Forums: Climbing Information: General:
Anything wrong with this newbs anchor?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for General

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All


dingus


Jun 25, 2009, 1:38 AM
Post #151 of 217 (2562 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [jt512] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
onceahardman wrote:
pfwein wrote:
onceahardman wrote:
-a sliding X in a 20' sling illustrates the folly of using it (even though nobody would).
Bzzzzzt, wrong, thanks for playing.
Use of a sliding-x in a 20' sling without limiter knots does indeed illustrate the folly of your argument that limiter knots have no benefit.
Knowledgeable climbers regularly use 20' slings in sliding-x configuration, with limiter knots. It's called an equalette.
Hafilax correctly noted the limiter knots in an equalette serve several purposes. He loses it, however, when he starts pretending that reducing extension is not one of the purposes. His rationality seems to fade in and out, as it is clear that reducing extension has a huge benefit regardless of impact forces. (See cracklover's post about hazard of shift in belayer's position due to extension). If you actually climb, you know this.

Look up the equalette in John Long's updated climbing anchor book if you want to learn something instead of trying (and failing) to expose any shortcomings in my logic. http://books.google.com/...pCSovNJ5XUlQTpxIzLDg

One reason I've persisted in this thread is that there's more going on than discussion of a minor detail. My initial response on this thread was the poster should consult an acknowledged climbing anchor text to learn about climbing anchors. Dingus and you are in effect saying that's bad advice--you know more than the anchor books. That is a truly startling position and warrants exploration. Hence this thread, where your and Dingus's position has been eviscerated.

The density of this thread is tiresome...

The first bolded section, I KNOW! I was repeating you from earlier in the thread. So, if it's wrong, don't blame me. YOU are the one who used a 20' sliding X as an illustration. It was pointed out that nobody does that. It's a red herring.

-I've read all of Largo's books, including his excellent prose. I don't need links to them, I can get them off my bookshelf.

-The second bolded section is a strawman, with a conflation- I never said consulting a book was a bad idea, but it's easier for you to say I did, than to admit that NO RESEARCH EXISTS supporting your position, and I'll repeat, I'm not speaking for dingus, or anyone else.

If drop testing was done, it is plausible that the additional knot is the weakest link, or that the extra knot decreases equalization a tiny bit, either of which weakens the anchor.

But I don't know, and neither do you, because the research is not there. There is only textbook information, which you'll recognize as the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

@MapleSyrup: Apparently even a completely transparent troll can be successful. Nice work.

@Hardman, @pfwein: I have, on occasion, used a sliding X on very long webbing in order to set up one TR anchor for multiple routes. This is especially useful when the routes are around the corner from each other. You can just swing the rope around the corner, and the sliding X preserves equalization. I don't think it was "folly."

@Dingus, @Hardman: Although there may be no rigorous empirical proof either that limiter knots will improve the safety of the anchor, or they will not, the two possibilities do not have equal merit. In the absence of empirical data we should apply the Principle of Parsimony, which says that we should assume the simplest plausible model holds. In this case, the simplest model is that the limiter knots will make the anchor safer because simple physics predicts that by limiting extension we reduce the peak force on the anchor. Every other possibility requires speculating that a particular, more complex model (out of an infinite number of such complex models) holds. Sure, maybe the knots will reduce equalization; maybe the knots will limit the amount that the rope can recover, and hence increase the "shock load"; but these speculations require a more complex physical model, with no supporting evidence. Hence they violate the Principal of Parsimony, and should logically be rejected. The simplest case is that limiting extension will have the effect that we expect from straightforward application of basic laws of physics: peak force on the anchor will be reduced, thus reducing the chance of failure.

Jay

See you're doing it too JT512... you are taking the anchor in isolation rather than considering the whole of the protection system over the course of a climb.

If a team spends and extra 5 minutes a belay friggin around with limiter knots and after 20 pitches ends up nighted in a storm a hundred feet from the top, those limiter knots just might cost them their lives.

This is not some damned theoritical exercise. This is reality. This notion of perfect anchors is total bullshit anyway.

I think limiter knots on good pro in good rock are a waste of time and offer zero benefit. But again, I'm willing to be convinced with EVIDENCE, not philosophy.

20 pitches, jay, not a half a rope length.

