve the same end goal.

OK, so I want credit if this catches on; perhaps it can be named the "Reed Variation of the equalette."

picture 1 - tie and overhand where you want the limiter knots to be.

Picture 2 - thread the loose ends through the opposing limiter knots.

Picture 3 - tie a double fisherman's to back up against the overhand knot.

Picture 4 - snug the thing together.

Picture 5 - Presto.

These knots are getting to apoint that it will be hard to inspect. Have you thought of tying a figure eight bend with a bight and tail? I use this often, its easy to make, inspect, and untie once done. Look here for it http://www.ahsrescue.com/pc-1211-105-personal-purcell-prusik-system.aspx

My problem with the current design of the equalette is the lack of a single master point that is redundant...

SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal.

Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant)

Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension)

So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.

To me, any Equalette conversation must take place in the same paradigm as the cordelette conversation (as the former presurposes itself as a substitute for the latter). That paradigm is most commonly known as: SERNE.


SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal.

Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant)

Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension)

So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.

I'm a firm believer that in most anchors, redundancy is far more important than true equalization. For that reason, I use a standard tied cordelette for most anchors. It's simple, it's quick, and it's solid.

What if a redundant system were created that were redundant and equalized well? Why not have your cake and eat it too? Meet the equalette.

As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other.

If you think you have a better way, let's see it.

Thanks... Nice pix. That's exactly what I was trying to describe in my post: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1595266#1595266. It's one of the best knots I've come up with for the purpose. The other is similar and also a variation of the double fishermans. I'll have to take some pix and post up.

Here we disagree, see your statement below as to why:


Like I said, trading one problem for another. Don't get all in my face about it - homeboy.

As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other. So which is more important?

Ok, well I clearly don't get it.

I thought that this equalette thing is for building belays with less than bomb gear, where a shifting load can be a problem (i.e. hypothetical death belays).

None of this is 'improves' the Equalette. The whole idea of the Equalette is not having a single power point. I see nothing about a single power point worth bastardizing a fairly simple and straightforward design - if anything, it seems more like you're missing the point in pursuit of the comfortably familiar.

As far as equalization vs. extension goes, I thought it had been pretty conclusively established equalization is what we are after while avoiding extension to any degree possible. The mutual exclusivity of the two are inescapable - but equalization is given more weight in the measure in terms of design goals.

If the goal was just to have a non-singular master point...

Clearly that would be a non-goal and simply a 'found' attribute or byproduct of the Equalette. I personally like both strands being loaded independently and suspect that is no small part of the Equalette's tested performance.

The whole idea of the Equalette is not having a single power point.

Clearly that would be a non-goal and simply a 'found' attribute or byproduct of the Equalette. I personally like both strands being loaded independently and suspect that is no small part of the Equalette's tested performance.

To me, any Equalette conversation must take place in the same paradigm as the cordelette conversation (as the former presurposes itself as a substitute for the latter). That paradigm is most commonly known as: SERNE.


SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal.

Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant)

Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension)

So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.

Solve in a unified way.

Equalization vs. Extention
Equalization vs. Redundany
Redundancy vs. Extension.

All three variables to be concidered EQUALLY important.

I'm guessing you didn't wade through the 'Improved Sliding X' thread. Redundancy is a static variable with regards to the requirements. Equalization vs. Extension is the primary challenge, with testing showing Extension to be a bit less of a bugaboo than it was always assumed to be.

Anyone pull test anything? I've shared the arrangement presented in this thread to a few folks and everyone has been more than content with the safety of the knots.

Here are the a few ways I can see the knots failing:

1. reducing the strength of the cord due to the type of limiter knots. - wouldn't you also have this concern with the two strand equalette?

2. The double fisherman pulling through? is anyone really worried about this?

3. having the overhand roll off the end. - can't see it happening with the fisherman backed against it.

Does anyone see any other concerns here or is this it?

This is one of the ideas I tried this weekend.

My question would be how are these knots going to behave when ring loaded? ... Does anyone know how well a double fisherman's handels ring loading?

I continue to find it surprising that all this build-a-better-anchor theorizing ignores
a simple and effective idea put forward a few times:
simply make your equalizing powerpoint runner with a 60cm/24" HMPE sewn sling,
and, with it being the "V" of the anchor point, tie into each bight-end of this tape "V"
with the twin 6-7mm nylon cord, using a sheet bend or variant. The cord will
thus run from the anchor placements to the "V" corners, crossing between them
and so closing the "V" into a triangular loop, such that only ONE 'biner need be
clipped--solves the clip-each-strand or the clip-into-X issues.
With a 2-foot sling, each side of the "V" is 1 foot; extension from one arm failing
is a bit complicated by some swing of the line of tension, but from just
the material gain in this arrangement, it will be a half foot, if the nylon cord contributes
1 foot in closing the "V" (so, an equilateral triangle with 1 foot sides, makes a
closed loop 3' in circumference, and on isolated-arm loading, the length of this loop
is 3/2 = 1.5', a half foot longer than if both arms are in place).
This Extension-Limiting Equalization Triangle (ELET) uses common gear,
minimal 'biners (just 1 for the attachment vs. 2 of Equalette), and is pretty
simple to set up.

