No it is not, sorry. A direct quote from a published STUDY, THAT WOULD BE PROOF.

Do you know how the cordelette got it name and why it became so popular?

DMT

Just what do you think is happening as a mass accelerates during the interval between when one piece in a sliding-x pops, the x elongates, and the mass is then held when the sling becomes tight on the second piece?
Here is a simple way to look at it, as a thought experiment. If the sliding-x was a sling, say, 20' long, would your answer be the same?
It is common when setting up top ropes in some places to use very long slings to use trees, etc. as anchors. Would you use one of those very long slings configured in a sliding x confifuation, with no limiter knots?
Since from reading his posts I know Dingus is at the end of the day a rational person and an experienced climber, I'm confident that he would not use a sliding- x on slings of more than a certain length, although I don't what that length is. Whether he admits that on this thread or merely changes the subject (or ignores this post), I don't know.
Another way to look at this is that Dingus's intuition is that with sufficiently short slings, limiter knots are unnecessary. He may well be right, but denying that limiter knots will reduce forces if a piece pops is really getting silly.
If Dingus demands "proof" such as drop tower tests, I'm the wrong guy for that, but I'd be happy to put some money on it and hire Aric (if he's interested) to design and conduct some tests if Dingus wants to put money where his mouth is.
I'm serious on this--subject to us mutually agreeing on a test--loser will pay Aric (or other qualified, interested empirical tester).
Edit: just for the hell of it, I'll note that I did use sliding-x to set up some anchors just yesterday--I confess I didn't use limiter knots (I was using standard should length slings), so I want it to be clear that I'm not Mr. Limiter-Knot.
But if anyone wants to call me out on some very simple points and make it sound like *I'm* the ignoramus here, let's see where that goes. Maybe you'll be right, but I haven't seen any evidence of that so far.
Edit edit: I'm reading a fascinating book called Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Taleb (mostly but not exclusively about financial markets).
The author was called upon by some critics to justify his points with empirical evidence. He replied that "logic does not require empirical verification . . . It is a mistake to use . . . statistics without logic, but the reverse does not hold: It is not a mistake to use logic without statistics."
So you all can chew on that if you fault my lack of "proof" that limiter knots are not "pointless."

hafilax: that is YOUR question, not Dingus's. He wrote: "There is virtually no proof whatsoever that limiter knots provide any sort of benefit at all." I'm not getting the word "significantly" from that.
By the way, I agree with the point made above that an advantage of limiter knots is that it will reduce the change in the position of the anchor if a piece pulls, and that may be more of a concern that the change in overall force felt on the anchor when a piece pops. For example, if you're doing what is common which is standing near the edge of a ledge at a belay and think it's just fine to drop down a foot or whatever when a piece pops, feel free to think that and maybe you're right. I find it to be at least a somewhat troubling event--but hay, whatever floats your boat.
On your point that "Even with long slings I don't think limiter knots will make a lick of difference as long as there is a reasonable amount of dynamic rope in the system especially given how much friction there is in a sliding-x when it has to rapidly change position": I'm interested in what you thing a "reasonable amount of dynamic rope is. The foot or two that connects the belayer to the anchor (in, let's say, a hanging belay scenario)? When that foot or two is already being stretched by holding the weight of the belayer? If the sling is a double or triple length"?
I've edited the posts mostly to correct some typos (I know some remain) and also to avoid bumping the thread when I just have another point to make. My goal is to improve the quality of the reading experience and not to continually bump the thread, especially if no one else has posted.
Why do you ask, is this a problem?
Edit--see halifax--here's an example. I saw shoo's post made above, and I don't see a need to make a new post, rather than just edit this one. Shoo--I don't know how "respected" Dingus is a climber, just like neither of us knows anything about each other. Being an rc posting legend is nice, but sorry, that don't mean jack to me when discussing anchors. I just know what he posted on this thread, and that's all I'm responding to.
Finally I got sick of this nonsense and just posted to Luebben's anchor book to settle this once and for all, which has now been done. (And I'm not saying you should always or even usually (or even ever, if you're using relatively short slings) tie limiter knots, which adds to the level or ridiculousness here.)

hafilax, I thought we were getting somewhere, but now I'm concerned about a relapse.

Dingus wrote the following: "There is virtually no proof whatsoever that limiter knots provide any sort of benefit at all."
Putting aside anchor forces, I believe you noted earlier in this thread the advantage of reducing the change in anchor position. Do you now deny that that is proof, whatsover, of "any sort of benefit at all"?

Dingus's absurdity on this thread is not that he doesn't use limiter knots; it is the failure to acknowledge that they have obvious benefits in some cases. If the benefits don't exceed the costs for him and he avoids the cases where knots are really necessary (long slings), I have no problem with that.

It's also telling that neither you nor Dingus want to have anything to do with the discussion of whether you would use a sliding-x on a long sling (let's say a 20' sling) without limiter knots to, say, set up a top rope. Looking at arguments made in the extreme is a valid way to test the quality of the argument in other circumstances (and use of a long sling to set up a TR is really not so extreme--in fact, it happens hundreds of time across the country every weekend). I respectfully submit that the 20' sling does in fact prove that Dingus's potion in this thread has been absurd, and that's what "got my panties."

