May 6, 2009, 5:54 AM
Post #1 of 143
(18861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Posts: 323
Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Two pieces in solid rock hold plenty of kilonewtons, why would anyone place more?
Seriously, I have read several comments lately on this site that lead me to believe many people feel that two good pieces make a satisfactory trad anchor. Has this become an accepted practice? I always like at least three. If you feel two is OK, what is your logic? I have always thought that three was considered the minimum.
(This post was edited by pendereki on May 6, 2009, 6:00 AM)
May 6, 2009, 6:32 AM
Post #2 of 143
(18833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
Re: [pendereki] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Why must 3 accepted practice?
I believe 3 is good because in the rare occurance of failure of 1 piece you still have an equalised anchor rather than have a 1 piece anchor.
If I have 2 absolutely bomber pieces then I will happily use 2 pieces.
If I have less bomber pieces (rarely) then I will pay particular attention to equalisation >3 pieces. I have built anchors with 5 pieces before. Mostly small nuts and cams.
May 6, 2009, 6:33 AM
Post #3 of 143
(18832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
Re: [pendereki] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
pendereki wrote:
Two pieces in solid rock hold plenty of kilonewtons, why would anyone place more?
Seriously, I have read several comments lately on this site that lead me to believe many people feel that two good pieces make a satisfactory trad anchor. Has this become an accepted practice? I always like at least three. If you feel two is OK, what is your logic? I have always thought that three was considered the minimum.
Two's enough if they're solid. One would hold most falls. But you never know, so most of us seek redundency.
May 6, 2009, 6:38 AM
Post #4 of 143
(18823 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
Re: [moose_droppings] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
moose_droppings wrote:
pendereki wrote:
Two pieces in solid rock hold plenty of kilonewtons, why would anyone place more?
Seriously, I have read several comments lately on this site that lead me to believe many people feel that two good pieces make a satisfactory trad anchor. Has this become an accepted practice? I always like at least three. If you feel two is OK, what is your logic? I have always thought that three was considered the minimum.
Two's enough if they're solid. One would hold most falls. But you never know, so most of us seek redundency.
Additionally, if there's a chance of factor 2-ing (that is, it's more than one pitch) and I didn't have a tree/bolt I'd toss in three. If it's just single pitch and I'm right next to the anchors I'll generally just toss in two pieces, 2-eared figured eight, eight on a bight, and call on-belay.
May 6, 2009, 7:23 AM
Post #8 of 143
(18771 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
Re: [pendereki] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(3 ratings)
Can't Post
I halfheartedly voted for 2 pieces.
Really, the answer I would have clicked is
"I use two pieces if that's all I can get in and hope they're good, come to think of it, I suppose I'd use one if I didn't have a choice but I wouldn't be smiling"
For an area where it's just as easy to use three and I have 3 left, yes, I use three. It's a bit misleading to use that "always" word.
May 6, 2009, 11:14 AM
Post #9 of 143
(18697 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 365
Re: [pendereki] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
I think that as a general rule 3 anchors is a good starting point, but I think you need to take a pragmatic approach. For trad gear I would pretty much always use at least 3 peaces. There are however occasions, ie where there are large tree’s, boulders or bolts to use, where the anchors are clearly so good that two or even one is OK, on the other hand there have been times when I have used 6 or seven peaces of gear to build an anchor.
(This post was edited by king_rat on May 6, 2009, 11:48 AM)
May 6, 2009, 12:29 PM
Post #11 of 143
(18628 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
Re: [pendereki] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(2 ratings)
Can't Post
I shy away from just two removable pieces since the belayer can get jacked around in a lead fall. So I'll put in three or sometimes more. To put it another way, two for redundancy and another to help guard against imperfection. Four if needed to address upward pull.
I use enough pieces to make the anchor solid and safe. Sometimes, that's three. Sometimes four. I've built one that had six. Others have had two.
Ditto. (Though I don't think I've ever had a six piece anchor.)
I was recently on a multipitch climb where I would have been totally comfortable with a two-piece anchor at the top of the first pitch. (I only made it a three-point anchor to be psychologically reassuring to my partner.) I then built a four-piece anchor at the top of the second pitch since they were all micro cams.
I have built an anchor at a common top roping site where there is a yellow camalot-sized crack in the earth. I place both of my yellow camalots and proceed to equalize them. the blue camalot only barely fits in a couple not very useful spots and the red camalot is tipped out, so neither is very useful to add. given those constraints, I feel comfortable with a two point anchor.
sure, three is great if the situation allows it. but the situation doesn't always allow a three point anchor. mental flexibility is important. you need to be able to decide what the situation requires.
if the OP is referencing this thread http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=2135284;#2135284, it's worth noting that the discussion regards alpine anchors, where two piece anchors are typically more acceptable.
May 6, 2009, 1:54 PM
Post #15 of 143
(18516 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
Re: [johnwesely] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
johnwesely wrote:
When I am hanging off it. I prefer to see three because it makes me feel a little better.
agreed multi pitch trad I like 3!!! unless I'm hauling I'll never use more then 3. If I am on a nice ledge, the climbing is easy I have no problem just putting in one piece and tying in.
Majid if reference to your picture... of course you need so many pieces if you place them under blocks that could move with a decent fall. Of course if a block shifts it doesn't matter how many pieces are under it so that picture looks like a three piece anchor to me, and the one on the left looks suspect.
