|
UpToTheOzone
Jun 10, 2012, 1:24 AM
Post #1 of 49
(9977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2011
Posts: 50
|
Just curious why using a single runner with a sliding X and limiter knots is used over two different slings with opposing biners. I know that not everything in climbing is redundant (ie: 1 rope, 1 belay device ) but it confuses me why one would make an anchor out of a single sling, instead of two slings.
I'm also much more comfortable with two opposed draws /biners on separate slings than just having 1 locker on my anchor. I recently got an ATC Guide, and would love to start using it in the autoblocking configuration, but the one locker still does not comfort me.
I realize that the system is closed and the limiters will prevent shock loading, but I feel it is much faster to place two draws (or slings) up than to use a single sliding X sling.
|
|
|
|
|
surfstar
Jun 10, 2012, 2:34 AM
Post #2 of 49
(9945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2011
Posts: 206
|
I prefer a sliding X for TRs where the climber will wander and it will adjust a bit for equalization (yeah, not perfect due to friction, I know, but it still tensions both bolts better than two equal draws do), but really, either way is fine and safe. Figure out which you prefer and use it.
|
|
|
|
|
vinnie83
Jun 10, 2012, 7:07 AM
Post #3 of 49
(9879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2004
Posts: 112
|
Are these two bolt anchors on the top of a single pitch climb that people will be toproping after you lead it or on a multipitch climb? How the anchor is being used and what you have available can affect how you set up an anchor. The majority of the time I'm doing single pitch stuff with bolted anchors I just use 2 different quickdraws/runners because like you said it is a fast and adequate anchor.
So you are comfortable belaying someone on lead with one biner, clipping a piece of gear or bolt with one biner that could be the only thing keeping you from decking, but when it comes to belaying a second from above and have very little chance of cross loading a biner you are worried about the single biner failing?
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jun 10, 2012, 7:09 PM
Post #4 of 49
(9773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
UpToTheOzone wrote: Just curious why using a single runner with a sliding X and limiter knots is used over two different slings with opposing biners. I know that not everything in climbing is redundant (ie: 1 rope, 1 belay device ) but it confuses me why one would make an anchor out of a single sling, instead of two slings. I'm also much more comfortable with two opposed draws /biners on separate slings than just having 1 locker on my anchor. I recently got an ATC Guide, and would love to start using it in the autoblocking configuration, but the one locker still does not comfort me. I realize that the system is closed and the limiters will prevent shock loading, but I feel it is much faster to place two draws (or slings) up than to use a single sliding X sling.
|
|
|
|
|
CurlyFries
Jun 11, 2012, 4:56 PM
Post #5 of 49
(9591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2011
Posts: 23
|
I use a sling equalette with limiter knots on the majority of my bolted toprope anchors. It is a very similar setup to the sliding X with limiter knots.
UpToTheOzone wrote: Just curious why using a single runner with a sliding X and limiter knots is used over two different slings with opposing biners. I know that not everything in climbing is redundant (ie: 1 rope, 1 belay device ) but it confuses me why one would make an anchor out of a single sling, instead of two slings.
I think you are missing that the limiting knots essentially turn the sling into two slings. I also use two lockers instead of one.
UpToTheOzone wrote: I realize that the system is closed and the limiters will prevent shock loading, but I feel it is much faster to place two draws (or slings) up than to use a single sliding X sling.
I usually prepare it before the climb and rack it to go with me. I have used two draws as an anchor and it really doesn't take much longer to set up. The sling is much more versatile and the lockers make me happy.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
mattyp
Jun 11, 2012, 5:03 PM
Post #6 of 49
(9585 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 162
|
marc801 wrote: You have a basic but common misunderstanding of the meaning of "redundancy" in climbing.
Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Jun 11, 2012, 6:11 PM
Post #7 of 49
(9556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
mattyp wrote: marc801 wrote: You have a basic but common misunderstanding of the meaning of "redundancy" in climbing. Care to elaborate?
