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


hafilax


Jun 25, 2009, 6:30 PM
Post #176 of 217 (2684 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025

Re: [dlintz] 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

dlintz 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.

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.
If you spent a lot of time on top rope cleaning a route or working a crux where the material was abrading against a sharp edge a single sling sliding-x could cut.

I tend to be more concerned about redundancy when the anchor isn't constantly monitored.


Factor2


Jun 25, 2009, 6:45 PM
Post #177 of 217 (2667 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 17, 2008
Posts: 188

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

edited to add that im sure there are flaws with your use of the equation, i just don't feel like figuring them out.

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.
.

Yes, but if the anchor extends downwards, the rope doesnt just magically stay in the same place. It will move downwards too, dissipating more of the force than it would have if everything stayed in place (more force on anchor, more force on rope). The only time the rope wouldn't stretch more is if it is already maxed out, which I am sure is an unlikely scenario.


westbend


Jun 25, 2009, 6:50 PM
Post #178 of 217 (2660 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 22

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:

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.
Can you clarify this statement? Does this statement mean that sometimes you think equalization is useful and/or necessary and sometimes you think limiting is useful and/or necessary?


Factor2


Jun 25, 2009, 7:02 PM
Post #179 of 217 (2649 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 17, 2008
Posts: 188

Re: [westbend] 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

westbend wrote:
dingus wrote:

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.
Can you clarify this statement? Does this statement mean that sometimes you think equalization is useful and/or necessary and sometimes you think limiting is useful and/or necessary?

I don't think its entirely about the specifics, It's more about his general idea that people shouldn't blindly follow everything, they should think for themselves


chilli


Jun 25, 2009, 7:07 PM
Post #180 of 217 (2645 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 401

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

edit: statement retracted b/c i actually took the time to read dingus' posts. i see the points. i just don't wholeheartedly agree with 'em. but that's ok. live & let live.


(This post was edited by chilli on Jun 25, 2009, 7:16 PM)


trenchdigger


Jun 25, 2009, 7:16 PM
Post #181 of 217 (2634 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [dlintz] 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

dlintz 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.

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.

Slings can indeed fail. Contact with sharp edges or excessivly abrasive rock can damage the sling significantly. I would argue (without any supporting evidence) that the failure of the sling is much more likely than the failure of a bolt in a modern two-bolt anchor, yet we still clip two of them and equalize them with a sliding X. If that is worth the effort, then surely adding redundancy to the sling is worth the effort.


k.l.k


Jun 25, 2009, 7:23 PM
Post #182 of 217 (2625 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [MapleSyrup] 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

This really was a good troll, precisely because it was guaranteed to gin up the engidorkery that makes this site such a joke.

Folks regularly dropping their partners in the gym? Hucking volunteer lobs on bolted cracks? Think victory whipper is a door prize? Can't downclimb? Routefind? Hike? Read the weather? Descend without rap stations? Think a daisy chain is a sport climbing accessory for n00bs?

It's ok, you're an American, and Americans believe that the proper application of technology will substitute for any lack of competence, talent, intelligence, skill, experience, training, or basic animal common sense. Come on in, and let's spend 7 pages in pointless, irrelevant, and above all, empirically unfounded armchair speculation about the physics of climbing anchors.


Partner cracklover


Jun 25, 2009, 7:56 PM
Post #183 of 217 (2604 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 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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

I'm with you there 100%! But you're up against a mighty opponent - human nature itself. People love to pass along rumors and half-truths as if they were gospel. (Hmm, maybe that's where the gospels came from?)

Still, I'm with you on that fight. What I'm not down with, though, is that sometimes that broad brush of yours tars a bunch of innocent bystanders. Tongue

In reply to:
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.

Yeah, maybe. Though I'm almost tempted to ask if *you* have empirical proof of all these gumbies running around tying themselves in knots (your own experience running into these gumbies is proof if you say you've actually seen such a thing). But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're tilting at windmills.

Because the only partners I've had that seem to always take too long to build an anchor are those who basically are one-trick-ponies, and get confused when the rock doesn't fit their scheme. Equally so with folks who just use the rope, or just use slings, or just use some crazy -ette method.

In reply to:
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.

Okay, well here's my $.02. I've spoken to Jim at Sterling - a professional who really knows ropes, has professionally calibrated equipment, and the experience gained from using them regularly in his work. He conducted real empirical tests. And I've also spoken to Richard G (a mathematician) and Larry Hamilton (a statistician), who analyzed those tests.