DMT


jt512


Jun 25, 2009, 1:51 AM
Post #152 of 217 (2553 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [dingus] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
onceahardman wrote:
pfwein wrote:
onceahardman wrote:
-a sliding X in a 20' sling illustrates the folly of using it (even though nobody would).
Bzzzzzt, wrong, thanks for playing.
Use of a sliding-x in a 20' sling without limiter knots does indeed illustrate the folly of your argument that limiter knots have no benefit.
Knowledgeable climbers regularly use 20' slings in sliding-x configuration, with limiter knots. It's called an equalette.
Hafilax correctly noted the limiter knots in an equalette serve several purposes. He loses it, however, when he starts pretending that reducing extension is not one of the purposes. His rationality seems to fade in and out, as it is clear that reducing extension has a huge benefit regardless of impact forces. (See cracklover's post about hazard of shift in belayer's position due to extension). If you actually climb, you know this.

Look up the equalette in John Long's updated climbing anchor book if you want to learn something instead of trying (and failing) to expose any shortcomings in my logic. http://books.google.com/...pCSovNJ5XUlQTpxIzLDg

One reason I've persisted in this thread is that there's more going on than discussion of a minor detail. My initial response on this thread was the poster should consult an acknowledged climbing anchor text to learn about climbing anchors. Dingus and you are in effect saying that's bad advice--you know more than the anchor books. That is a truly startling position and warrants exploration. Hence this thread, where your and Dingus's position has been eviscerated.

The density of this thread is tiresome...

The first bolded section, I KNOW! I was repeating you from earlier in the thread. So, if it's wrong, don't blame me. YOU are the one who used a 20' sliding X as an illustration. It was pointed out that nobody does that. It's a red herring.

-I've read all of Largo's books, including his excellent prose. I don't need links to them, I can get them off my bookshelf.

-The second bolded section is a strawman, with a conflation- I never said consulting a book was a bad idea, but it's easier for you to say I did, than to admit that NO RESEARCH EXISTS supporting your position, and I'll repeat, I'm not speaking for dingus, or anyone else.

If drop testing was done, it is plausible that the additional knot is the weakest link, or that the extra knot decreases equalization a tiny bit, either of which weakens the anchor.

But I don't know, and neither do you, because the research is not there. There is only textbook information, which you'll recognize as the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

@MapleSyrup: Apparently even a completely transparent troll can be successful. Nice work.

@Hardman, @pfwein: I have, on occasion, used a sliding X on very long webbing in order to set up one TR anchor for multiple routes. This is especially useful when the routes are around the corner from each other. You can just swing the rope around the corner, and the sliding X preserves equalization. I don't think it was "folly."

@Dingus, @Hardman: Although there may be no rigorous empirical proof either that limiter knots will improve the safety of the anchor, or they will not, the two possibilities do not have equal merit. In the absence of empirical data we should apply the Principle of Parsimony, which says that we should assume the simplest plausible model holds. In this case, the simplest model is that the limiter knots will make the anchor safer because simple physics predicts that by limiting extension we reduce the peak force on the anchor. Every other possibility requires speculating that a particular, more complex model (out of an infinite number of such complex models) holds. Sure, maybe the knots will reduce equalization; maybe the knots will limit the amount that the rope can recover, and hence increase the "shock load"; but these speculations require a more complex physical model, with no supporting evidence. Hence they violate the Principal of Parsimony, and should logically be rejected. The simplest case is that limiting extension will have the effect that we expect from straightforward application of basic laws of physics: peak force on the anchor will be reduced, thus reducing the chance of failure.

Jay

See you're doing it too JT512... you are taking the anchor in isolation rather than considering the whole of the protection system over the course of a climb.

Yes, I am. Obviously there may be other considerations.

Jay


bill413


Jun 25, 2009, 2:28 AM
Post #153 of 217 (2543 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [dingus] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
This is not some damned theoritical exercise. This is reality. This notion of perfect anchors is total bullshit anyway.
DMT
This.


Lazlo


Jun 25, 2009, 3:45 AM
Post #154 of 217 (2528 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5079

Re: [bill413] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bill413 wrote:
dingus wrote:
This is not some damned theoritical exercise. This is reality. This notion of perfect anchors is total bullshit anyway.
DMT
This.
is worth repeating.


pfwein


Jun 25, 2009, 3:46 AM
Post #155 of 217 (2525 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353

Re: [Factor2] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Factor2 wrote:
so your saying that rope stretch makes no difference whatsoever to the forces on the anchor? well fuck it, I'm gonna lead on a static rope cause a 50 foot factor 2 fall is the same fall factor regardless

edited to add that im sure there are flaws with your use of the equation, i just don't feel like figuring them out.
My friend, I assure you my use of the equation is impeccable. (The equation is just a model, but it's the model we're using for this purpose.)

