|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 7, 2005, 3:35 AM
Post #26 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Looks fine to me. From left to right:
1 - The cam: Bomber. Textbook placement - about 80% cammed, in a parallel crack, and right up against a wall in the back so it can't walk out of position. I'd give it a score of 10 out of 10.
2 - The tricam: The size is appropriate to the crack, the direction of pull is correct, the nose appears to be behind some sort of rugosity in the rock, and the rails have full contact with the rock. Score - 10/10.
3 - The nut: The size is appropriate, but there are several problems with this piece. A - the direction of force does not seem to be the direction the nut is placed in, so a hard fall would torque the piece - can you anticipate what would happen? Without seeing the details of what the crack looks/feels like on the inside, I certainly wouldn't merit a guess. B - The crack the nut is in appears to constrict in two directions - towards the outside, and to the left. Unfortunately, since the central point of the anchor is to the right of this piece, a fall will pull it *away* from the constriction to the left, and *towards* the wider section. C - The constriction appears to be pretty slight - is the nut set hard enough that it won't just jiggle out? Is the constriction even enough to assure you that the nut won't pull right out? From what I can tell, I'd give the nut a 5/10.
Everything else:
- Non-locking biners are fine on individual pieces.
- Hard to tell if anything is equalized without seeing the whole anchor. It doesn't look like there's tension on all the strands, though.
- Redundancy is good with three pieces.
- The crack looks like it's part of a major feature. Unless the bottom part shows that it is disconnected outside of the frame of the picture, I wouldn't be too concerned about all three pieces in one crack.
- Too many red pieces. More variety in color please. ;)
Overall, from what I can tell - 7/10
GO
|
|
|
|
|
salamanizer
Sep 7, 2005, 3:56 AM
Post #27 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2004
Posts: 879
|
I give this anchor creativity points. Though obviously inadiquate and lacking redundency in every reguard, one must remember that every situation is not always ideal and sooner or later there comes a time when you don't have exactly what you need. Now, depending on the situation (difficulty of climb, stance of belayer, how well the second has the climb in hand etc...) this anchor is certainly better than nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
devonick
Sep 7, 2005, 5:06 AM
Post #28 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2005
Posts: 298
|
i like the second anchor set up because
a- it has 3 peices of gear
b- that cam looks pretty bomber to me
c- it is well colour coordinated
although i probably wouldnt use single nonlocking biners they are fine and i also probably would have put that nut there maybey a cam on the angle even though the crack is slightly flaring away from the nut.
generally i think this anchor could do with a couple of minor readjustments but it is fairly good
|
|
|
|
|
devkrev
Sep 7, 2005, 11:28 AM
Post #29 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 933
|
yeah, thats what I thought.
The rock is absolutely bomber (gunks quartzite) so that wasn't an issue. This anchor was set at the top of the cliffs, so had someone been leading off it I would've used a cordellete or something.
The stopper was bomber, the way the rock contoured around it, I would have to torque it pretty far to the right for it to come out.
The whole reason I took the photo was because the color coordination :-)
later
dev
|
|
|
|
|
aikibujin
Sep 7, 2005, 1:17 PM
Post #30 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 408
|
The idea behind threads like this is nice, but the technology isn't there. Unless we can post high resolution holograpic 3-dimensional photos in which we are free to pan/zoom in/zoom out/rotate/spin without any loss of detail, so we can look at the placement and the rock much like we can in real life (surprise surprise). Anything less than that is an exercise in futility, you only get educated guesses at best, based on low-resolution flat photos in which you can hardly tell with certainty how each piece is interacting with the rock.
I understand it's a nice way to pass time at work/school/home/whenever you are, but to really learn anything from it, you need to do this exercise at the crag.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Sep 7, 2005, 1:28 PM
Post #31 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
^^ Oh, I don't know... I've learned a lot about this thread from the shot of the Forged Friend levered into the crack. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Sep 7, 2005, 2:14 PM
Post #32 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
I'm so proud, people are trolling for me.
I guess I'm moving up in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
tirroth
Sep 14, 2005, 2:53 PM
Post #33 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2005
Posts: 17
|
so has anyone notice that he placed a biner in one of the cam heads?