My recollection (sadly, lousy at best, and this is going on three years ago) is that the limited extension in a standard over-the-shoulder runner creates zero to minimal additional force when it impacts on the next piece in line. In fact, there is some evidence that the force felt by the second piece may in some cases even be slightly *less* than the sum of the force on the two pieces before the first one blew. The reason for this is presumably because in between the first piece blowing and the second one being impacted, the extension allows the rope to relax somewhat, decreasing the overall force on the anchor.

In other words, the only strong hard evidence I know of says that in the limited scenario that was tested for, minor extension is not a serious concern.

That's not to say that limiter knots *never* provide a benefit. I think I've given two cases where they do.

GO


Partner cracklover


Jun 25, 2009, 8:13 PM
Post #184 of 217 (2588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [dlintz] 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

dlintz 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.

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.

Dlintz, ever spent any time on FA or early ascents in the desert? No, I didn't think so.

But come to think of it, all it takes is a little poor routefinding, even on well established routes. I once did an ascent of Wigs in Space in Zion. My partner followed the "logical" line and wound up in a rotten crack. He probably rained down over a ton of rock. I don't know which of us was more scared. But I'll tell you, with all those shards of rock bouncing off the rock and flying around, I'm damn glad I had some redundancy in the slingage that made up the anchor.

GO


dlintz


Jun 25, 2009, 8:57 PM
Post #185 of 217 (2548 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982

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:
dlintz 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.

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.

Dlintz, ever spent any time on FA or early ascents in the desert? No, I didn't think so.

But come to think of it, all it takes is a little poor routefinding, even on well established routes. I once did an ascent of Wigs in Space in Zion. My partner followed the "logical" line and wound up in a rotten crack. He probably rained down over a ton of rock. I don't know which of us was more scared. But I'll tell you, with all those shards of rock bouncing off the rock and flying around, I'm damn glad I had some redundancy in the slingage that made up the anchor.

GO

Yeah, I had already mentioned rockfall. Guess I was looking for anything additional (thanks hafilax and trenchdigger). I tie limiter knots with marginal placements but seldom on bomber stuff.

d.


jt512


Jun 25, 2009, 8:59 PM
Post #186 of 217 (2548 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:
dingus wrote:
What I object to is people passing off opinion as fact and suddenly the opinion becomes standard operating procedure and is never questioned.

I'm with you there 100%! But you're up against a mighty opponent - human nature itself. People love to pass along rumors and half-truths as if they were gospel. (Hmm, maybe that's where the gospels came from?)

Still, I'm with you on that fight. What I'm not down with, though, is that sometimes that broad brush of yours tars a bunch of innocent bystanders. Tongue

In reply to:
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.

Yeah, maybe. Though I'm almost tempted to ask if *you* have empirical proof of all these gumbies running around tying themselves in knots (your own experience running into these gumbies is proof if you say you've actually seen such a thing). But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're tilting at windmills.

Because the only partners I've had that seem to always take too long to build an anchor are those who basically are one-trick-ponies, and get confused when the rock doesn't fit their scheme. Equally so with folks who just use the rope, or just use slings, or just use some crazy -ette method.

In reply to:
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.

Okay, well here's my $.02. I've spoken to Jim at Sterling - a professional who really knows ropes, has professionally calibrated equipment, and the experience gained from using them regularly in his work. He conducted real empirical tests. And I've also spoken to Richard G (a mathematician) and Larry Hamilton (a statistician), who analyzed those tests.

My recollection (sadly, lousy at best, and this is going on three years ago) is that the limited extension in a standard over-the-shoulder runner creates zero to minimal additional force when it impacts on the next piece in line. In fact, there is some evidence that the force felt by the second piece may in some cases even be slightly *less* than the sum of the force on the two pieces before the first one blew. The reason for this is presumably because in between the first piece blowing and the second one being impacted, the extension allows the rope to relax somewhat, decreasing the overall force on the anchor.

In other words, the only strong hard evidence I know of says that in the limited scenario that was tested for, minor extension is not a serious concern.

That's not to say that limiter knots *never* provide a benefit. I think I've given two cases where they do.