If for some crazy reason you still want to debate this, I will extend the invitation I made to Dingus to try to develop a test to submit to Aric or another qualified tester, with a little money riding on the result. For some reason Dingus seems to have been grossly offended by that even though he earlier in this thread issued a challenge. I think it may be interesting. If I "lost," that's great, I wouldn't have to waste time with limiter knots (except for the problem of anchor translation, which may in fact be the more serious issue).

^^^^LMAO^^^^

I guess someone who doesn't think there is any theoretical problem with using a sliding-x without limiter knots would think it's a fine way to set up a TR, even with a long sling. It equalizes (at least to some extent), and that's a good thing.

How about this example: there are trees near the top of a cliff on which you would like to set a TR. The trees are good--you're pretty damn sure one tree would be fine, but pretty damn sure isn't quite good enough so you use two. How about you girth hitch a sling (or maybe 2--we're being safe here) around each tree, then take take your mega 20' sling (hell, how about a 40'--I'm not a big TR guy, but that's not that uncommon), and connect each girth hitched tree with a big old sliding x that drops nicely below the top of the crag. Use 2 lockers on the sliding-x, (remember, your text-book safe).

Great anchor, no? Yeah you could tie a powerpoint (codelette style), but why not just get the benefit of the sliding-x? That way, you don't have to untie the figure-8 when you're done, which can a little tough if a fat-ass top roper has been hanging all afternoon. (Remember--one reason not to use limiter knots is you don't want to untie them--that should also apply to a cordelette powerpoint knot).

Anyway, Dingus and halifax have piped down on this thread and there are some new posters now, and I don't think you've read all of the above posts. The problems started when Dingus defiantly challenged anyone to "prove" limiter knots could have any advantages, ever. He did it in what I perceived to be an insulting way, and I responded in kind to some extent (and then I admitted I regretted that). I ended the serious discussion (if there ever was one) by a cite to Luebben's anchor book, and that should have been that.

Now some of you seem to be saying that limiter knots aren't necessary when using shoulder length slings--I've got no problem with that. That sure as heck is NOT the position what started the trouble, and so it's really apples and oranges at this point.

Can you provide an example? It would seem to me that the use of logic is a good thing; perhaps that is why I run into problems from time to time on this site.
Separately, I'm treating it as a "fact" that, all other things being equal, reducing the length of a fall in rock climbing is a good thing. As someone said to me in this thread, I'm not interested in asinine counterexamples (although non-asinine counterexamples are fair game).

I don't know that--I'm assuming you do, and if you'd like to enlighten us, please do. I had thought the name was just French for little rope and it got popular with guides who wanted a power point for multiple clients, then got sort of popular in US for general use for whatever reason (maybe an old JL anchor book), and now it's out of favor.

But I'm sure you've got a better story!

Not that anyone should care very much, but my most common trad anchor is to equalize two pieces with a sliding-x on a shoulder length sling, (no limiter knots), attach to climbing rope with clove or figure-8, then attach rope to another piece with clove and get them somewhat statically equalized. Just pointing this out so any noobs who care understand this has all been a theoretical pissing match, which strangely seems to have really pissed some people off.

I've toyed with the idea of trying set up some "experiment" with weak accessory cord and body weight and a video camera, but I just don't have the skills/time to make it work, so we're all going to have to go with our intuition for the time being. I *think* I read some posts from rgold that questioned the "new school" assumption that extension is not that much of a problem, but I couldn't find that with a quick search, and I don't want to mischaracterize what he said.

Let me help you work on your brevity. The bolded section is all you need here. Everything else is a waste of bandwidth.

Thanks for giving readers who may wonder whether you know what you're talking about regarding hands some data on your overall level of intellect and thoughtfulness.

I don't know that--I'm assuming you do, and if you'd like to enlighten us, please do. I had thought the name was just French for little rope and it got popular with guides who wanted a power point for multiple clients, then got sort of popular in US for general use for whatever reason (maybe an old JL anchor book), and now it's out of favor.

But I'm sure you've got a better story!

Not that anyone should care very much, but my most common trad anchor is to equalize two pieces with a sliding-x on a shoulder length sling, (no limiter knots), attach to climbing rope with clove or figure-8, then attach rope to another piece with clove and get them somewhat statically equalized. Just pointing this out so any noobs who care understand this has all been a theoretical pissing match, which strangely seems to have really pissed some people off.

I've toyed with the idea of trying set up some "experiment" with weak accessory cord and body weight and a video camera, but I just don't have the skills/time to make it work, so we're all going to have to go with our intuition for the time being. I *think* I read some posts from rgold that questioned the "new school" assumption that extension is not that much of a problem, but I couldn't find that with a quick search, and I don't want to mischaracterize what he said.

This whole limiter thing came out of the ^^^. Once derailed on one avenue for the quest for the One Anchor, soon equalettes, quadlettes, Octogonettes...

Best to use load-limiters when climbing on Aliens...

Esp. microfractured aliens with old (but hardly used) slings.

Limiter nots reduce extension and thus reduce shock loading if there is extension.

Extension produces signficant shock loading if there is weight in the anchor (ie a belayed). Shock loading is negligable if there is no weight in the anchor.

The physics of all this is quite simple really.

Limiter nots reduce extension and thus reduce shock loading if there is extension.

Extension produces signficant shock loading if there is weight in the anchor (ie a belayed). Shock loading is negligable if there is no weight in the anchor.

The physics of all this is quite simple really.