|
patto
Mar 24, 2006, 6:40 AM
Post #26 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
I originally found the sliding-x thread interesting but now I am thoroughly sick of it. What annoys me the most is the people who think that it is somehow revolutionary. There was some information in that thread and a whole lot of sensationalising. Suggestings that a regular cordalette is unsafe is rubish.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 24, 2006, 7:26 AM
Post #27 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
I would say that the quality since 40 hasn't necessarily been as consistent as the pre-40 posts but there is still much of value there. I do think some agendas have played out over the the last 17 pages but there is still value there from my perspective. Again, as content of any value at all goes, even at its worst it's still better than 80-90% of what passes for content here.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Mar 24, 2006, 3:07 PM
Post #28 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
So far in this thread (2 pages), exactly half the responses igore the original question. Rock on! Maybe we can beat that piddling Sliding x thread!
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 3:53 PM
Post #29 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: So far in this thread (2 pages), exactly half the responses igore the original question. Rock on! Maybe we can beat that piddling Sliding x thread! |
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Mar 24, 2006, 5:09 PM
Post #30 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: Suggestings that a regular cordalette is unsafe is rubish.
On what are you basing this appraisal? I'm afraid this smacks of "It's fine because I say so" kind of reasoning. I said the same--then we did some testing and I stood corrected.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 24, 2006, 8:22 PM
Post #31 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: So far in this thread (2 pages), exactly half the responses igore the original question. Rock on! Maybe we can beat that piddling Sliding x thread!
Actually they don't ignore the original question - the answer to the original question is read the sliding-X thread...
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Mar 24, 2006, 9:29 PM
Post #32 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
Disagree. In polite society, a question is responded to with what, class? An answer. Not a lot of answers in this one. And "Go read that other thread" doesn't strike me as an answer. And besides, the Thread Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned is about a Sliding X. This guy was asking about a cordelette. You know, I started to not respond, because this thread runs the danger of succumbing to the same bullsh*t attacks the other one. So...if you got an answer to the original question, post up. Otherwise, go flame a n00b.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 24, 2006, 10:26 PM
Post #33 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: Disagree. In polite society, a question is responded to with what, class? An answer. Not a lot of answers in this one. And "Go read that other thread" doesn't strike me as an answer. And besides, the Thread Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned is about a Sliding X. This guy was asking about a cordelette. You know, I started to not respond, because this thread runs the danger of succumbing to the same bullsh*t attacks the other one. So...if you got an answer to the original question, post up. Otherwise, go flame a n00b.
Frankly, when I saw the most detailed technical explanation given there about why it doesn't provide true equalization, my eyes glazed over and I trudged on to other stuff in the thread.
And justthemaid already did the legwork for you on getting the info: see the 9th reply 2 pages back in this thread (i.e., the 1st page). If that's not enough then the next thing is to take those pages/text and post them into this thread - which is utterly rediculous (I don't normally use "utterly rediculous" but it fits if we get that far).
Regarding "polite society", you're shooting from the hip as well as with your non-dominant hand.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
delcross
Mar 24, 2006, 11:21 PM
Post #34 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2005
Posts: 46
|
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 24, 2006, 11:34 PM
Post #35 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
^^ That pretty much sums things up. I'll just add something.
1. It is next to impossible to properly equalise more than 2 strands, especially with static cord. Dynamic cord will help spread load better. This is because to spread the load properly you need arms that are the right length down to the cm, this is HARD to do.
2. It is however pretty easy to spead the load across 2 strands if there is a non small angle between them (ie 60 degrees).
A sliding arangement gives equal tension on all arms, thus equal load on anchor. The rest of the thread is everybody arguing about the best sliding method while reducing extension.
Personally I'm sticking with the basic cordalette. I'm happy with load sharing across 2 pieces and redundacy from a third.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 12:23 AM
Post #36 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: In reply to: Suggestings that a regular cordalette is unsafe is rubish. On what are you basing this appraisal? I'm afraid this smacks of "It's fine because I say so" kind of reasoning. I said the same--then we did some testing and I stood corrected. JL
I am basing that appraisal on the fact that a cordalette succeeds in connecting several pieces together to form a redundant, limited extension anchor with partial load sharing. I would trust all my anchor pieces for a load of 10Kn which is more than any fall would generate, the extra pieces are just there due to paranoid redundancy.