GO

If the leader takes a fall directly onto the anchor, it's a factor-2 fall, whether one arm of the anchor fails or not. So, if one arm blows, the peak tension in the climber's side of the rope should not be greater than if the arm had not blown. But then there's the belayer. If an arm of the anchor fails, the belayer is taking a fall, too, and the peak tension in his side of the rope will be an increasing function of his fall factor, which in turn is an increasing function of the amount of the extension. And the force on the anchor is, of course, the sum of these two tensions.

I don't recall the specifics of the Sterling tests, but I don't think that the methodology included a "belayer effect."

Jay


ptlong


Jun 25, 2009, 9:07 PM
Post #187 of 217 (2539 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418

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:
Okay, well here's my $.02. I've spoken to Jim at Sterling - a professional who really knows ropes, has professionally calibrated equipment, and the experience gained from using them regularly in his work. He conducted real empirical tests. And I've also spoken to Richard G (a mathematician) and Larry Hamilton (a statistician), who analyzed those tests.

My recollection (sadly, lousy at best, and this is going on three years ago) is that the limited extension in a standard over-the-shoulder runner creates zero to minimal additional force when it impacts on the next piece in line. In fact, there is some evidence that the force felt by the second piece may in some cases even be slightly *less* than the sum of the force on the two pieces before the first one blew. The reason for this is presumably because in between the first piece blowing and the second one being impacted, the extension allows the rope to relax somewhat, decreasing the overall force on the anchor.

In other words, the only strong hard evidence I know of says that in the limited scenario that was tested for, minor extension is not a serious concern.

That's not to say that limiter knots *never* provide a benefit. I think I've given two cases where they do.

GO

If the leader takes a fall directly onto the anchor, it's a factor-2 fall, whether one arm of the anchor fails or not. So, if one arm blows, the peak tension in the climber's side of the rope should not be greater than if the arm had not blown. But then there's the belayer. If an arm of the anchor fails, the belayer is taking a fall, too, and the peak tension in his side of the rope will be an increasing function of his fall factor, which in turn is an increasing function of the amount of the extension. And the force on the anchor is, of course, the sum of these two tensions.

I don't recall the specifics of the Sterling tests, but I don't think that the methodology included a "belayer effect."

Jay

Exactly, Jay. Patto has already pointed this out in this thread. Even Rgold has posted elsewhere that Jim's tests weren't set up correctly to test for the real life case of a belayer in the system.

A side point: the belayer doesn't "fall" onto the anchor in this scenario. The belayer is accelerated downward by the sum of his weight and the tension in the rope joining him with the climber which could easily be many times gravitational acceleration.


no_email_entered


Jun 25, 2009, 9:44 PM
Post #188 of 217 (2508 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2008
Posts: 558

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:
Come on in, and let's spend 7 pages in pointless, irrelevant, and above all, empirically unfounded armchair speculation about the physics of climbing anchors.

you actually read all 7 pages?---

---word


patto


Jun 25, 2009, 11:33 PM
Post #189 of 217 (2469 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453

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

dingus wrote:
Equalization is CLEARLY a good thing eh? Should be easy tpo quote a study with some test numbers then? Ditto extension.
So your suggesting equalisation in of itself can be a bad thing? Test numbers are not necessary when the physics is obvious.

dingus wrote:
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.
GOOD. Because I'm not selling the notion that every belay has to be equalised and/or limitted. But I am objecting to your claim that limitter knots are not effective in their purpose.

dingus wrote:
I ask for facts and lo, there aren't any except for napkin calcs.
Napkin calcs have solid basis in maths and physics. You yourself have no 'facts' to speak of.

dingus wrote:
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.
Why do you need a study for everything? I don't need a study to tell me that dental floss is not an appropriate material for a cordalette. The physics is fairly clear here and has been explained. All things being equal LESS extension is better. That is my position and I find it hard to believe that you continue to argue against it.


cracklover wrote:
In fact, there is some evidence that the force felt by the second piece may in some cases even be slightly *less* than the sum of the force on the two pieces before the first one blew. The reason for this is presumably because in between the first piece blowing and the second one being impacted, the extension allows the rope to relax somewhat, decreasing the overall force on the anchor.
That is quite an interesting observation, tho it can be explained due to geometry. A typical angle of 60degrees between the pieces gives a summed force of 15% more than the tension on the anchor master point.


Lazlo


Jun 26, 2009, 12:46 AM
Post #190 of 217 (2455 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5079

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:
dlintz 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.

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.
If you spent a lot of time on top rope cleaning a route or working a crux where the material was abrading against a sharp edge a single sling sliding-x could cut.

