|
sync
Jun 23, 2004, 7:06 PM
Post #76 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2003
Posts: 125
|
In reply to: Am I seeing things? or is the webbing going over the edge in a different place in the first and the fourth picture. In the first picture it looks jammed in a crack at the edge. The fourth picture is in on top of the crack. Supports the theory the webbing might be moving around and subject to being cut. Use redundant webbing. Can't tell from this picture if it is redundant or not.
I think it's just the difference in the angle between the two shots.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Jun 23, 2004, 7:10 PM
Post #77 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: In reply to: Perhaps I misunderstand, but the one knot in the cordelette should prevent failure if just one of the lengths of cord is cut. i.e. without the knot, cutting one length would allow then entire cord to pull through, but with the knot this is prevented... That's true for the cordelette, but I think he was referring to the orange cord that is between the cordelette and the webbing at the bottom. There's a knot only in one end of that, so if one of the strands of the orange cord is cut, the webbing at the bottom falls through.
The orange cord is set up exactly as a cordelette(for two pieces), only the two strands are attached to the same point. The orange cordalette power point is attached to the blue cordelette power point. The 2 legs of the orange cordalette are attached to the same thing- the sling girth hitch. The sling does not appear to be redundent, and if any piece in this set up should it's the sling over the edge, but the orange cordalette appears to be redundant.
Whatever though- only as good as the weakest link.
|
|
|
|
|
wings
Jun 23, 2004, 7:15 PM
Post #78 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 283
|
In reply to: Redundancy is not perfect, but neither is any anchor.
While the purpose of this little exercise is to critique all the things that are wrong (or could be improved), I don't think the implication is that all of these suggestions must be adhered to in order to have a "bomber" anchor.
However, as many people are pointing out, the lack of redundancy on the lower cord and webbing is a deal breaker. Especially given that the webbing is rubbing over the lip of the cliff, this is unacceptable.
Fix that one thing, and I think most of us would top rope off of this anchor.
Me, I'd go put in another piece of pro on a different feature. But I'm a sissy that way.
- Seyil
|
|
|
|
|
p_grandbois
Jun 23, 2004, 7:16 PM
Post #79 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2004
Posts: 328
|
Alpn, everytime you make your little pee headed comments. Really get over yourself, you are a fool. As for the achor, as I said we are all speculating, why not waste our time doing something a little more constructive, expecially when not a single person has said they climb their, or they know this spot, so on and so forth. The guy who did this, I am sure knows more about it then us, cause we see photos.
Man I still can not get over alpn, you are so hilarious, I look at your posts and you are nothing more than the biggest troll I have ever seen. Have fun hacking this one, I have lost interest.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 23, 2004, 7:17 PM
Post #80 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Alpn, everytime you make your little pee headed comments. Really get over yourself, you are a fool. As for the achor, as I said we are all speculating, why not waste our time doing something a little more constructive, expecially when not a single person has said they climb their, or they know this spot, so on and so forth. The guy who did this, I am sure knows more about it then us, cause we see photos.
"Pee head"? "Expecially?" Does your mommy know you are on the Internet?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 23, 2004, 7:33 PM
Post #81 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
tedc said that "strength is not the same thing as redundancy" and therefore this anchor is not safe. alpnclmbr1 has said much the same thing. While redundancy is a good thing, it is a red herring here. That anchor is fine for the intended purpose of top-roping on--with the one potential exception I previously mentioned regarding the sling running across the edge of the rock.
Since alpnclmbr1 failed to answer this question (that I asked him earlier) perhaps tedc or another poster bemoaning the lack of redundancy here would like to do so.
If redundancy is always imperative for safety, and strength and overkill can not equal safety, do you always climb with two ropes?
If not, please explain why.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
rocdaug
Jun 23, 2004, 7:34 PM
Post #82 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2003
Posts: 220
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: And yes, actually, I am a rocket scientist. In case you were wondering... not. :roll: thank you for the excercise in precise communication. now we all know you're smarter than the rest of us. feel better? :shock: whatever rd Oh please...and by the way, it's exercise. :wink:
a rocket scientist AND a spelling nazi. :P
|
|
|
|
|
gds
Jun 23, 2004, 7:46 PM
Post #83 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Posts: 710
|
In reply to: If redundancy is always imperative for safety, and strength and overkill can not equal safety, do you always climb with two ropes? If not, please explain why. Curt
Curt,
I think the point is that the webbing could, with very little effort, be made redundant.
