|
tradklime
Jun 25, 2004, 5:44 AM
Post #101 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
Hmmmm...
Being redundant where it is convenient, practical, and easy? i.e. stacking the odds in your favor the best you reasonably can.
Not including redundancy on the one component that really needs it? ie. the sling loaded over a sharp edge.
In this particular case the anchor should be improved.
In general, Curt you raise some valid points. It's not always convient or practical to improve an anchor that is already adequate.
sorry to jump in...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 25, 2004, 6:07 AM
Post #102 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Hmmmm... Being redundant where it is convenient, practical, and easy? i.e. stacking the odds in your favor the best you reasonably can. Not including redundancy on the one component that really needs it? ie. the sling loaded over a sharp edge. In this particular case the anchor should be improved. In general, Curt you raise some valid points. It's not always convient or practical to improve an anchor that is already adequate. sorry to jump in...
Feel free to jump in. Again, redundancy is a good thing and I am not trying to claim otherwise. In this particular case however, since no one died (or even came close, as far as I know) as the result of this anchor being configured the way it was--it was good enough by definition.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 25, 2004, 7:35 AM
Post #103 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
This is the most ridiculous definition of a safe anchor that I have ever heard of.
How much time would it have taken to double up that runner. Five seconds, maybe. And since when are you in a hurry setting up a top rope?
So what your basically saying is that if it doesn't kill you the first time, then it must safe.
I guess people that die from poor anchors just had a case of bad luck?
All those people, who set up top rope anchors off of one bolt were behaving perfectly responsible. Hey back off dude, it didn’t fail so that means it is perfectly safe.
WTF
You cut corners for long enough and it will kill you.
|
|
|
|
|
tech_dog
Jun 25, 2004, 8:16 AM
Post #104 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2004
Posts: 224
|
In reply to: How much time would it have taken to double up that runner. Five seconds, maybe. And since when are you in a hurry setting up a top rope?
That's the key, IMHO. How much effort? If you can add redundancy in 30 seconds, why not? If it's not feasible, then calculate the risk. If it's easy, then reduce the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Jun 25, 2004, 3:11 PM
Post #105 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: In this particular case however, since no one died (or even came close, as far as I know) as the result of this anchor being configured the way it was--it was good enough by definition. Curt
After this I'm leaving for the weekend, but I strongly disagree with the above.
In this particular case, if there is only one sling loaded over the edge, in my opinion, they got away with something. Sure 9 times out of 10 there will be no problem. But to me for a TR anchor, these are not acceptable odds, and should not be to anyone (not actual odds- pure speculation).
If you climb long enough and push yourself, you are likely to get into a situation you look back on and thank your lucky stars that you didn't get hurt. I once almost rapped of the end of a rope, and if I had I would have been hurt. There was no excuse not to make sure both ends were down, or that there were knots in the ends, etc. But I caught it with 6 inches of a tail. This was not "good enough by definition", I got lucky, and I learned form it. Perhaps an extreme analogy, but an applicable one none the less.
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Jun 25, 2004, 5:16 PM
Post #106 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: What does everyone think about this anchor? http://www.climbingmoab.com/community/album/205.html ;)
Looks like the first or second hanging station on Finger of Fate.
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
gds
Jun 25, 2004, 5:25 PM
Post #107 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Posts: 710
|
In reply to: In this particular case however, since no one died (or even came close, as far as I know) as the result of this anchor being configured the way it was--it was good enough by definition. Curt
Sorry, but I can't agree. Its similar to saying that if you drove drunk last night and didn't have an accident or get arrested then drunk driving is OK.
So, my personal preference would be to have doubled up on the webbing over the edge. Perhaps there can be a debate on that but I don't think that a valid argument in that debate is "it worked so its OK"
Think of statistical projection. If the probability of that anchor failing was .70 that means 30% of the time an anchor like that was used it wouldn't fail. So, if it didn't fail once and you knew it had a 70% chance of failure would you use again?
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Jun 25, 2004, 6:26 PM
Post #108 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
OK --
I think that a lot of debate here is with respect to whether the anchor is "good enough."
For me, that issue is a personal judgement which is rooted in one's level of acceptable risk, and thus debate will result in no consensus.
What I seek from these "analyse the anchor" discussions, is a refinement of understanding of modes of anchor failure, and things to look for in building an anchor.