Testing done by Edelrid for Jost Gudelius for an Offset Grapevine Bend showed
the knot to do pretty well, in the given couple of ropes tested.
cf http://www.gudelius.de/spst.htm

*kN*

I'm also curious how others attach an auto-blocking belay device to a redundant part of an equalette anchor. I don't see how it can be done without twisting the equalette into a sliding X (degraded equalization) or using a device that accepts two carabiners (Trango B52 + 2 lockers in an equalette at a hanging belay = cluster F#@%). My idea makes all this much easier while maintaining the benefits of an equalette.

Out of curiosity, has anyone adopted the use of the "three strand" equalette since this thread developed?

Three strand equalette is one side going to two pieces and the other side to only one piece?

Three strand equalette is one side going to two pieces and the other side to only one piece?

Basically though, in almost any decent rock, anchors should never be so sketchy that perfect equalization should be needed.

The lack of shock-loading afforded by a regular cordalette may be better protection that perfect equalization.

Also, the time savings afforded by any system that's significantly faster to employ might afford more safety than a slower, better equalized system. Time is safety on longer climbs.

Here's my idea, if you REALLY need the best anchor protection on some sketch rock, just clip a shorty screamer to each piece (or at least one or two of them) and rig a regular cordalette anchor to the screamers.

It's my opinion that there will be shock-loading in any system that has some "extension" in it, if one of the pieces fails. Perfect equalization usually means allowing some extension.

If an anchor piece fails, the anchor is going to be shock-loaded

peace

Karl

Per the research at Sterling ropes, best evidence available suggests that's just not the case so long as the dynamic rope is the attachment to the system. The numbers suggest no shockloading and, at times, lower forces than the initial impact.

Until someone can point me to *other* available evidence suggesting otherwise, I'm sticking with the best evidence we have at this time.

I'd love to see the Sterling link. I could buy that as long as no piece falis, but if a piece fails, it's obvious that the system will extent and it's self evident that sudden extension equals shock-loading. What am I missing here?

Peace

karl

I was going to hold off on making a definitive statement on "Shock Loading" till I had time to work up what Jim at Sterling had actually found from his tests. But since it seems some folks simply can't let the thing go (nor should they till the data's in), here's basically what Jim scribbled down after doing some tests to try and create a shock load in a normal set up with a pretty stout dynamic fall (factor 1--80 kilo load dropped on 10.2 nylon rope connected to a two annchor point equalette).

Wrote Jim:

Leg failure test of Equalette.

All the same set up as previous unequal leg tests but with the short leg
connected with a 'fuse'. The 'fuse' is meant to break around 2kN. To save some time I also kept using the same cord and dynamic rope that I had just tested the Equalette unequal_arm with (see results below). Note: Using the same piece of climbing rope increases the chances of a shock load since after repeated drop testing, the rope looses it's stretch and becomes little more than a piece of static line.

The force/time curve is quite jagged at the beginning indicating lots of vibration. I can see on the curve the point at which the 'fuse' fails. Immediately after the 'fuse' blows there is a sharp drop in force followed by a normal looking curve. The peak force varied depending on the tenacity of the 'fuse'. The stronger the 'fuse' the lower the peak force on the remaining leg, the weaker the 'fuse' the higher the peak force on the remaining leg. Predictable but still interesting. No catastrophic shock load occurs a result of the extension.

6mm PC Equalette

short long

3.11 2.99
3.58 3.93
4.38 4.26
4.45 5.21
---------------------

The important thing to see is that the secondary loading is roughly the same as the initial loading--meaning there is no "load multiplication" between the initial leg failure and the mass slamming onto the remaining anchor point. Half the time it's less--the rest it's the same or a little more--at most about .75 kN, or 168 lbs. And that's only on the last drop, when the nylon rope was already stretched like crazy. And that's all on a rig with the limiter knots basically 10 inches apart--pretty far by normal standards.

My impression is that a true shock load can be understood in terms of the kind of shock we see in human beings. Shock usually means the level of stress or injury was greater than the resilience of the person's biology. In climbing systems, all the components have a degree of resilience, and these are by and large only maxed out when a section of unbelayed static line or high tensile strength cord sustains a dynamic load that is transmitted directly to the anchor. Like when a leader clips off to an anchor with a tech cord daisy, climbs up two feet and slips, falling 4 feet directly onto the anchor. You can bust biners this way, because the gear can't handle mass decelerating that quickly. Stretch and give allow the mass to decelerate slower. In a shock load you basically have the equavilant of a head on collision--something that's not going to happen when you're on a dynamic climbing rope that is running through a belay device, and when you're clipped into the anchor with the climbing rope.
Here, extension simply means that the next anchor that holds will be subjected to basically the same load--maybe a bit less--as that which blew out the first leg/piece. In other words, the initial loading is not multiplied through extension, it is simply passed on, sometimes at a lesser weight, depending on the strength of the "fuse" (failed arm).

JL