I tend to be more concerned about redundancy when the anchor isn't constantly monitored.

Then put two slings in there instead of the one... use them as if it were just one.


ptlong


Jun 26, 2009, 1:10 AM
Post #191 of 217 (2444 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418

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:
cracklover wrote:
In fact, there is some evidence that the force felt by the second piece may in some cases even be slightly *less* than the sum of the force on the two pieces before the first one blew. The reason for this is presumably because in between the first piece blowing and the second one being impacted, the extension allows the rope to relax somewhat, decreasing the overall force on the anchor.
That is quite an interesting observation, tho it can be explained due to geometry. A typical angle of 60degrees between the pieces gives a summed force of 15% more than the tension on the anchor master point.

It can't be just geometry because in the Ewing/Long tests there was a relationship between fuse strength (the force where one leg failed) and subsequent force on the remaining leg: the higher the fuse force the lower the secondary force.

I can think of a couple possible explanations.

One is that, as you've cracklover suggested, the rope dissipates the energy when there is a moment of relaxation after the fuse blows.

A second possibility is that a significant amount of tension energy is stored in each leg of the anchor cord, part of which is lost instantly when a fuse blows. If you recall, their test setup had the characteristic of a relatively long anchor cord compared to the rope (50cm). The rope section was also intentionally "hardened" through repeatedly catching of static factor 1 falls with a 100kg load. So the relative elasticity between the rope and the nylon cord was perhaps not so great.

Just guessing though, napkins and all.


(This post was edited by ptlong on Jun 26, 2009, 1:14 AM)


Guran


Jun 26, 2009, 8:20 AM
Post #192 of 217 (2414 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 220

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:

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.

DMT

I think those people are generally called n00bs.

Personally, I'd say that if you cannot build safe enough anchors quickly, you are not ready for long multi pitch. Get your belay station routine dialled on shorter stuff first, then you are welcome to use whatever method works for you and your partner.

Personally I have far too little experience with long multipitch climbs, but this I know:

I may fool around, tying fancy knots and looking for a "perfect" anchor when the climb is two or three pitches. Any longer and theoretical perfection is without merit. What I need is good enough fast.

To achieve that... well if your stuck with one anchor config you most certainly won't be fast when that solutions is not good enough.


shockabuku


Jun 26, 2009, 10:38 AM
Post #193 of 217 (2404 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868

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 wrote:
Equalization is CLEARLY a good thing eh? Should be easy tpo quote a study with some test numbers then? Ditto extension.
So your suggesting equalisation in of itself can be a bad thing? Test numbers are not necessary when the physics is obvious.

dingus wrote:
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.
GOOD. Because I'm not selling the notion that every belay has to be equalised and/or limitted. But I am objecting to your claim that limitter knots are not effective in their purpose.

dingus wrote:
I ask for facts and lo, there aren't any except for napkin calcs.
Napkin calcs have solid basis in maths and physics. You yourself have no 'facts' to speak of.

dingus wrote:
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.
Why do you need a study for everything? I don't need a study to tell me that dental floss is not an appropriate material for a cordalette. The physics is fairly clear here and has been explained. All things being equal LESS extension is better. That is my position and I find it hard to believe that you continue to argue against it.


cracklover wrote:
In fact, there is some evidence that the force felt by the second piece may in some cases even be slightly *less* than the sum of the force on the two pieces before the first one blew. The reason for this is presumably because in between the first piece blowing and the second one being impacted, the extension allows the rope to relax somewhat, decreasing the overall force on the anchor.
That is quite an interesting observation, tho it can be explained due to geometry. A typical angle of 60degrees between the pieces gives a summed force of 15% more than the tension on the anchor master point.

If all things were equal in the cases of using limiter knots vs. not using them there would be no reason to compare the cases.


USnavy


Jun 26, 2009, 10:40 AM
Post #194 of 217 (2403 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [majid_sabet] 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

majid_sabet wrote:
amateur troll n00bs always make a mistake by constructing a dumb anchor and ask a dumb question while trying to act like a n00b .
I see your practicing your monologues. Let me guess... Mrs. Double D said you needed a 50 word monologue about yourself for speech class. Good job, itís right on!


(This post was edited by USnavy on Jun 26, 2009, 10:45 AM)


dingus


Jun 26, 2009, 1:00 PM
Post #195 of 217 (2378 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [westbend] 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

westbend wrote:
dingus wrote:

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.