And your point about not overdoing redundancy is correct and I agree. We usually use one rope, one harness, one belay device, etc. But in this case there is no redundancy in the webbing and as the webbing runs over an edge this is not what I'd like to see.
In fact folks DO use two ropes quite often in situations in which they are concerned about ropes being cut, for example ice climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Jun 23, 2004, 7:51 PM
Post #84 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
It is pretty widely accepted that ropes nowadays are bomber and do not need to be redundant. I have seen this arguement for the belay loop (although I back the belay loop up because I feel better doing it. This rule does not apply for any object (rope or webbing) when the said object is subject sharp object such as rock edges. Even in these cases the rope manufactures have huge warning to tell you not to use the rope in this fashion. In this case you either need to move the rope to a safer location, place something under the rope or use double ropes.
In this case, protecting the webbing seems like a pain in the butt. It would be quicker to just make it redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Jun 23, 2004, 8:21 PM
Post #85 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
I'd certainly prevent my rope from taking a load directly over that edge.
|
|
|
|
|
ic2d
Jun 23, 2004, 10:03 PM
Post #86 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2004
Posts: 24
|
In reply to: a rocket scientist AND a spelling nazi. :P
One and the same, my friend, one and the same. 8^)
In response to those of you who share the "one rope, one harness" argument, I am still of the mindset that you may as well back up whatever you can. In the case of this setup, the rope and harness are not your most likely points of failure. The most likely failure point is the loop of webbing running over the edge. Might as well back it up...it sure can't hurt to do so.
That said, however, does my mindset lure me into a false sense of security? Probably. But I feel a whole lot safer knowing that my rope is the only single-failure-point in any anchor I use.
As has been said before, since you're only using one rope, why not just one nut, one carabiner, one piece of webbing? It all boils down to a judgment call on which components of your system are the most likely to fail and which ones are most easily made redundant. If I can back it up, I will.
Not that I expect this to change anyone's mind on the subject at hand, but I always check any anchor that someone else has set up if I have the opportunity to do so. If I feel unsafe about it, I ask to make my own adjustments. Thus far, no one has ever been offended by my input...I hope that tradition continues (it is my life, after all).
EDIT: When I say I check other people's anchors, I mean when they were set up for me to use. Only once have I commented on another group's anchors (they were big time newbies and had all kinds of problems - like biners loaded along the wrong axis :shock: ).
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Jun 23, 2004, 10:43 PM
Post #87 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
The question with any anchor is: Is it good enough to withstand the greatest force that can be put upon it under the given circumstances.
I suspect this did not fail (meaning it was good enough), but the cord on cord is an absolute no no -not that it weakens the anchor, per se, but enough shock loading and the cord gets worked for later use.
Remember, you will never get a "perfect" anchor. And spending an hour tricking out an anchor with lockers and fancy rigging is often superflous.
Normally on stuff like this, I just look for a tree some ways above and use a static extendo rope and a few directionals to keep it in place. Nice and simple with almost zero rigging.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
Jun 23, 2004, 10:54 PM
Post #88 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
In reply to: Since alpnclmbr1 failed to answer this question (that I asked him earlier) perhaps tedc or another poster bemoaning the lack of redundancy here would like to do so. If redundancy is always imperative for safety, and strength and overkill can not equal safety, do you always climb with two ropes? If not, please explain why. Curt
Crap. Did the site go down? I lost my post.
Quick summary cause it's Time To Climb
Saying that this anchor is safe enough. Is IMHO just like coming to a 2 bolt belay and only tying into one bolt because it is should be strong enough to handle any forces you might apply to it. The builder of this anchor had all the necessary materials to make this anchor BOMBER (especially since someone pointed out that the orange cord loop is doubled which WAY over kills the strength required and eats up valuable cord that could have been better used to make the anchor redundant) and he/she didn't. (noobie mistake)
There are 2 strands of webbing going over the edge to the (unseen TR biner) and the builder is essentially using them as a single strand. (Just like using one bolt) And a single point to failure.
All they needed to do was tie a few knots and they didn't.
Yea. I climb with a single rope (that argument is older than you curt) but I will also clip both bolts at a belay.