I'll happily agree that the equalisation is nowhere near perfect with a cordalette but you haven't shown that perfect equalisation is necessary for a safe anchor.
For christ sake climbers regularily are safely caught by single pieces of gear while climbing, that is what lead climbing is about. Whatsmore the load on a single piece of gear is more than double the load felt on the belay and anchor because both sides of the rope are pulling on the piece.
Even factor 2 falls, which you shouldn't let happen in the first place** shouldn't pose a problem to your anchor as rope stretch and belay device slip should limit this.
I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe.
** Why should you let this happen? Factor two falls happen when there are no pieces in between you and the belay. If there are no pieces then there is usually no reason why the belayer can't give extra slack to the climber and reduce the factor of the fall.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Mar 27, 2006, 1:06 AM
Post #37 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe.
Be gentle with him, Largo. :)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 27, 2006, 1:56 AM
Post #38 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. Be gentle with him, Largo. :)
That's ok.. i'm sure Curt will show up to give him a hand.. and by hand i mean one hit upside the back of his head in a :dopeslap: manner :)
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 2:04 AM
Post #39 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. Be gentle with him, Largo. :)
:lol: I'm ready, you don't need to be gentle. :wink:
I'm waiting...
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 27, 2006, 2:53 AM
Post #40 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. Be gentle with him, Largo. :) :lol: I'm ready, you don't need to be gentle. :wink: I'm waiting...
Your gonna be waiting a long time, or at least until the book goes into print.
I don't think JL needs to be defending both his own professional opinion, AND the testing he's spent hours doing to you on the internet.
The data's there, the book's getting written, John was kind enough to keep us in the loop with the sliding x thread....I don't think he needs to get into a pissing match on the internet just cause you "called him out".
Lets just remember who's been asked to author the book. :wink:
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Mar 27, 2006, 3:02 AM
Post #41 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Patto, in the argument business, your "explanation" that a fixed power point rigging is safe is called "begging the question." You make each piece stronger than the maximum load that can be imposed by a factor 2 fall, in which case you only need one piece, and with more than one piece it makes no difference how you rig the anchor. Your conclusion is true because you have defined the problem out of existence.
It is one thing to define it out of existence on paper and another thing to achieve one-piece total indestructibility in every anchor your ever build. If you can do this, then as you suggest, the discussion is not for you.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 27, 2006, 3:11 AM
Post #42 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Well said Jim
for me it sounds like someone telling a Nascar driver.. no.. i really think and old style helmet is fine by me.. i don't need a full face helmet for the racing i do. And even if i crash it'll keep me safe most of the time and only a few people have been killed wearing them. Hmm cuz Nascar has done tons of testing on the safety and all the professionals believe it and have far more experience.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 3:26 AM
Post #43 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: . Your conclusion is true because you have defined the problem out of existence.
Very, very true. However most evidence points to the fact that the problem doesn't exist in the first place.
I would happily admit that if I'm building an anchor out of three 4kN placements I would much prefer to use a sliding-x arrangement. I would happily agree that a cordalette in this circumstance wouldn't be a particularily safe anchor.
The point has been made in the original thread that stronge does not mean safer. Your 25kN anchor is safer than my 15kN if the highest force the anchor will feel is 6kN.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 3:31 AM
Post #44 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. I don't think JL needs to be defending both his own professional opinion, AND the testing he's spent hours doing to you on the internet. Jim
Well if he questions my opinion then I think that it is fair enough that I can question his.
As I have said already I don't dispute his testing. However just because there are more equalised setups than a cordalette, it doesn't mean that the cordalette is unsafe.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 27, 2006, 4:55 AM
Post #45 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I have explained why I believe that the cordalette is safe. Now you justify your claims that it is unsafe. I don't think JL needs to be defending both his own professional opinion, AND the testing he's spent hours doing to you on the internet. Jim Well if he questions my opinion then I think that it is fair enough that I can question his. As I have said already I don't his testing. However just because there are more equalised setups than a cordalette, it doesn't mean that the cordalette is unsafe.
Your gonna have to retype this...In reply to: As I have said already I don't his testing.
Find where JL said the words "a cordalette is unsafe". I dont think you'll be able to. His testing revealed just how poor of it choice it can be....but, this doesn't change the fact that it has been "good enough" for most climbers, in most circumstances.