Can you clarify this statement? Does this statement mean that sometimes you think equalization is useful and/or necessary and sometimes you think limiting is useful and/or necessary?

Depends upon what you mean by 'necessary.' Yes to equalization, (necessary only in rare circumstances, though I use it more than that) mostly no to limting. The vast majority of limiting knots I've used have been for knob tie-offs. I haven't used one to shorten extension on a sliding X - ever. I use the rope for that - most of my trad anchors will have 3 pieces. If I want equaliztion I will introduce an X or a big ole power knot, etc. I then most typically use the lead rope to also tie directly into the 3rd piece with slack just a little longer than the X, then back it up with a clove to another piece.

One sling, one rope, 3 knots (to fig 8s and a clove), and I'm done.

Cheers
DMT


dingus


Jun 26, 2009, 1:03 PM
Post #196 of 217 (2376 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [chilli] 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

chilli wrote:
edit: statement retracted b/c i actually took the time to read dingus' posts. i see the points. i just don't wholeheartedly agree with 'em. but that's ok. live & let live.

Thank you for posting this. While there is certainly troll elements in my response (deliberately provocative) I'm sincere in my questioning of this whole elaborate belay knot business.

I'm challenging conventional wisdom that is not backed up with solid tested facts, is all.

DMT


dingus


Jun 26, 2009, 1:04 PM
Post #197 of 217 (2375 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

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:
It's ok, you're an American, and Americans believe that the proper application of technology will substitute for any lack of competence, talent, intelligence, skill, experience, training, or basic animal common sense. Come on in, and let's spend 7 pages in pointless, irrelevant, and above all, empirically unfounded armchair speculation about the physics of climbing anchors.

That's why you see a lot of fat noobs trying out aid climbing (only to discover its 10 times the work effort of free climbing lol, what a rude slap THAT IS (and yes I have done it too)

DMT


dingus


Jun 26, 2009, 1:12 PM
Post #198 of 217 (2372 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:
Yeah, maybe. Though I'm almost tempted to ask if *you* have empirical proof of all these gumbies running around tying themselves in knots (your own experience running into these gumbies is proof if you say you've actually seen such a thing). But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're tilting at windmills.

Oh I'm not on a jihad. I'm just a self-serving old bastard who would like to help alleviate the log jam of slow teams above me on the few trade routes I can still climb, lol.

I think anyone aspiring to multipitch needs to carefully consider the trade off between speed and security. Too much security will kill a team, in a long route. There comes a point where the extra friggin around with all this shit literally becomes deadly.

Chouinard espoused the philosophy well...

'if you take the 10 essentials, you will use them.'

IE the added overhead of the technique (toting the 10 essentials) slows the team sufficiently to guarantee the use of those 10 Essentials (like bivi gear)...

I think this is the part of the equation that is lost on a lot of folks in trad anchor discussions.

No one wants a shitty anchor with bogus piece in bad rock. But you know what? Sometimes you gotta take what you get. Or what you give youself.

So you make the best of those anchor situations. Having your limited sliding Xs for these (rare) situations is smart. I don't dispute that using analog thinking, if a climber strongly suspects her anchor is bogus she may want to hedge as best she can.

I DO get that.

But not for every anchor.

Does a hedge provide a benefit? Not for the company that used to own Chrysler, no. Hedges sometimes end up being a liability.

That is restating the point (about overhead)... time. You can never get back the time.

Cheers
DMT


dingus


Jun 26, 2009, 1:18 PM
Post #199 of 217 (2366 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:
Why do you need a study for everything?

I don't need a study at all. I'm just pointing out assumptions that are not in fact backed up with any real world substance.

In reply to:
I don't need a study to tell me that dental floss is not an appropriate material for a cordalette.

But studies WERE conducted for cordelettes!

In reply to:
The physics is fairly clear here and has been explained.

So it should be patently easy to demonstrate it.

And yet it hasn't.

DMT


pfwein


Jun 26, 2009, 1:51 PM
Post #200 of 217 (2356 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 wrote:
So it should be patently easy to demonstrate it.

And yet it hasn't.

DMT
This may say more about the lack of testing of climbing equipment (especially including how it's rigged) generally rather than saying anything deep about limiter knots. Consider Aric's recent testing of Aliens, which calls into question the safety of gear that has been used for many years. Crazy stuff.

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