I believe you may not be considering the distinction between the climbing rope (dynamic) and sliding-x sling (considered to be static). The purpose of using limiter knots in a sliding-x is to limit the added length of a fall (the extension in the sliding-x) on static material. The static material contributes to the length of the fall (l), but not to the amount of dynamic rope available (r). The limiter knots reduce l and hence the fall factor, as I explained in my previous post. This is not my unique theory: virtually every knowledgeable poster on this thread will agree with the above. The disagreement pertains to added complexities.

You may want to reread Jay's post where he applies the Principle of Parsimony to explain why it is reasonable to assume that limiter knots will reduce anchor peak force, even though reality is more complicated than the simple fall factor model.

In your hypothetical of leading on a static rope, I believe the fall factor would be effectively infinite (dividing by zero), although the model does not "work" in such a case. This is really going beyond the scope of this thread. I assume you were most likely being sarcastic, but if you weren't, please do not climb on static rope--that would be lethal.


jt512


Jun 25, 2009, 4:41 AM
Post #156 of 217 (2508 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [pfwein] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

pfwein wrote:
Factor2 wrote:
so your saying that rope stretch makes no difference whatsoever to the forces on the anchor? well fuck it, I'm gonna lead on a static rope cause a 50 foot factor 2 fall is the same fall factor regardless

In your hypothetical of leading on a static rope, I believe the fall factor would be effectively infinite (dividing by zero), although the model does not "work" in such a case. This is really going beyond the scope of this thread. I assume you were most likely being sarcastic, but if you weren't, please do not climb on static rope--that would be lethal.

Take another look at the wikipedia.com article you mentioned earlier. In the model, the fall factor does not depend on the elasticity of the rope. Fall factor will be the same whether the rope is dynamic or "static." What will differ is k.

Of course, you never know who is writing those wikipedia articles.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 25, 2009, 4:42 AM)


pfwein


Jun 25, 2009, 4:57 AM
Post #157 of 217 (2503 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353

Re: [jt512] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Gotcha, I stand corrected.


patto


Jun 25, 2009, 10:21 AM
Post #158 of 217 (2479 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [Factor2] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm neither for or against limitter knots.

Normally I don't use limiter knots. But I rarely use a sliding x, nor do I normally use slings for that matter. I mostly use climbing rope but I do carry a cordalette with me. Both these methods have no extension.

All that said limitter knots do reduce extension and potential for shock loading an anchor if there is mass attached to the anchor.

But all this discussion comes back to the trade off between extension and dynamic equalisation. If view the stregnth of your protection as closer to binary (ie good piece/bad piece) then no extension is superior. If you view the strength of you pieces as more of a sliding scale then equalisation is possibly better.

Personally I believe that most gear is closer to binary in behaviour. Micro nuts however I would be equalising all the way.



(This post was edited by patto on Jun 25, 2009, 10:22 AM)


dingus


Jun 25, 2009, 11:20 AM
Post #159 of 217 (2472 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [patto] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
I'm neither for or against limitter knots.

(snip)

All that said limiter knots do reduce extension and potential for shock loading an anchor if there is mass attached to the anchor.

They don't limit extension if no piece fails. I'd say the vast majority of limiter knots do not limit extension one millimeter.

In reply to:
But all this discussion comes back to the trade off between extension and dynamic equalisation.

Maybe your part of the discussion, but not mine. This is my 3rd pass at this, let's see if I can communicate it this time...

There were two sentences in a post on page one by pfwein where he said (I'm assuming 'he' I really haven't checked):

pfwein wrote:
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.

What this implies... limiter knots on every anchor, cause you know? You NEVER KNOW, ya know?

Well I don't buy this notion, not at all. And nothing stated in the vast airing of subsequent opinions and back of napkin theorizing has altered this initial statement one iota.

If limiter knots ARE useful and DO have benefit, AND you can NEVER TELL if a given piece will fail or not then the only logical back of napkin decision would be to add limiter knots to every anchor situation that has even the most remote and ridiculous chance of extenstion.

I think its a fad generated by an equally ridiculous quest for some -ette anchor knot arrangement. They violate every KISS principle (hey I get to play philosophy too) in the book.