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
Jun 23, 2004, 11:02 PM
Post #89 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
In reply to: The question with any anchor is: Is it good enough to withstand the greatest force that can be put upon it under the given circumstances. I suspect this did not fail (meaning it was good enough), but the cord on cord is an absolute no no -not that it weakens the anchor, per se, but enough shock loading and the cord gets worked for later use. Remember, you will never get a "perfect" anchor. And spending an hour tricking out an anchor with lockers and fancy rigging is often superflous. Normally on stuff like this, I just look for a tree some ways above and use a static extendo rope and a few directionals to keep it in place. Nice and simple with almost zero rigging. JL
Sorry, I was trying to leave but then I saw this post.
:roll:
Have you even read this thread?
"The question with any anchor is: Is it good enough to withstand the greatest force that can be put upon it under the given circumstances."
This is ONLY ONE of the critical points in making an anchor. (SOLID)
One bolt, one nut, dynamic rope looped around a tree all fulfill your singular requirement.
And again, what is all this problem people have with cord on cord / nylon on nylon? What kind of interface do you get at your tie in knot that you tie every time you climb........???cord on cord / nylon on nylon
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 24, 2004, 12:14 AM
Post #90 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: The question with any anchor is: Is it good enough to withstand the greatest force that can be put upon it under the given circumstances. I suspect this did not fail (meaning it was good enough), but the cord on cord is an absolute no no -not that it weakens the anchor, per se, but enough shock loading and the cord gets worked for later use. Remember, you will never get a "perfect" anchor. And spending an hour tricking out an anchor with lockers and fancy rigging is often superflous. Normally on stuff like this, I just look for a tree some ways above and use a static extendo rope and a few directionals to keep it in place. Nice and simple with almost zero rigging. JL Sorry, I was trying to leave but then I saw this post. :roll: Have you even read this thread? "The question with any anchor is: Is it good enough to withstand the greatest force that can be put upon it under the given circumstances." This is ONLY ONE of the critical points in making an anchor. (SOLID) One bolt, one nut, dynamic rope looped around a tree all fulfill your singular requirement. And again, what is all this problem people have with cord on cord / nylon on nylon? What kind of interface do you get at your tie in knot that you tie every time you climb........??? cord on cord / nylon on nylon
John Long is right of course. And, that is why the anchor was perfectly good for toproping. Funny to see you try and explain yourself to the guy who literally wrote the book on climbing anchors. Haha. And, since you do climb with a single rope (as I suspected) your argument that you must have redundancy as a condition for safety seems a bit strange, since you are contradicting yourself. Or, perhaps you are saying that you sometimes do and sometimes don't need redundancy for safety--which is I think the correct answer.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 24, 2004, 12:37 AM
Post #91 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: John Long is right of course. And, that is why the anchor was perfectly good for toproping. Funny to see you try and explain yourself to the guy who literally wrote the book on climbing anchors. Haha. And, since you do climb with a single rope (as I suspected) your argument that you must have redundancy as a condition for safety seems a bit strange, since you are contradicting yourself. Or, perhaps you are saying that you sometimes do and sometimes don't need redundancy for safety--which is I think the correct answer. Curt
To start with largo implied that he would never use that anchor set up.("absolute no no")
Wasn't it largo who coined the term SRENE
solid
redundant
equalized
no extention
Redundant:according to largo in his book climbing anchors.
"Redundancy should exist through the entire anchor system: all anchors, slings and carabiners should be backed up."
This is pretty basic stuff people.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Jun 24, 2004, 4:23 AM
Post #92 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Hey, folks:
I shouldn't have weighed in with such a flip response. My bad.
My point is that we rarely acquire every condition that defines a perfect textbook anchor, though there's plenty of reason to try. The most fundamental question remains: will the anchor hold or will it fail under all possible loading possibilities? All the fancy rules are to try and insure the anchor is good enough, but there are circumstances where it may be good enough without, for example, it being redundant and/or equalized and multi-directional. A healthy, 25-foot diameter ponderosa pine is not "redundant," but it's almost certainly good enough as an anchor. Same goes for a cordelett lashed to three new bolts (sans directional). Good enough simply means it held with some margin to spare.