With that in mind, here are my thoughts:
1) Agree that more cracks/several different cracks would be better, for the "perfect" anchor.
2) In the second picture, the outermost placement appears to be quite shallow, and the upper, outer edge of the nut does not appear to be in full contact with the rock for the entire surface of the nut. Were this rock of less than stellar quality, rock breakage at the edge of the crack could be an issue. When using smaller nuts and brass nuts, shearing of the metal can also be a problem when the nut is not in full contact; something to be aware of when placing brass on lead.
3) Placing nuts in this (clustered) fashion prevents subsequent examination/inspection of the two inside placements. Adequate placements appear to be available in the immediate vicinity which would not raise this issue.
4) Were this anchor used in a multi-pitch situation, a couple pieces placed for upward pull in the event of a leader fall would add peace of mind.
5) Agree with the comments regarding edge protection. Padding, even duct tape, is cheap insurance when running a weighted piece of nylon over an edge. I just trashed a rope a month ago where it ran weighted over an edge (never weighted with more than body weight) and I had first protected the edge with a few strips of duct tape! imho cutting of rope or webbing over edges, even bulges with sharp crystals, is one of the oft- underestimated dangers in climbing.
6) Ditto the comments on nylon-on-nylon.
7) But let's go further. What's right with this anchor?
a) There are apparently several large, loose blocks in the immediate vicinity of the anchor, yet the anchor is constructed so as to keep the rope and slings as far from these as possible.
b) The anchor is, indeed, extended over the edge.
c) The one placement we can examine appears to be solid, given the reputation for the rock in the area.
d) based upon the photos, all of the pieces are placed very directly opposed to the anticipated direction of loading.
e) failure of any one piece will not result in extension.
f) Although not self-equalizing, the pieces appear to be well-equalized.
The placements are located quite far from the snake.
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
Jun 25, 2004, 7:38 PM
Post #109 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
In reply to: 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
Perhaps we do, in general, agree on what is a good anchor; but in this case it would seem that we do not. To eliminate "semantics" let me put it this way: I would never take my wife and child TRing on this (pictured) anchor unless the bottom sling was made redundant. (Then I would.)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 25, 2004, 9:43 PM
Post #110 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In this particular case however, since no one died (or even came close, as far as I know) as the result of this anchor being configured the way it was--it was good enough by definition. Curt Sorry, but I can't agree. Its similar to saying that if you drove drunk last night and didn't have an accident or get arrested then drunk driving is OK. So, my personal preference would be to have doubled up on the webbing over the edge. Perhaps there can be a debate on that but I don't think that a valid argument in that debate is "it worked so its OK" Think of statistical projection. If the probability of that anchor failing was .70 that means 30% of the time an anchor like that was used it wouldn't fail. So, if it didn't fail once and you knew it had a 70% chance of failure would you use again?
Well, of course I wouldn't. I also would not (as tradklime suggested) use the anchor if it would fail 10% of the time. But, here is where we have our difference. As long as you are just making up failure rates out of thin air, I will too. I think that anchor will be fine 99.9999% of the time, so I would use it again.
If my number is right rather than yours, would you then climb on it? Say (if I suspect) that you are more likely to be killed by lightning or a snake bite on that climb than you are from the anchor failing?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
gds
Jun 25, 2004, 9:49 PM
Post #111 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Posts: 710
|
In reply to: [ Well, of course I wouldn't. I also would not (as alpnclmbr1 suggested) use the anchor if it would fail 10% of the time. But, here is where we have our difference. As long as you are just making up failure rates out of thin air, I will too. I think that anchor will be fine 99.9999% of the time, so I would use it again. If my number is right rather than yours, would you then climb on it? Say (if I suspect) that you are more likely to be killed by lightning or a snake bite on that climb than you are from the anchor failing? Curt
Yes if I thought your number was right I would climb on it.
But my pickiness is with how you phrased the response. You justified the anchor because it worked. My only point in the post is that that is a necessary but not sufficient argument. As you now point out and we agree - a key issue is our assessment of the probability of failure.
So, if we now agree on that point the argument now is only on assessing that risk factor. Clearly you are more comfortable than I with the webbing over the edge and would assign it a much lower factor for failure than I. And you have far more experrience than I do so you may very well be correct.