But again... show me the PROOF that limiter knots actually provide real benefit and I will take notice.

Till then you are all theoriticians practicing knot craft for the sake of knot craft.

DMT


(This post was edited by dingus on Jun 25, 2009, 11:21 AM)


pfwein


Jun 25, 2009, 2:14 PM
Post #160 of 217 (2453 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353

Re: [dingus] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus--I believe I see your point, and your time posting your comments isn't wasted here, at least to this humble reader. I definitely reflect on your comments.

I also see wisdom in patto's comment and think he is reflecting a certain "old school" view of sliding-x: only use it when each piece is very good (in which case it isn't necessary, it's just a quick way to clip into 2 pieces) or each piece is (believed to be) poor. The new school view is (to perhaps overstate it), use the sliding-x wherever, whenever.
Some of just are not completely sold on the new school view.


reno


Jun 25, 2009, 2:55 PM
Post #161 of 217 (2439 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [hafilax] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

hafilax wrote:

*nudge*

Can you spare a few handfuls?


trenchdigger


Jun 25, 2009, 3:31 PM
Post #162 of 217 (2428 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [dingus] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Why is everyone so caught up in the argument about extension?

IMHO, the greatest benefit provided by "limiter" knots is NOT limiting extension. They generate a level of redundancy in a sliding X that does not exist without them.


Partner cracklover


Jun 25, 2009, 3:51 PM
Post #163 of 217 (2420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [trenchdigger] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
Why is everyone so caught up in the argument about extension?

IMHO, the greatest benefit provided by "limiter" knots is NOT limiting extension. They generate a level of redundancy in a sliding X that does not exist without them.

Not everyone. See my post, oh, I dunno, maybe 3 pages back. Lost in the wash of emotions it was. Too bad - I think the concepts I was trying to add to the discussion were simple, straightforward, and relevant.

GO


k.l.k


Jun 25, 2009, 3:55 PM
Post #164 of 217 (2415 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [cracklover] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I think the concepts I was trying to add to the discussion were simple, straightforward, and relevant.


Well, that was your mistake right there. Maybe this can be a learning experience for you.


trenchdigger


Jun 25, 2009, 4:08 PM
Post #165 of 217 (2409 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [cracklover] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
trenchdigger wrote:
Why is everyone so caught up in the argument about extension?

IMHO, the greatest benefit provided by "limiter" knots is NOT limiting extension. They generate a level of redundancy in a sliding X that does not exist without them.

Not everyone. See my post, oh, I dunno, maybe 3 pages back. Lost in the wash of emotions it was. Too bad - I think the concepts I was trying to add to the discussion were simple, straightforward, and relevant.

GO

Admittedly, I refused to read the whole thread after noting that the debate raged on after 7 pages. Tongue


Partner cracklover


Jun 25, 2009, 4:20 PM
Post #166 of 217 (2396 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [dingus] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

I was going to let it drop, but...

Dingus, in thread after thread you rail against those who strive to build a better mousetrap. Just a bunch of mental masturbators we are, eh? Incapable of climbing out of bed, we are, most likely, much less doing long hard climbs.

The only people capable of doing long hard climbs are the SERIOUS CLIMBERS who barely acknowledge the need for a climbing rope, much less nerdelettes, right? Well I'm sorry, my friend, but this is pure bullshit.

I won't speak for my betters, like Marc Chauvin and Craig Luebben, but just for myself. In no way, shape, or form am I an elite climber. But I do okay. I've knocked off grade IV+ in a day. To deny that "knot friggers" like myself are capable of accomplishing any real climbing is a bit of an insult, ya know? It sort of denigrates any accomplishments we may have managed.

And putting the personal aside, it tars a pretty broad spectrum of our climbing history. Sure, plenty of the greats couldn't be bothered to think about any nonsense like this. But others tried hard to see the problems of their day, and find innovative solutions. And to my mind, that effort of theirs earns them an additional honor that those who *only* climbed hard, had balls of steel, and told a good tale, can't claim.

I know all this knot frigging is not for you, and that's fine. But why is it so hard to admit that sometimes, if enough people work at it, that a better mousetrap actually *can* be arrived at?

No-one's going to take away your inline clove hitches. Climbing is still as free as the mountain air, and no-one is going to force a nerdelette down your throat.

What's more, if we ever share a rope, I'll gladly keep my gear wankery to a minimum, I promise. But I think you'd be surprised at how little time this shit takes when you've got a system wired.

