|
epoch
Moderator
Nov 16, 2008, 6:08 AM
Post #1 of 95
(16360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
So, I was thinking the other day how well we can learn from each other. My last gem received some wonderful remarks and I thought about it and figured, why not make it a recurring theme. So I now present to you another one for you to think about.
[edit:] This anchor is a situation where your only option is protecting an offwidth. You are half-way up a 2 pitch climb, and you outweigh your partner by 60 pounds - who happened to draw the unlucky straw of the crux pitch. She'll be leading next. The second is climbing up from below.
[/edit]
Each piece is solid in its own right. I've started playing with the Equalette concept and it will evolve throughout the series of posts that I am plan on making.
Here are the placements:
And the finished product:
(This post was edited by epoch on Nov 17, 2008, 1:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
divnamite
Nov 16, 2008, 4:57 PM
Post #2 of 95
(16300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 114
|
Can't tell from the photo, but #2 looks like it can come off on a side way pull.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Nov 16, 2008, 5:01 PM
Post #3 of 95
(16295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
That hex in the second picture does not sit right with me.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Nov 16, 2008, 5:25 PM
Post #4 of 95
(16287 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
your anchor appears to be constructed largely of gear that hasn't been seen on racks around here in 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Nov 16, 2008, 5:56 PM
Post #5 of 95
(16271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
I would belay a second off of that. I like that the ill-seated hex is on the leg of the equalette that includes the cam.
It only needs a good upward-pull piece to belay a roughly straight-up lead; I would not count on the cam to swivel so much and maintain integrity.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Nov 16, 2008, 6:15 PM
Post #6 of 95
(16259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
IMO,the outside lobs on the cam is near the edge and I think,you used a cam that is one size bigger for that crack. you also got too many unnecessary knots on every gear .
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Nov 16, 2008, 6:25 PM
Post #7 of 95
(16252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
In general, I think this is a poor setup for the equalette. Both the cam and the hex in the 2nd picture look like they will fail in a pull for anything other than a downward pull.
If possible, I would have added a opposition piece or two to the cam and hex, NOT the main anchor point. This would help maintain some ability to move the direction of pull without blowing the anchor.
Adding the oppositional to the main point would have been better for a direct upward pull, but wouldn't really address the problem of the left leg blowing in an outward pull. If you add the directional and make it taught against the anchor, then the master point will be immobile, and there would be no point in making an equalette at all.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Nov 16, 2008, 6:51 PM
Post #8 of 95
(16238 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
I can't tell from the picture, but it looks like all the pieces are clove hitched, and then there's a loop near the "power point" to clip the leader and the second to, I don't understand how this is any better than a cordalette.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Nov 16, 2008, 7:39 PM
Post #10 of 95
(16210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
climbingaggie03 wrote: I can't tell from the picture, but it looks like all the pieces are clove hitched, and then there's a loop near the "power point" to clip the leader and the second to, I don't understand how this is any better than a cordalette.
The difference is that the master point isn't a hard point. It slides. This allows two self-equalizing legs of the anchor. The two knots to either side of the moving master point add full redundancy.
The equalette is "better" since it allows the point of equalization to change. A cordolette is a single directional set up. However, if the individual pieces of pro are not suitable for multi directions of force, neither is the equalette. In such a case, or in cases where you very much do not want to load your pieces in multiple directions, the cordolette is just as good or better.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Nov 16, 2008, 7:40 PM
Post #11 of 95
(16209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
tradrenn wrote: If it was my anchor I would add a twist (Sliding X) to my power point, should your hex fail (the one clipped with red biner) your locker will simply slide out and you go splat.
Look again. He is clipping to 3 out of the 4 cords at the master point. The last strand will catch the rope, albeit a little shock-loaded, should either of the legs fail.
Edited to add: I can't believe no one else spotted this, but the carabiner on the anchor is unlocked. Bad form.
(This post was edited by shoo on Nov 16, 2008, 7:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Nov 16, 2008, 7:48 PM
Post #12 of 95
(16199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
shoo wrote: However, if the individual pieces of pro are not suitable for multi directions of force, neither is the equalette. In such a case, or in cases where you very much do not want to load your pieces in multiple directions, the cordolette is just as good or better.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Nov 16, 2008, 7:56 PM
Post #13 of 95
(16191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
billl7 wrote: I think that is going into the extreme corner cases since there are few anchors where every piece is good for one and absolutely one direction of pull. However, even then it was shown in the Long/Gaines anchor book that the equalette out-performs the knotted cordelette and the sliding 'X' - in a vertical crack. Bill L
Good point. Clarification for everyone else: In a cordolette, the shortest leg of the anchor will receive the greatest amount of force due to the nature of a stretching cord. In an equalette, that force is balanced better across legs.
However, I fail to understand how an equalette could possibly outperform a sliding X (since it essentially is one) in anything except redundancy (which is, of course, vital).
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Nov 16, 2008, 8:00 PM
Post #14 of 95
(16183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
... it kinda looks like the biners of the right leg have their gates facing into the rock.
And I'll add a caveat to my first post: This is a variation on the tested equalette. I'm not aware of any testing on this variation - basically, I'm not familiar with the pedigree of the limiter knots.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Nov 16, 2008, 8:34 PM
Post #15 of 95
(16157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
shoo wrote: However, I fail to understand how an equalette could possibly outperform a sliding X (since it essentially is one) in anything except redundancy (which is, of course, vital).
In their tests, I believe nothing out-performed the sliding 'X' in a horizontal crack with equal-length legs.
Bill L
Edited to clarify
(This post was edited by billl7 on Nov 16, 2008, 8:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
verticon
Nov 16, 2008, 8:42 PM
Post #16 of 95
(16151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2005
Posts: 223
|
One more: the "better" hex is set against a thin flake (on the right side) that could move or break.
And yeah, what's the trick with getting 4 strings on the MP instead of just 2 ?
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Nov 16, 2008, 9:49 PM
Post #18 of 95
(16106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
epoch wrote: verticon wrote: One more: the "better" hex is set against a thin flake (on the right side) that could move or break.
And yeah, what's the trick with getting 4 strings on the MP instead of just 2 ?Gimmie a few while I load photos and keep a lookout for a new thread. Probably in the next 10 - 15 min.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Nov 16, 2008, 10:46 PM
Post #19 of 95
(16055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
Epoch, I think it would help keep things a bit more streamlined if you mentioned what the anchor would be used for. Seems to me it would be wasted time to only discuss anchors for rappelling. If you keep with the Anchors Analysis series, I think all responses should assume that the anchor is mid-way through a multi-pitch climb. What do you think?
It would also help if more responses knew what an equalette actually is . . .
Like Majid, I thought the nearest lobes of the cam were a bit close to edges where the constriction quickly widens. Hard to tell without being at the crack itself.
Same goes for the (non-camming) hex. It's hard to tell whether it's a good keyhole placement that could withstand some outward force, or if it would be pulled out.
Assuming it will be used to belay a leader, an oppositional for the loose hex would be nice.
Edit: The pink quickdraw could probably face us instead of the rock, too.
(This post was edited by spikeddem on Nov 16, 2008, 10:49 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ahimsa
Nov 17, 2008, 3:41 PM
Post #21 of 95
(15897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2005
Posts: 104
|
With a sliding "X" isn't there a problem where, if one piece blows the second piece will be shock-loaded because the anchor will slip to the end of the runner. If each strand of the "X" is attached to a cordalete with two pieces of pro i.e. a bomber anchor, i wouldn't see this as a problem. But it's usually not so i tend to only use a sliding "X" with two bomber bolts. Sounds like others use it a lot more frequently, am i missing something or are those folks just assuming a piece wont blow?!
In reply to: The equalette can be biner-d into using a sliding 'X'. However, Long/Gaines tested (and recommended) biner-ing into each of the two strands individually to avoid an 'X's tendancy to sort of pinching itself as it shifts along the strands and so sticks. I think the word they used was the 'clutch' effect of the 'X'. In their tests, I believe nothing out-performed the sliding 'X' in a horizontal crack with equal-length legs. Bill L
*edited for clarification of quote*
(This post was edited by ahimsa on Nov 17, 2008, 3:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
coolcat83
Nov 17, 2008, 4:22 PM
Post #22 of 95
(15857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2007
Posts: 1007
|
ahimsa wrote: With a sliding "X" isn't there a problem where, if one piece blows the second piece will be shock-loaded because the anchor will slip to the end of the runner. If each strand of the "X" is attached to a cordalete with two pieces of pro i.e. a bomber anchor, i wouldn't see this as a problem. But it's usually not so i tend to only use a sliding "X" with two bomber bolts. Sounds like others use it a lot more frequently, am i missing something or are those folks just assuming a piece wont blow?! In reply to: The equalette can be biner-d into using a sliding 'X'. However, Long/Gaines tested (and recommended) biner-ing into each of the two strands individually to avoid an 'X's tendancy to sort of pinching itself as it shifts along the strands and so sticks. I think the word they used was the 'clutch' effect of the 'X'. In their tests, I believe nothing out-performed the sliding 'X' in a horizontal crack with equal-length legs. Bill L *edited for clarification of quote*
you can use limiter knots to reduce the shock loading, which many have said is not an issue in practice anyway.
same comments on the placements, cam could go back a bit, the first hex looks like it's just sitting waiting to be dislodged, the third hex is a little blurry but at least it seems to be cammed in there.
your setup looks like a quad, also the recommended clip in is two lockers, one on each strand, i've used it it slides easily and should one strand fail or the biner get loaded you have the other.
I say all this with the caveat that I have been told I build too much redundancy in my anchors. But better safe than sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Nov 17, 2008, 4:52 PM
Post #23 of 95
(15823 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
ahimsa wrote: With a sliding "X" isn't there a problem where, if one piece blows the second piece will be shock-loaded because the anchor will slip to the end of the runner. If each strand of the "X" is attached to a cordalete with two pieces of pro i.e. a bomber anchor, i wouldn't see this as a problem. But it's usually not so i tend to only use a sliding "X" with two bomber bolts. Sounds like others use it a lot more frequently, am i missing something or are those folks just assuming a piece wont blow?! In reply to: The equalette can be biner-d into using a sliding 'X'. However, Long/Gaines tested (and recommended) biner-ing into each of the two strands individually to avoid an 'X's tendancy to sort of pinching itself as it shifts along the strands and so sticks. I think the word they used was the 'clutch' effect of the 'X'. In their tests, I believe nothing out-performed the sliding 'X' in a horizontal crack with equal-length legs. Bill L *edited for clarification of quote*
Studies suggest that so long as there remains a dynamic part in the system (in our case the rope), there will be no shock-loading. There has been no experimental evidence that suggests a cord being elongated statically will not elongated dynamically if a part of the anchor blows.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Nov 17, 2008, 7:52 PM
Post #24 of 95
(15751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
coolcat83 wrote: your setup looks like a quad, also the recommended clip in is two lockers, one on each strand, i've used it it slides easily and should one strand fail or the biner get loaded you have the other. I say all this with the caveat that I have been told I build too much redundancy in my anchors. But better safe than sorry.
One of the key points of the quad is that you don't have to use two carabiners to anchor into. You can clip 1, 2, or 3 master point cords and be fully redundant (with near-perfect redundancy if you clip into 2), except of course for the single locking carabiner.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Nov 17, 2008, 8:06 PM
Post #25 of 95
(15736 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
It's all so...so...shiny!
Cam placement seems ok provided it doesn't move at all and the rock it's placed in isn't as chossy as it looks. The 1st hex looks like a stout fart would blow it out of it's current spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