But, for me I'd still throw in a couple of knots and invest 30 seconds to feel better.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 25, 2004, 10:10 PM
Post #112 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
So we have two of the most experienced climbers on this site. They both choose to comment on this anchor. They both apparently feel that the most glaring mistake (lack of redundancy) in this anchor is beneath mention.
Why is that? It seems to be out of deference to Curt.
That is pretty chicken shit as far as I am concerned.
No one has offered any sort of possible justification for a non-redundant top rope anchor. Not one.
Many choices in climbing are based on a risk versus benefit analysis. The risk in non-redundancy is some level of increased risk. What would the benefit be from accepting that risk? I can’t think of one.
|
|
|
|
|
gds
Jun 25, 2004, 10:33 PM
Post #113 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Posts: 710
|
Just feel the need to add a couple of comments to this already overly long thread.
Risk assessment is a very personal process. And even with a similar risk assessment folks have different comfort levels.
For example I hate being on the edge at the top of a climb. When I set up a TR I am almost always tied in or somehow protected when scampering around on the top. For me for some reason I am more comfortable running out a climb (on easy ground) than standing on the edge at the top unroped.
So, for my comfort level to be good I tie in.
I remember once following a very good and experienced climber on a short 5.8. When I got to the top he had a big grin and I saw that he was belaying me off a twig. I mean a real finger thickness twig. He thought it was funny until I almost strangled him. He said "I knew you couldn't fall so what's the difference?" I said "f*** you" and never climbed with him again.
Different assessments of risk and different tolerance or comfort levels.
So, I'm old enough (59) to never be be embarassed. If I'm scared or nervous I say so and do something about it. Sometimes my comfort is improved by just having someone explain why the situation is OK. Sometimes I need to really do something to feel better.
All of my climbing partners are tolerant of this.
|
|
|
|
|
csoles
Jun 25, 2004, 10:49 PM
Post #114 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 329
|
Jeez, 8 pages of spray from the overlyanal about something there isn't enough info to criticize. From the very limited information provided, I'd agree with Curt that this anchor is more than adequate for the requirements of a TR directly under the anchor. Could it be better? Yes. Would I climb on it as is (or let significant others)? Almost certainly. Whoever rigged it probably knew exactly what they were doing and realized the risk was nil.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 25, 2004, 10:58 PM
Post #115 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: So we have two of the most experienced climbers on this site. They both choose to comment on this anchor. They both apparently feel that the most glaring mistake (lack of redundancy) in this anchor is beneath mention. Why is that? It seems to be out of deference to Curt. That is pretty chicken s--- as far as I am concerned.
Dan, you are now clearly the one posting ridiculous things in this thread. Deference to me? That's really a good one. It is pretty rare around here for climbers with differing opinions to not express them truthfully about some technical issue. Perhaps it is your opinion regarding "the most glaring mistake" with this anchor that is wrong. Did you ever think of that?
In reply to: No one has offered any sort of possible justification for a non-redundant top rope anchor. Not one.
I have, you merely keep chosing to ignore them. for your convenience:
1) Not all climbing systems must be redundant to be safe. This is not an opinion--it is a fact. You only climb on one rope at a time.
2) As per JL, if the anchor is more than strong enough to withstand the maximum force that can be applied to it--it is good enough.
In reply to: Many choices in climbing are based on a risk versus benefit analysis. The risk in non-redundancy is some level of increased risk. What would the benefit be from accepting that risk? I can’t think of one.
I have said that redundancy is good several times, but your above statement is still illogical. I can simply reword it to state that it is never worth assuming the additional risk of climbing with one rope when we all know a second redundant rope will make you safer. Although you will disagree with this and say one non-redundant rope is good enough.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 25, 2004, 11:40 PM
Post #116 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: In reply to: No one has offered any sort of possible justification for a non-redundant top rope anchor. Not one. I have, you merely keep chosing to ignore them. for your convenience: 1) Not all climbing systems must be redundant to be safe. This is not an opinion--it is a fact. You only climb on one rope at a time. 2) As per JL, if the anchor is more than strong enough to withstand the maximum force that can be applied to it--it is good enough.
1) I got it now. You like to set up non-redundant anchors so that means it must be all right. How come the one time I climbed on an anchor that you set up it was a non-redundant anchor? That isn't theoretical anymore. You also chose to bring that fact to life in this thread as a justification for the practice of building a non-redundant anchor.
You have agreed that redundancy is a good thing. So once again how do you determine when redundancy is uneccesary?