Cheers, my friend!

GO


Partner cracklover


Jun 25, 2009, 4:26 PM
Post #167 of 217 (2389 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [k.l.k] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
cracklover wrote:
I think the concepts I was trying to add to the discussion were simple, straightforward, and relevant.


Well, that was your mistake right there. Maybe this can be a learning experience for you.

Sigh... Yeah, I know, but I've never been very good at trolling.

GO


patto


Jun 25, 2009, 4:36 PM
Post #168 of 217 (2383 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

Re: [dingus] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
patto wrote:
I'm neither for or against limitter knots.

(snip)

All that said limiter knots do reduce extension and potential for shock loading an anchor if there is mass attached to the anchor.

They don't limit extension if no piece fails. I'd say the vast majority of limiter knots do not limit extension one millimeter.

In reply to:
But all this discussion comes back to the trade off between extension and dynamic equalisation.

Maybe your part of the discussion, but not mine. This is my 3rd pass at this, let's see if I can communicate it this time...

There were two sentences in a post on page one by pfwein where he said (I'm assuming 'he' I really haven't checked):

pfwein wrote:
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.

What this implies... limiter knots on every anchor, cause you know? You NEVER KNOW, ya know?

Well I don't buy this notion, not at all. And nothing stated in the vast airing of subsequent opinions and back of napkin theorizing has altered this initial statement one iota.

If limiter knots ARE useful and DO have benefit, AND you can NEVER TELL if a given piece will fail or not then the only logical back of napkin decision would be to add limiter knots to every anchor situation that has even the most remote and ridiculous chance of extenstion.

I think its a fad generated by an equally ridiculous quest for some -ette anchor knot arrangement. They violate every KISS principle (hey I get to play philosophy too) in the book.

But again... show me the PROOF that limiter knots actually provide real benefit and I will take notice.

Till then you are all theoriticians practicing knot craft for the sake of knot craft.

DMT

Dingus you are attempting to simpify the discussion where there is a CLEAR and INESCAPABLE trade off between extension and equalisation.

Extension is definately a bad thing, just how bad is open for debate. Equalisation is definately a good thing. Thus a trade off exists and can be debated.

I for one am on your side, I don't think limitter knots are necessary if I'm using a sliding X. However I don't take your extreme position of suggesting that they serve no purpose.


donald949


Jun 25, 2009, 5:08 PM
Post #169 of 217 (2363 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11455

Re: [reno] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
hafilax wrote:

*nudge*

Can you spare a few handfuls?
Beer
Plus one for reno Beer


westbend


Jun 25, 2009, 5:16 PM
Post #170 of 217 (2355 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 22

Re: [hafilax] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

hafilax wrote:
pfwein, you keep stating that you get my point but you don't. You're quibbling on the extreme literal interpretation of the value of extension limiting knots.

Seems to me that pfwen took the "extreme literal interpretaion" because dingus made the extreme literal statement:

dingus wrote:
There is virtually no proof whatsoever that limiter knots provide any sort of benefit at all.


jt512


Jun 25, 2009, 5:41 PM
Post #171 of 217 (2345 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [cracklover] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
trenchdigger wrote:
Why is everyone so caught up in the argument about extension?

IMHO, the greatest benefit provided by "limiter" knots is NOT limiting extension. They generate a level of redundancy in a sliding X that does not exist without them.

Not everyone. See my post, oh, I dunno, maybe 3 pages back. Lost in the wash of emotions it was. Too bad - I think the concepts I was trying to add to the discussion were simple, straightforward, and relevant.

GO

And thus they didn't stand a chance.

Jay


dingus


Jun 25, 2009, 5:49 PM
Post #172 of 217 (2332 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [cracklover] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I was going to let it drop, but...

Dingus, in thread after thread you rail against those who strive to build a better mousetrap. Just a bunch of mental masturbators we are, eh? Incapable of climbing out of bed, we are, most likely, much less doing long hard climbs.

The only people capable of doing long hard climbs are the SERIOUS CLIMBERS who barely acknowledge the need for a climbing rope, much less nerdelettes, right? Well I'm sorry, my friend, but this is pure bullshit.

I won't speak for my betters, like Marc Chauvin and Craig Luebben, but just for myself. In no way, shape, or form am I an elite climber. But I do okay. I've knocked off grade IV+ in a day. To deny that "knot friggers" like myself are capable of accomplishing any real climbing is a bit of an insult, ya know? It sort of denigrates any accomplishments we may have managed.

