But the real questin (one for the lab?) is:

Does a limiter knot (in a typical situation where one point has failed) reduce the load on the remaining point(s) more than the same knot weakens the sling?

One would have to take into account that some of the dynamic properties of the rope might already be "consumed" by the forces that caused the first point to fail.

yeah. Now add 2 feet of climbing rope attaching you to the anchor. Still shock loading? (hint, this is the point that most of us are argueing about. There doesn't seem to be any data on eway or the other.)

To pfwein:

brevity is the soul of wit.

you, sir, are a windbag.

Just pointing this out so any noobs who care understand this has all been a theoretical pissing match, which strangely seems to have really pissed some people off.

DMT--Some facts contradict your theory regarding when and why limiter knots were first mentioned in connection with the sliding-x.

The concept of using limiter knots was introduced in print by JL well before any problems with the cordelette came to light. Quoting from Climbing Anchors, J. Long (Chockstone Press, 1993) at p. 70: "To minimize the potential extension in longer equalizing slings, tie an overhand knot in the long leg of the sling, just above the tie-in point."

This is the same book that introduced the cordelette to the American public, to my knowledge. Obviously, Long's mentioning limiter knots with the sliding-x was not to correct any deficiency in the cordelette, as JL recommended the cordelette (In fairness to him, he noted the cordelette equalization was not pefect. See p. 71. And that's obvious to anyone who ever used one.)

You don't need data. Again the physics is really simple. Extension of 1 foot, 2 feet of climbing rope = factor <0.5 fall of belayer. This force can be added to the force on the anchor from the lead fall.

You keep missing the point and I'm not sure that you'll ever get it.

DMT's case study of the cordelette was to point out that its development was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. It was the outcome of a gedankenexperiment, much like your arguments, with no empirical evidence. It had been decided that anchors should equalize and have no extension. Turns out that equalization is more important by orders of magnitude and that extension is not a problem at all if there is a dynamic rope in the system. This has been shown with experiments and anecdotally through a lack of accidents attributable to sliding-xs. There is no evidence that limiting knots are needed in any sliding-x setups that people actually use.

The knots in the equalette are more for creating a redundant attachment in an equalizing setup than they are for extension limiting. The redundancy and equalization are the more important aspects and the extension limiting is a side effect and in fact limits the equalization capabilities of the setup which is the primary design goal. Also, by being able to clip single strands instead of using a sliding-x the friction is reduced improving the dynamic equalization.

Again, there have been no anchor failures or injuries attributed to anchor extension. Anchor extension shock loading is not a real world problem.

It's possible he gets a kick out of making outrageous statements

Limiter knots are not "pointless" although I agree they may be unnecessary in some situations (and I frequently don't use them). The thing is, it's hard to know how unnecessary they are in advance of one piece popping, and then it may be too late.

I mostly agree with everything you've written on this thread. My only contention, which is a quibble at this point, is that you think I'm missing something, which you may find hard to reconcile with my agreeing with you.

What you've written is not the same as what Dingus has written. You have chosen to reinterpret what he said in a way that makes sense.

Pf, just like to say that not everyone thinks you are an idiot. Its pretty clear that your argument is correct. I mean yeah, object A falling 10 feet will generate more force than falling 5 feet. I'm pretty sure thats the entirety of what you are trying to get at. Yes, the difference between 6" and a foot of extension is probly not that much and is debatable weather its worth the knots. Not sure what all the personal attacks and whatnot are for, you are being perfectly reasonable and well spoken. Unless of course the edits are blatant, but I doubt it.

to the dumbfucks that post 'too many wurd! omg! not reeding that!'. this is a bloody forum. with words. its text based, not tv or radio or your grandma reading out loud to you. you came here to read, quit bitching.

And dont just jump on dingus' bandwagon to garner some favor with him. its pretty pathetic, and I seriously doubt he gives a flying fuck how many freetards on this forum worship his shadow. thats what twitter is for.

Two points:

1 - This is primarily directed toward Dingus, but others as well: Limiter knots in sliding-X anchors are a good idea in multipitch anchors where rockfall headed for the belay is a distinct possibility (e.g. first or early ascents). If that sling gets cut and you have no limiter knot, you have no anchor. Of course, using a different anchoring method altogether (such as anchoring in with the rope) is fine, too.

A second case when those pesky limiter knots could be useful is when you'd be likely to fall off your stance if one piece blew (and we're not talking about a big beefy new bolt). Dunno about you DMT, but the thought of taking a human funkness fall of over a foot onto trad gear gives me the willies.

2 - The cordelette, popularized by JL, was not an answer to an un-asked question. Several influential people, such as Craig Luebben and Marc Chauvin had developed basic principles to strive for in anchor building. In fact, the SRENE principle in the JL book was probably directly stolen from Chauvin's RENE principle.

Now please carry on.

GO

I'll restate it again, mayhaps you'll understand it this time:

SHOW ME THE BEEF.

I challenge the notion that limiter knots provide BENEFIT. These things suddenly crept into the lexicon of climbers and I would like to see some test or study to confirm that the wasted time at every freakin belay is worth anything at all.

My gut says, no, the time wasted is not worth the socalled benefit of limiter knots. But I can be convinced otherwise - SHOW ME THE STUDY.

Capice?

DMT

Sorry cracklover, I'm not aware of any PROOF that substantiates either of your above points. You expect us to believe that your magic limiter knots will somehow lead to redundancy or prevent human funkness falls?

Many fools think that because some jock who wrote a book on anchors popularized the notion, but I am not aware of any tests that prove it. Likewise, I assume you have no PROOF that a 1' (or much more--don't assume we're just talking about shoulder or even double length slings here) belayer fall could create even the slightest inconvenience.

In any event, it is all academic since in the absence of PROOF, your theoretical speculation is, as has been previously noted in particular to your second point when made by another poster, complete rubbish.

I died last weekend because one of my cams popped and there was no limitter knot so everything failed after that.

There's your beef.

QED

This is a job for the mythbusters!

GO

Cool. I hadn't heard about the gri gri vs atc thing before. It makes sense, I just hadn't thought of it before.

It's on the Grigri instruction sheet although the language is a little vague.