2) Yes, John Long said that a single stopper top rope anchor is good enough for me. (do you honestly believe that?)
You are totally misinterpreting his comments which were more directed towards adventure route.
=-=-=--=-=-=--=
So we have an anchor safety analysis thread and we get a bunch experts basically implying that people are wasting their time building good(redundant for one) top rope anchors. Great stuff guys.
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Jun 25, 2004, 11:47 PM
Post #117 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: So we have two of the most experienced climbers on this site. They both choose to comment on this anchor. They both apparently feel that the most glaring mistake (lack of redundancy) in this anchor is beneath mention. Why is that? It seems to be out of deference to Curt. That is pretty chicken s--- as far as I am concerned.
Even though I have limited experience compared to most of the other climbers on this site, I didn't bother to mention the lack of redundancy because I felt the subject had been beaten to death, and was trying to explore the other aspects of the anchor that we could learn from.
my bad.
serves me right for trying to be constructive.
Brutus
:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 25, 2004, 11:55 PM
Post #118 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Dan,
Obviously everybody is wrong and you are right. We actually know this but are trying to convince you otherwise. You know, the group showing deference to me--it is actually a vast internet conspiracy and you are the only one not in on it. :D
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 25, 2004, 11:58 PM
Post #119 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: serves me right for trying to be constructive. Brutus :lol:
I would agree that your analysis was a more appropriate discussion for this thread.
But in light of the direction of this thread.
Would you consider a non-redudant anchor such as the one shown in the original post to be adequate for normal use?
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 26, 2004, 12:02 AM
Post #120 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: Dan, Obviously everybody is wrong and you are right. We actually know this but are trying to convince you otherwise. You know, the group showing deference to me--it is actually a vast internet conspiracy and you are the only one not in on it. :D Curt
Curt,
You have a funny idea of reality.
That anchor sucks, and most people know it.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 26, 2004, 12:16 AM
Post #121 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Dan, Obviously everybody is wrong and you are right. We actually know this but are trying to convince you otherwise. You know, the group showing deference to me--it is actually a vast internet conspiracy and you are the only one not in on it. :D Curt Curt, You have a funny idea of reality. That anchor sucks, and most people know it.
Well let's see. First you claim that everyone posting here are chicken s__t for showing deference to me and not being critical of the anchor--and now you say that "most people know" that anchor sucks.
Which is it anyway? :D
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 26, 2004, 12:27 AM
Post #122 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: Well let's see. First you claim that everyone posting here are chicken s__t for showing deference to me and not being critical of the anchor--and now you say that "most people know" that anchor sucks. Which is it anyway? :D Curt
When did I say everyone anything?
What percentage of all top rope anchors on any given day are redundant? and what percentage are non-redundant?
In my experience it would be about 20 to 1. In Terms of anchors I have actually climbed on? 1000 to 1.
|
|
|
|
|
lemmon_squeezer
Jun 26, 2004, 12:28 AM
Post #123 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Posts: 81
|
no, no I got it! there is no duct tape! where is the duct tape?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 26, 2004, 12:42 AM
Post #124 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Well let's see. First you claim that everyone posting here are chicken s__t for showing deference to me and not being critical of the anchor--and now you say that "most people know" that anchor sucks. Which is it anyway? :D Curt When did I say everyone anything?
Sorry, you're right. you actually said......
In reply to: So we have two of the most experienced climbers on this site. They both choose to comment on this anchor. They both apparently feel that the most glaring mistake (lack of redundancy) in this anchor is beneath mention. Why is that? It seems to be out of deference to Curt. That is pretty chicken s--- as far as I am concerned.
So, you were really only calling chicken s--- on the two most experienced climbers on the site. Apparantly because their opinions and yours were not the same. Interesting.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 26, 2004, 12:53 AM
Post #125 of 219
(15042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: So, you were really only calling chicken s--- on the two most experienced climbers on the site. Apparantly because their opinions and yours were not the same. Interesting. Curt
Hardly. I still refuse to believe that either of them would actually advocate or practice setting up non-redundant top rope anchors.
They danced around the issue, I have no idea of their opinion on this matter in particular.
As far as the respondents to this thread: it is 4 to 1 in favor of it being a bad anchor.
As far as John Long, he wrote two books on climbing anchors and what you took away from it was " if it don't kill you, it is all good."
|
|
|
|
|
|