I mention this because people can get too hung up on trying to build perfect anchors, and sometimes the overbuilding can not only waste time but add unnecessary complications to what could otherwise be a clean and simple set up. Yes, we always try to meet all the criteria but there are many, many times on adventure climbs where this is impossible, though there is almost always a way to get something good enough to safeguard your life against any length fall.
I personally don't like to string runners or any nylon together sans biners, not because it's not strong enough, but because in my old guiding days, when we did this (normally while TRing dozens of climbers running laps on the same system), the gear didn't last as long as when we linked runners with lockers. You add an extra link to the chain, but over the very long haul you might slightly extend the life of your gear. Nothing more.
In the end it's 50% judgement and 50% technique. The safest way to build an anchor is, and always will be, the ability to get bombproof nuts and rig them in a way that they will not come out under any loading circumstances. It should be noted that in the early Yosemite days, thousands of anchors were built by stringing together pitons placed in vertical cracks. Few of these anchors met the requirements we have come to accept as required, and yet none of the early wall pioneers died as a result of anchor failures. We have to be more careful with passive anchors opposed to pins, but fancy does not always mean better. Bomber nuts, intelligently and cleanly rigged – that's the goal every time.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
p_grandbois
Jun 24, 2004, 4:30 AM
Post #93 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2004
Posts: 328
|
My apologies JT, my english is not perfect, if you had any clue you might have noticed my very french name,,,,,,,hmm maybe he's french. Oh right. :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
Jun 24, 2004, 3:41 PM
Post #94 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
Curt,
Your name is good enough for me. You don't have to drop "other names" to bolster your case. Turns out vivalorgo's post was admittedly "flip" and was a general statement on "too complicated" anchors not really this particular anchor.
Here is my statement regarding redundancy on the posted anchor.
"Saying that this anchor is safe enough. Is IMHO just like coming to a 2 bolt belay and only tying into one bolt because it is should be strong enough to handle any forces you might apply to it. The builder of this anchor had all the necessary materials to make this anchor BOMBER and he/she didn't.
There are 2 strands of webbing going over the edge to the (unseen TR biner) and the builder is essentially using them as a single strand; and a single point to failure.
All they needed to do was tie a few knots and they didn't."
Care to reply.
I've rappelled off a single sling, I've TR'd of a single bolt. (Yes it was the only one there.) This does not mean that I consider that the best way to do things and I don't think it is appropriate to look at an "Analyze This Anchor" picture and say it's good enough when the understanding of a few simple techniques (tying knots in this case) would have made it bomber.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Jun 24, 2004, 4:14 PM
Post #95 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
VivaLargo,
Thanks for posting :D Your insight is always valuable.
I often feel like I try way too hard to get the perfect anchor. Did it last weekend while climbing in Sedona. Is the tree big enough? Is the rock solid? Eventually I always have to ask myself: Am I willing to lean back and rap off this setup? If my answer is yes, then I feel I have done the best job I can to set up a safe anchor. Then I lean back and go for it :)
I think many of us are saying the same thing here. Its too easy to misinterperet written "wording". I think a litte patience and "reading between the lines" might be helpful because I would like to believe that we are all after the same goal, that being to keep ourselves alive to climb another day.
Climb safe. And HAVE SOME FUN !
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 24, 2004, 5:33 PM
Post #96 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Curt, Your name is good enough for me. You don't have to drop "other names" to bolster your case. Turns out vivalorgo's post was admittedly "flip" and was a general statement on "too complicated" anchors not really this particular anchor. Here is my statement regarding redundancy on the posted anchor. "Saying that this anchor is safe enough. Is IMHO just like coming to a 2 bolt belay and only tying into one bolt because it is should be strong enough to handle any forces you might apply to it. The builder of this anchor had all the necessary materials to make this anchor BOMBER and he/she didn't.
There are 2 strands of webbing going over the edge to the (unseen TR biner) and the builder is essentially using them as a single strand; and a single point to failure.
All they needed to do was tie a few knots and they didn't." Care to reply. I've rappelled off a single sling, I've TR'd of a single bolt. (Yes it was the only one there.) This does not mean that I consider that the best way to do things and I don't think it is appropriate to look at an "Analyze This Anchor" picture and say it's good enough when the understanding of a few simple techniques (tying knots in this case) would have made it bomber.