A sliding x with limiting knots IS redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
mattyp
Jun 11, 2012, 7:06 PM
Post #8 of 49
(9530 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 162
|
Thanks for making the point. The OP may have been scratching his/her head. You don't know what you don't know, right?
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jun 11, 2012, 8:00 PM
Post #9 of 49
(9511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Rudmin wrote: mattyp wrote: marc801 wrote: You have a basic but common misunderstanding of the meaning of "redundancy" in climbing. Care to elaborate? A sliding x with limiting knots IS redundant.
No. It. Isn't.
(Unless of course you comment was dismissing the sliding x with limiter knots as an effective anchor device  )
(This post was edited by patto on Jun 11, 2012, 8:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jun 11, 2012, 8:08 PM
Post #10 of 49
(9504 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
patto wrote: Rudmin wrote: mattyp wrote: marc801 wrote: You have a basic but common misunderstanding of the meaning of "redundancy" in climbing. Care to elaborate? A sliding x with limiting knots IS redundant. No. It. Isn't. (Unless of course you comment was dismissing the sliding x with limiter knots as an effective anchor device ) *Unless you are talking
Another great discussion by the masters of the obscure.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Jun 11, 2012, 8:11 PM
Post #11 of 49
(9501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
UpToTheOzone wrote: I recently got an ATC Guide, and would love to start using it in the autoblocking configuration, but the one locker still does not comfort me.
Whatever. One locker is plenty good for top-ropes or belays ... provided it's locked, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 11, 2012, 8:53 PM
Post #13 of 49
(9479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
UpToTheOzone wrote: Just curious why using a single runner with a sliding X and limiter knots is used over two different slings with opposing biners. I know that not everything in climbing is redundant (ie: 1 rope, 1 belay device ) but it confuses me why one would make an anchor out of a single sling, instead of two slings. I'm also much more comfortable with two opposed draws /biners on separate slings than just having 1 locker on my anchor. I recently got an ATC Guide, and would love to start using it in the autoblocking configuration, but the one locker still does not comfort me. I realize that the system is closed and the limiters will prevent shock loading, but I feel it is much faster to place two draws (or slings) up than to use a single sliding X sling.
Out of curiosity, why do you care? For a good two bolt anchor, you can use about a million configurations, and so long as the connection to the rope is okay, it doesn't matter one whit.
You may as well be asking if chocolate or strawberry is better.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jun 11, 2012, 9:30 PM
Post #14 of 49
(9468 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
patto wrote: shockabuku wrote: Another great discussion by the masters of the obscure. The masters of the obscure? Are we here to discuss climbing or to discuss give an English lesson? Because if I was going to elaborate on my response I would have to start teaching English and the meaning of the word redundancy.
Who knows, maybe that's the problem. Based on your responses (without the original context) you could be discussing anything. Even with the orignial context it's hard to tell what anyone is really getting at with the once sentence responses other than that you disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Derek_Doucet
Jun 11, 2012, 11:37 PM
Post #15 of 49
(9414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2012
Posts: 7
|
patto wrote: Rudmin wrote: mattyp wrote: marc801 wrote: You have a basic but common misunderstanding of the meaning of "redundancy" in climbing. Care to elaborate? A sliding x with limiting knots IS redundant. No. It. Isn't. (Unless of course you comment was dismissing the sliding x with limiter knots as an effective anchor device )
Patto, will you please elaborate on what you mean by this? In what sense is a 2-bolt anchor built with a sliding x with limiting knots not redundant?
|
|
|
|
|
mattyp
Jun 11, 2012, 11:57 PM
Post #16 of 49
(9405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 162
|
Derek_Doucet wrote: Patto, will you please elaborate on what you mean by this? In what sense is a 2-bolt anchor built with a sliding x with limiting knots not redundant?
That's what I was thinking. Doesn't the knot somewhat create two legs in the anchor, i.e. one side failing doesn't mean the other side will fail like when you simply use a sliding X without a limiting knot?
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jun 12, 2012, 12:16 AM
Post #17 of 49
(9394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
cracklover wrote: You may as well be asking if chocolate or strawberry is better.
Nice going trad boy! Way to muddy the waters!