We now know that the cordelette does a very poor job, and we should find a better alternative....this is what John has said.
But dude, this isn't the friggin climbing police. If you don't wanna do it...don't. No one is gonna come out the the crag and beat your ass for using a cordelette. The data is there, it illustrates the limitations of the pre-equalized cordelette....so make up your own mind. Just don't think your gonna disprove the data, or the guy who literally "wrote the book" (twice) on anchoring.
If you don't trust the data; go rig 200+ drop tests on a UIAA drop tower for a few weeks, with a well respected testing expert in the climbing community.....then tell us our data is wrong.
You can go climb on GoldLine with a hip-belay if it blows your skirt up...plenty of people did just fine doing that, too.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 27, 2006, 9:47 AM
Post #47 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: Find where JL said the words "a cordalette is unsafe". I dont think you'll be able to.
I have already quoted this. I said that it is rubbish to think that the cordalette is unsafe. He questioned this, that is what the discussion is about.
In reply to: But dude, this isn't the friggin climbing police. If you don't wanna do it...don't. No one is gonna come out the the crag and beat your ass for using a cordelette. ... Jim
I know. I am just defending my opinon, im not forcing you to use the cordalette.
In reply to: In reply to: However most evidence points to the fact that the problem doesn't exist in the first place. There is really no evidence that the problem doesn't exist.
Actually there is ALOT of evidence that large forces ie >10kN are never experience in climbing. I have read numerous statement from people in the industry concerning force limitations. Ropes are tested with a factor 1.77 fall and given a maximum impact force rating. These are normally around 8kN. I wont go on, you should know this.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Mar 27, 2006, 4:40 PM
Post #48 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Patto:
If every primary anchor placement could sustain a factor two fall, and moreover, if we all could reliably determine same with visual inspection, the rigging wouldn't much matter. Fact is there are many anchors out there built on so-so primary placements, and there are many climbers who lack the experience to know the relative strength of said anchors by simply eyeballing them.
But beyond this, there is the issue of what is actually a better way to go about things, and what criteria we use to define "better."
A standard evaluation criteria is SRENE, and to that end, the cordelette unequal arm rig is not as effective as the equalette--which is just as simple and just as quick to rig as the original cordelette configuration, and is far superior in terms of equalization and redundancy.
A blanket statement claiming the cordelette is "safe," and that any contrary evidence is "rubbish" is simply not a well informed judgement. Moreover it encourages folks to continue using the cordelette unequal arm configuration after testing has shown it places the bulk of all dynamic loading on a single piece of gear. Switching to another system is an example of preventitive medicine. If you suggest that climbers wait till the disease (anchor failure) actually shows up, you've done nobody any favors.
But as someone already said--do as you please. But kindly don't imply that using the cordelette unequal arm configuration is a viable practice simply because more of such rigs haven't so far failed.
What is the logic in continuing to use a system that testing has show to be sketchy (in certain circumstances) when a better system has been provided? I can only look to the basic human tendency to resist change, and to call that wisdom.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Mar 27, 2006, 4:58 PM
Post #49 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: Actually there is ALOT of evidence that large forces ie >10kN are never experience in climbing.
For the rest of us, who are less clairvoyant, should really look at other anchoring options than the fixed power point cordelette anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 27, 2006, 9:12 PM
Post #50 of 54
(5621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: Actually there is ALOT of evidence that large forces ie >10kN are never experience in climbing. I, for one, am impressed that you always know that your placements will actually hold 10 kn.
Me too. Guess Patto doesn't ever place small nuts, micro cams, ball-nuts, brassies, pitons, or cam hooks.
Must really limit him to climbs with crack systems larger than about an inch.
Also, Patto must use lockers on all his anchor piece placements. Apparertly his anchors, rigged with a cordelette, are incapable of loading a piece (with close to 100% of the force on one piece, as the testing has proved) with a momentarly open gate, with a rated strength below 10kN (as most biners are).
For the rest of us that own and place gear rated below 10 kN, or place gear in less than perfect circumstances, or use biners with an open gate strength of less than 10kN... I find this information very valuable.
This is all of course assuming that your assertation that forces in climbing never actually exceed 10kN, being correct.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