Ted,
I don't think we are really all that far apart, opinion wise regarding good anchors. From a theoretical perspective, redundancy is a good thing and I believe I have stated that in a couple of my previous posts in this thread.
I was only taking issue with the idea that redundancy is always a necessary condition for safety, which I believe to be false--hence the single rope comments. An anchor that is "good enough" for its purpose is certainly better if made more redundant, but even without that is still good enough. We are perhaps merely parsing language now and debating semantics.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 25, 2004, 3:50 AM
Post #97 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: I was only taking issue with the idea that redundancy is always a necessary condition for safety, which I believe to be false--hence the single rope comments. An anchor that is "good enough" for its purpose is certainly better if made more redundant, but even without that is still good enough. We are perhaps merely parsing language now and debating semantics. Curt
So how do you determine when redundancy is not neccesary for safety?
When peope use non-redundant anchors, for the most part it is because they don't think it matters or they do not have the appropriate gear to do what they are trying to do. Neither of those are reasonable.
What is more redundant? An anchor is either redundant or it is not. There is not an in between.
As far as trusting a single rope? I trust the rope, a belay rap device, and one locker used in conjuntion with the belay device. That's it, and I feel it is unsafe to add anything to that list.
What possible justification is there for setting up a non-redundant top rope anchor? (besides a bomber tree, etc)
I can think of three:
1) you don't have the proper gear and/or ignorance
2) your lazy
3) you don't think redundancy really matters
Yes, there are times that you can break golden rules.
Setting up top rope anchors isn't one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 25, 2004, 4:02 AM
Post #98 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: I was only taking issue with the idea that redundancy is always a necessary condition for safety, which I believe to be false--hence the single rope comments. An anchor that is "good enough" for its purpose is certainly better if made more redundant, but even without that is still good enough. We are perhaps merely parsing language now and debating semantics. Curt As far as trusting a single rope? I trust the rope, a belay rap device, and one locker used in conjuntion with the belay device. That's it, and I feel it is unsafe to add anything to that list.
There is absolutely nothing logical about having a separate list of things that are OK if they are not redundant and another list of things that must be redundant--in order to proivide adequate safety in climbing. Either redundancy is absolutely required for climbing safety--or it is not.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 25, 2004, 4:29 AM
Post #99 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: There is absolutely nothing logical about having a separate list of things that are OK if they are not redundant and another list of things that must be redundant--in order to proivide adequate safety in climbing. Either redundancy is absolutely required for climbing safety--or it is not. Curt
So what's your point. Is it that non-redundant top rope anchors are just fine and dandy?
How is this for logical? With a belay device and biner you have no choice but to trust them. With a rope, you have the choice of using two skinny ropes or one fat one. I consider the praticality of a single rope to outweigh the benefits of a double rope system. How is this at all applicable to the question of whether two runners is safer then one or two bolts is safer then one?
General practice in the climbing community holds that a non-redundant top rope anchor is unsafe. Would you disagree with that?
Once again, give me one valid justification for building a non-redundant top rope anchor?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 25, 2004, 5:18 AM
Post #100 of 219
(15171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: There is absolutely nothing logical about having a separate list of things that are OK if they are not redundant and another list of things that must be redundant--in order to proivide adequate safety in climbing. Either redundancy is absolutely required for climbing safety--or it is not. Curt So what's your point. Is it that non-redundant top rope anchors are just fine and dandy? How is this for logical? With a belay device and biner you have no choice but to trust them. With a rope, you have the choice of using two skinny ropes or one fat one. I consider the praticality of a single rope to outweigh the benefits of a double rope system. How is this at all applicable to the question of whether two runners is safer then one or two bolts is safer then one? General practice in the climbing community holds that a non-redundant top rope anchor is unsafe. Would you disagree with that? Once again, give me one valid justification for building a non-redundant top rope anchor?
OK, how's this for one, by the way it is the same justification that Vivalargo posted....
Maybe it is strong enough anyway. If the anchor is adequate for its purpose and can withstand the maximum force that can be put on it, it is good enough. Also (as JL posted) you can screw around for an hour trying to get a "perfect" anchor, but if you have one that is good enough--why bother.
You are simply misleading yourself if you can rationalize that a single rope (non-redundant) is safe enough to climb on but everything else must be redundant in order to be safe.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