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jun 12, 2012, 2:56 AM
Post #18 of 49
(9358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Derek_Doucet wrote: Patto, will you please elaborate on what you mean by this? In what sense is a 2-bolt anchor built with a sliding x with limiting knots not redundant?
The anchor is not redundant. Using a sliding x with limiting knots is not redundant.
re·dun·dant (r-dndnt)
adj.
1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy.
4. Chiefly British Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed.
5. Electronics Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment.
6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages.
The sliding x sling is not redundant. It is not unnecessary or superfluous. Without it there is no anchor. Things can only be considered redundant if there is no material change of the system from their removal.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 12, 2012, 3:11 AM
Post #19 of 49
(9351 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: Derek_Doucet wrote: Patto, will you please elaborate on what you mean by this? In what sense is a 2-bolt anchor built with a sliding x with limiting knots not redundant? The anchor is not redundant. Using a sliding x with limiting knots is not redundant. re·dun·dant (r-dndnt)
adj.
1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy.
4. Chiefly British Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed.
5. Electronics Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment.
6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages. The sliding x sling is not redundant. It is not unnecessary or superfluous. Without it there is no anchor. Things can only be considered redundant if there is no material change of the system from their removal.
Hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jun 12, 2012, 1:23 PM
Post #20 of 49
(9289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
I generally consider redundancy to be applicable to the safety factors (load bearing capacity) not the particulars of the construction.
|
|
|
|
|
Derek_Doucet
Jun 12, 2012, 2:21 PM
Post #21 of 49
(9261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2012
Posts: 7
|
patto wrote: Derek_Doucet wrote: Patto, will you please elaborate on what you mean by this? In what sense is a 2-bolt anchor built with a sliding x with limiting knots not redundant? The anchor is not redundant. Using a sliding x with limiting knots is not redundant. re·dun·dant (r-dndnt)
adj.
1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy.
4. Chiefly British Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed.
5. Electronics Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment.
6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages. The sliding x sling is not redundant. It is not unnecessary or superfluous. Without it there is no anchor. Things can only be considered redundant if there is no material change of the system from their removal.
Pedantic
adj.
Marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jun 12, 2012, 2:24 PM
Post #22 of 49
(9259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
jt512 wrote: patto wrote: Derek_Doucet wrote: Patto, will you please elaborate on what you mean by this? In what sense is a 2-bolt anchor built with a sliding x with limiting knots not redundant? The anchor is not redundant. Using a sliding x with limiting knots is not redundant. re·dun·dant (r-dndnt)
adj.
1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy.
4. Chiefly British Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed.
5. Electronics Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment.
6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages. The sliding x sling is not redundant. It is not unnecessary or superfluous. Without it there is no anchor. Things can only be considered redundant if there is no material change of the system from their removal. Hilarious.
Patto? The sliding-X? The definition? Chocolate?
Your statement is ambiguous.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
Ah - RC.com - the highest noise/signal ratio ever accomplished by mankind.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jun 12, 2012, 2:49 PM
Post #23 of 49
(9249 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
olderic wrote: Ah - RC.com - the highest noise/signal ratio ever accomplished by mankind.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jun 12, 2012, 2:51 PM
Post #24 of 49
(9246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
marc801 wrote: olderic wrote: Ah - RC.com - the highest noise/signal ratio ever accomplished by mankind. Don't forget the final days of rec.climbing and rec.alpineskiing - those are both pretty high bars to clear.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jun 12, 2012, 2:51 PM
Post #25 of 49
(9246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
patto wrote: Derek_Doucet wrote: Patto, will you please elaborate on what you mean by this? In what sense is a 2-bolt anchor built with a sliding x with limiting knots not redundant? The anchor is not redundant. Using a sliding x with limiting knots is not redundant. re·dun·dant (r-dndnt)
adj.
1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy.
4. Chiefly British Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed.
5. Electronics Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment.
6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages. The sliding x sling is not redundant. It is not unnecessary or superfluous. Without it there is no anchor. Things can only be considered redundant if there is no material change of the system from their removal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