And putting the personal aside, it tars a pretty broad spectrum of our climbing history. Sure, plenty of the greats couldn't be bothered to think about any nonsense like this. But others tried hard to see the problems of their day, and find innovative solutions. And to my mind, that effort of theirs earns them an additional honor that those who *only* climbed hard, had balls of steel, and told a good tale, can't claim.

I know all this knot frigging is not for you, and that's fine. But why is it so hard to admit that sometimes, if enough people work at it, that a better mousetrap actually *can* be arrived at?

No-one's going to take away your inline clove hitches. Climbing is still as free as the mountain air, and no-one is going to force a nerdelette down your throat.

What's more, if we ever share a rope, I'll gladly keep my gear wankery to a minimum, I promise. But I think you'd be surprised at how little time this shit takes when you've got a system wired.

Cheers, my friend!

GO

What I object to is people passing off opinion as fact and suddenly the opinion becomes standard operating procedure and is never questioned.

I've no doubt you and lots of others can tie a knot in a sling lickety split. I also have no doubt that many MORE cannot do it quickly. And there is a select group, probably the largest of all, that ties and reties these things, at every single belay.

Worse people spending time to find the proper arrangement to fit their preconceived notions and -ette configs.

I think efficiency is entirely and I mean entirely overlooked in these discussions. So when someone passes off an opinion as fact I may from time to time ask for some, you know, proof.

Something entirely absent in this thread.

Cheers
DMT

DMT


fxgranite


Jun 25, 2009, 5:55 PM
Post #173 of 217 (2325 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 1, 2007
Posts: 358

Re: [jt512] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
cracklover wrote:
trenchdigger wrote:
Why is everyone so caught up in the argument about extension?

IMHO, the greatest benefit provided by "limiter" knots is NOT limiting extension. They generate a level of redundancy in a sliding X that does not exist without them.

Not everyone. See my post, oh, I dunno, maybe 3 pages back. Lost in the wash of emotions it was. Too bad - I think the concepts I was trying to add to the discussion were simple, straightforward, and relevant.

GO

And thus they didn't stand a chance.

Jay

Seriously. Who wants to read that shit? Stop being rational.


dingus


Jun 25, 2009, 5:55 PM
Post #174 of 217 (2323 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [patto] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
Dingus you are attempting to simpify the discussion where there is a CLEAR and INESCAPABLE trade off between extension and equalisation.

Extension is definately a bad thing, just how bad is open for debate. Equalisation is definately a good thing.

Equalization is CLEARLY a good thing eh? Should be easy tpo quote a study with some test numbers then? Ditto extension.

In reply to:
Thus a trade off exists and can be debated.

I question the whole lot, for most belay anchors, myself. I don't buy the notion that every belay has to be equalized. I don't buy the notion that every sling has to be limited either. I can see using these things for specific scenarios, but I see no need for wide spread deployment.

In reply to:
I for one am on your side,

The side is irrelevant. Again the objection is to passing off opinion as fact... that's the issue. I ask for facts and lo, there aren't any except for napkin calcs.

In reply to:
However I don't take your extreme position of suggesting that they serve no purpose.

My position is not extreme. I am QUESTION convention al wisdom, a convention that has been in place less than a decade mind you. A convention backed with precious few facts and no studies at all, apparently.

DMT


(This post was edited by dingus on Jun 25, 2009, 5:56 PM)


dlintz


Jun 25, 2009, 6:12 PM
Post #175 of 217 (2307 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982

Re: [trenchdigger] Anything wrong with this newbs anchor? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
Why is everyone so caught up in the argument about extension?

IMHO, the greatest benefit provided by "limiter" knots is NOT limiting extension. They generate a level of redundancy in a sliding X that does not exist without them.

I need some enlightenment on this. Why does the sliding X need redundancy? I'm going to assume you're talking about one arm of the X failing (the sling, not the piece) for whatever reason. I don't see this as a benefit or justification for using limiter knots as slings don't simply fail. Yeah sure you could say rockfall might cut one arm of the X but I suspect there'd be bigger problems if that were the case.

To me it seems like a solution where there is no problem thus not worth the effort (for the redundancy factor, not talking about extension here). Is there another "need" for redundancy in the X that I'm not seeing? Thanks.

d.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : General

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook