|
froggy
Feb 27, 2003, 6:56 PM
Post #26 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 244
|
Redundancy????? umm.. Cluster F@S$**$#***! :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
holmeslovesguinness
Feb 27, 2003, 7:04 PM
Post #27 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 548
|
I look at this and think "clove hitch". Definitely needs longer runners to get those biners off the edge of the rock, and oh man talk about the potential for extension. Weird.
|
|
|
|
|
jbur
Feb 27, 2003, 7:25 PM
Post #28 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2001
Posts: 64
|
Has anyone besides me seen or read anything about this method :? The photo shows a totally botched set-up. I've seen it in multiple rescue publications as well as set it up a time or two. I've never used it but was just curious as to how it worked. Set up properly it will limit extension to around 4 inches should one piece fail. It will not create a death triangle if the center piece fails, although this guys set-up might. I've only seen it recomended as a last resort when nothing is available but marginal anchors in a rescue situation and dirction of load could change. I've never seen it in a climbing publication and don't see a real need for such a complicated set-up for climbing. The system has it uses, but whoever set this one up obviously didn't understand the system.
|
|
|
|
|
indeco
Feb 27, 2003, 7:32 PM
Post #29 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2002
Posts: 84
|
Oh no. You have no idea how much it pains me to say this. I learned to tie that years ago in my living room. It is a pain but it will not seriously shock load anything, if a piece fails. I don't know who came up with this knot but i got the info years ago from the ORCA safety manual. It is a very strong system, its been tested but it is way to complicated trust me.
Ontario Rock Climbing association. (this is not me promoting them vecause i can't)
|
|
|
|
|
stellalpina
Feb 27, 2003, 7:37 PM
Post #30 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2002
Posts: 47
|
i am so not good at this, im learning, so humor me! but isnt there some sort of american death triangle or something? it looks like a downward force (away from the anchor in the direction of the rope) would pull the two side pieces in towards the middle one, applying force in a direction the pro wasnt designed for...?
once again, im only guessing based on physics class!
did people say everything that was wrong with it?
--elena
ps sorry if im just repeating what others have said in simple words!
|
|
|
|
|
jjmackie
Feb 27, 2003, 7:41 PM
Post #31 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 11
|
This guy's current 'anchor building' status has me a bit perplexed.? :shock: Gear placement, cordelette angles, equalization, belayer stance, and a GiGi are my essential components of anchor building. What others?
What a great thread! We can all learn and make our sport safer with stuff like this.
|
|
|
|
|
fo_d
Feb 27, 2003, 8:24 PM
Post #32 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2001
Posts: 918
|
I took this as a test and looked at the pic before reading replies and I have to agree with ooze on the headache and piton, it looks like if the rope was cut the whole thing would come down, I also noticed the linking of biners but I hadnt noticed the spine over the edge.
|
|
|
|
|
crack_head
Feb 27, 2003, 10:28 PM
Post #33 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2002
Posts: 210
|
...its sucks
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Feb 28, 2003, 4:36 PM
Post #34 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
does anyone see any pros in this anchor?
I've looked for this in the Anchor book and found nothing..
the angle on this is about 90 degrees, which would put a load about 800lbs per piece. the caution zone is between 40 - 80 degrees.. the danger zone is 80 degrees and above..
i would love to get a closer look at the gear placements..
|
|
|
|
|
arrrghjp
Feb 28, 2003, 5:47 PM
Post #35 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2002
Posts: 68
|
Did anyone read the caption, "playing with anchors," and "not for instructional purposes"? I think this was probably made because the maker thought it looked cool and didn't actually use it. I don't think anyone would ever rationally ever trust this thing.
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Feb 28, 2003, 6:10 PM
Post #36 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
No offense but I hope I never climb with most of the people who responded to this. The biner over the edge - big deal, suboptimal at best. Biner to biner chaining, big deal, it's not the end of the world as you'd be led to believe.
The real problem is that if the outer loop of coordalette is cut it's fly or die! There is no redundancy!
josh
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Feb 28, 2003, 8:55 PM
Post #37 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
So what you're saying is that it is fine to load a biner on it's spine over an edge?
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Feb 28, 2003, 8:57 PM
Post #38 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
To ansewr arrrghjp. No...no one saw the disclaimer because it was not there before this post went up. The disclaimer is new.
|
|
|
|
|
jamison
Feb 28, 2003, 9:23 PM
Post #39 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 106
|
I think Mikereddig is right. if the cordellette breaks above the knot, the whole anchor fails.
Also, someone mentioned the american triangle, if the middle anchor fails.
My point is that currently, the two side anchors are both loaded like an american triangle. Not exactly, but not good.