I am also guessing on this but did he place the quickdraw on the other end of the cam?
|
|
|
|
|
franko
Sep 28, 2005, 3:29 AM
Post #34 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2005
Posts: 73
|
[quote="tirroth"]
The biggest problem with this placement is that he uses a solid shaft cam. If he had used a felxible shaft cam instead, the shaft would flex and dynamically absorb some of the energy of a long leader fall, & thus be less likely to rip out.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Sep 28, 2005, 4:20 AM
Post #35 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
ok, 2 issues
First with the single cam anchor, I think it does satisfy part of serene because there are about 8 biners and 3 slings, if that's not redundant I don't know what is.
Second, where do you guys get off calling this a rigid stemmed cam? That looks like an old school flex stem to me, kinda like the old bd's so it would flex to absorb some of the force
:D
|
|
|
|
|
reunionron
Sep 28, 2005, 4:36 AM
Post #37 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 74
|
Definitely multi-directional, might want a few more biners. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Sep 28, 2005, 5:06 AM
Post #38 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
In reply to: Second, where do you guys get off calling this a rigid stemmed cam? That looks like an old school flex stem to me, kinda like the old bd's so it would flex to absorb some of the force :D
It very much looks like a forged friend. Zoom in a bit and you'll see it's quite rigid.
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Sep 28, 2005, 5:09 AM
Post #39 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
Biner on biner is generally a bad idea. Other than that... what are those things your nuts are on? They don't look like hangerless bolts, are they rock features?
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Sep 28, 2005, 6:11 AM
Post #40 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
kobaz wrote:
In reply to: what are those things your nuts are on?
ahh how many times have I been asked that? :D
and you are right, i didn't look closely enough at the cam it is a rigid stem, so maybe we should back it up, or at least add another biner
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Sep 28, 2005, 6:13 AM
Post #41 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
In reply to: kobaz wrote: In reply to: what are those things your nuts are on? ahh how many times have I been asked that? :D
I dont know, I've never seen your picture before, and noone asked on this thread yet except for me.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 28, 2005, 12:46 PM
Post #42 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I assume you mean the anchor on the left, yes?
You've got a reverso set up on it - does that mean you actually used this POS?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
pinkydancer
Sep 28, 2005, 12:51 PM
Post #43 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Posts: 29
|
Oh he used it all right- I was like 'WTF' when I came up around the rock at the top.
:lol:
That was an awesome anchor. 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Sep 28, 2005, 1:19 PM
Post #44 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
Ah chicken heads, you gotta' love them!
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Sep 28, 2005, 1:42 PM
Post #45 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
lagarita: get john long's book(s) on climbing anchors. tons-0-analysis! and pic's too!
|
|
|
|
|
nurocks
Sep 28, 2005, 1:48 PM
Post #46 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2003
Posts: 788
|
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photo/photo_show.php?list_sort=highest_first&list_keyword=&list_category=0&list_filter_user_id=&list_comment_user_id=&list_per_page=25&list_album_id=&list_CountryStateID=&list_AreaID=&list_SectionID=&list_mode=my&list_period=None&list_start=6&id=61867
http://Left arm of anchor...http://www.rockclimbing.com/photo/photo_show.php?list_sort=highest_first&list_keyword=&list_category=0&list_filter_user_id=&list_comment_user_id=&list_per_page=25&list_album_id=&list_CountryStateID=&list_AreaID=&list_SectionID=&list_mode=my&list_period=None&list_start=10&id=61868
http://Right arm of achor...http://www.rockclimbing.com/photo/photo_show.php?list_sort=highest_first&list_keyword=&list_category=0&list_filter_user_id=&list_comment_user_id=&list_per_page=25&list_album_id=&list_CountryStateID=&list_AreaID=&list_SectionID=&list_mode=my&list_period=None&list_start=3&id=61869
Entire anchor...
I have watched these threads for a while now...and have been curious to post a pic or two of my own. These were aimed at being excessive, rather than sketchy...let me know what y'all think.
Jason
edit...trying to make pictures work. It's been almost a year since I have posted pics in a thread. If this doesn't work...Could someone point me in the direction of how to do it? The search function isn't working well at all.
|
|
|
|
|
pinkydancer
Sep 28, 2005, 2:02 PM
Post #47 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Posts: 29
|
Hm picture post didn't work for me either nurocks. : P
|
|
|
|
|
lagarita
Sep 28, 2005, 2:25 PM
Post #48 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 356
|
reg: I actually just picked up mountaineering FOH, but I'll consider getting that as well. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 28, 2005, 4:22 PM
Post #49 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I believe this is what you meant to say:
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Sep 28, 2005, 4:54 PM
Post #50 of 88
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: I believe this is what you meant to say:
JL
|
|
|
|
|
|
