@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.

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

This.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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


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):


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

*nudge*

Can you spare a few handfuls?

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.

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

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

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

And thus they didn't stand a chance.

Jay

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,

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

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.