My vote falls between sometimes two and always three (yes technically that makes me a sometimes two person). I feel like "sometimes" means more often than I would place them. I usually find at least two solid pieces and usually a third that I have confidence in. If I can find two perfect placements and I need to conserve gear in a size for the next pitch, or I can't find a good third placement I am happy with two. I will also go with two if there is a good stance acts as my primary piece and I am not worried about shock loading the anchor at the start of the next pitch.
For me my rule is three pieces unless the situation dictates otherwise, but I don't go into a climb with a "two sometimes" mentality.
May 6, 2009, 3:43 PM
Post #18 of 143
(18397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
Re: [bill413] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(2 ratings)
Can't Post
Two modern bolts, yes.
Two well-placed directionally secure (or secured) medium-large to large stoppers, ok.
Two cams, never unless forced to.
Smaller stoppers and cams require three or more anchor points in my book. Especially worrisome are small cam anchors (smaller than purple camalot size), in which I think four cams is minimal, the belayer ought to do everything possible to find a braced position, and the leader ought to strive to get in something good as soon as possible.
None of these things may be possible. I had to belay off such an anchor a year ago with very poor belayer bracing, absolutely no possibility of leader protection for a while, and 5.8 climbing in the offing. At times like this, it helps to know who the hell you're climbing with. Such situations are not common, but also aren't exceptionally rare either on trad routes that are either new or not well-traveled. All the theory in the world about multiple anchor points and Jesus nuts goes out the window, and the game boils down to good old-fashioned climbing competence---the leader better not fall, just as in the days of hemp ropes and nailed boots.
By the way, had the leader who must not fall fallen, he was in for one hell of a dynamic belay---I wouldn't have tried to stop him in a hurry. I had my gloves on (as always) and was careful to keep the rope out of the locked-off position for the belay device. Years ago we practiced catches like this, so I had a reasonable idea about how to clamp down.
Edit: Even in the medium-to-large stopper situation where two are ok, I'll usually place three pieces. But the third would typically be a cam, because using up three medium to large stoppers in the anchor would rather seriously deplete what we usually carry on the rack and possibly diminish the leader's protection options.
There's a lot to think about...
(This post was edited by rgold on May 6, 2009, 4:14 PM)
Sorry, but it depends. It's completely situational.
I've made four piece anchors where I was still shitting bricks, and more than several one piece anchors where I felt 100% secure.
And I'm not even just talking about trees. This is a one-piece anchor I particularly liked:
I was 15 feet off the ground, at a decent stance. My partner was leading up above me, and her pitch started with moderate (for her) and well protected climbing. She got in several good pieces early. Why would I want anything more than this excellent nut?
I've also done more than one belay in which the only piece of gear was my fat ass. In both cases, I only would have had to hold a TR fall, and I was well wedged into place.
Majid if reference to your picture... of course you need so many pieces if you place them under blocks that could move with a decent fall. Of course if a block shifts it doesn't matter how many pieces are under it so that picture looks like a three piece anchor to me, and the one on the left looks suspect.
My vote falls between sometimes two and always three (yes technically that makes me a sometimes two person). I feel like "sometimes" means more often than I would place them. I usually find at least two solid pieces and usually a third that I have confidence in. If I can find two perfect placements and I need to conserve gear in a size for the next pitch, or I can't find a good third placement I am happy with two. I will also go with two if there is a good stance acts as my primary piece and I am not worried about shock loading the anchor at the start of the next pitch.
For me my rule is three pieces unless the situation dictates otherwise, but I don't go into a climb with a "two sometimes" mentality.
That was five cams plus a back up some 20 feet in the back in that picture but the point I was making is that; you build anchors based on potential hazard that you may have to deal with in worse case scenario and not by some imaginary numbers out of your as* like how some of the climbers are using these days.
Majid if reference to your picture... of course you need so many pieces if you place them under blocks that could move with a decent fall. Of course if a block shifts it doesn't matter how many pieces are under it so that picture looks like a three piece anchor to me, and the one on the left looks suspect.
Agreed. Especially considering that most of Majid's posts make him sound like the only safe climber in the universe, that is a piss poor anchor to post a picture of. It really doesn't matter how many pieces are on the right side or if they're good or not, if you fall on that and the (very loose and unstable looking) block topples over on you, it wouldn't really matter if the other pieces held or not.
May 6, 2009, 5:55 PM
Post #24 of 143
(18165 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
Re: [pendereki] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
I sort of count a good stance as a piece, but I still put in at least 3 pieces of removable pro if possible. As a current weekend warrior, it's really not my goal to anaylze every possible failure mode of everything and figure out some sort of personal best practices, as some poeple seem to advocate. While you don't want to shut off your brain and do things just b/c you've been told to, my general goal is to keep current with generally accepted best practices, and do those. I think that means at least 3 pieces of removable pro. (Finally, I'd MUCH rather have 2 pieces of bomber pro than 3 or more pieces of junk)
Majid if reference to your picture... of course you need so many pieces if you place them under blocks that could move with a decent fall. Of course if a block shifts it doesn't matter how many pieces are under it so that picture looks like a three piece anchor to me, and the one on the left looks suspect.
Agreed. Especially considering that most of Majid's posts make him sound like the only safe climber in the universe, that is a piss poor anchor to post a picture of. It really doesn't matter how many pieces are on the right side or if they're good or not, if you fall on that and the (very loose and unstable looking) block topples over on you, it wouldn't really matter if the other pieces held or not.
80 /
37%
1