Terrible.
edited after looking at the anchor again.
|
|
|
|
|
rockfox
Feb 28, 2003, 9:52 PM
Post #40 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2002
Posts: 61
|
In reply to: No offense but I hope I never climb with most of the people who responded to this. The biner over the edge - big deal, suboptimal at best. Biner to biner chaining, big deal, it's not the end of the world as you'd be led to believe. The real problem is that if the outer loop of coordalette is cut it's fly or die! There is no redundancy! josh
:shock:
WOW Josh, "No Offense" here too but,....
I hope I never climb with you too. You don't sound like someone who takes safety seriously. There are REASONS manufacturers warn about spine loading ('biner over the edge) and "'biner to 'biner chaining". Someone learned the HARD way.
If nothing else, please consider the fact the a newby (bad choice of words, substitute "new climber") might read your post and think it's perfectly ok to ignore simple safety guidelines like.....spine loading ('biner over the edge) and "'biner to 'biner chaining".
I don't mean to flame and I hope there are no hard feelings but.....take it for what it is worth. My $0.02
|
|
|
|
|
jhwnewengland
Feb 28, 2003, 9:57 PM
Post #41 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 470
|
I think he's kidding...
No reason to post crap like that if you ARE kidding. It just confuses the hell out of people. And if you're not, well, I'm with rockfox.
Either way, I don't think he's a very cool guy.
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Feb 28, 2003, 10:06 PM
Post #42 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
Biners will be loaded over edges if you climb long enough. Whether it's loaded over an edge or not, it's a bad idea to trust your life to a single biner. In this anchor, yes there are biners loaded over edges. No it's not ideal, but it happens. If something were to go awry there would be two other points of protection, this is why we have tripled anchors.
If you've never clipped biner to biner then you've either not climbed for very long or you've climbed ridiculously laboriously. I challenge you to climb a wall without ever touching biner to biner. Good f*cking luck. Besides, Before quickdraws were invented that was the standard way to clip into a bolt. Too bad Royal Robbins was such a moron, eh?
The real problem with this anchor, as I've said, is that there is a single point of failure in the coordalette strand. All other problems are very minor compared to this.
I take safety very seriously. If you don't believe ask me personally about my experience and various situations I've been in.
If you're ever involved in a rescue or must race the clock to save someone's life I hope you don't worry about clipping a biner to a biner but I hope you did worry about redundancy of an anchor on the whole. I'm not saying you _should_ clip biner to biner or load biners over edges on purpose, but it happens and if you're sufficiently redundant it won't kill you. A single piece of 7mm cord, however, is a poor single point of failure.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
dupree
Feb 28, 2003, 10:19 PM
Post #43 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 108
|
I think the biggest problem with this anchor is that the person who set it probably could've done at least 2-3 boulder problems in the time spent fussing with the gear! :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Feb 28, 2003, 10:31 PM
Post #44 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
Yep. I totally agree that the big problem is if the cord breaks then the whole thing fails. I can't believe that Trango actually endorses this by having a picture of it on their site. Of course the only way to have total dynamic equalization is to use a cord or webbing that runs through the entire anchor like the sliding death X (just a joke). I'd still have two cords doing the entire circuit to be redundant.
As for the other stuff, it's pretty bad to make carabiner loading mistakes in a picture when your doing this from the ground for practice. If your gonna take a cpiture of it, it had better be right in all ways.
Dave
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot then to open it and remove all doubt. (this is also true for taking pictures of your work).
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Feb 28, 2003, 10:38 PM
Post #45 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
Here's the image in question, if you don't want to wait for the whole linked page of photos to load:
http://www.surfingvancouverisland.com/...b/images/g-set01.jpg
I don't know enough about gear anchors to intelligently comment, but intuitively even to this sport climber, this anchor just *looks* funky.
Wonder why he's on the "injured list" ??
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Feb 28, 2003, 10:39 PM
Post #46 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
drector, that last comment you made is one of the funniest things I have heard for a while. ""It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot then to open it and remove all doubt. (this is also true for taking pictures of your work)."" :lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
morecrackplease
Feb 28, 2003, 10:48 PM
Post #47 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2003
Posts: 3
|
Does no one see it? Are there no artists here? Look at it as a picture. (hint...it's a Canadian website)
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Feb 28, 2003, 10:53 PM
Post #48 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
are you wanting to say that it looks like the maple leaf? :? I don't think it does.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Feb 28, 2003, 11:03 PM
Post #49 of 71
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
The rig in question was developed by some SAR folks. I believe they are well aware of the pros and possible cons of the rig, and the needs of SAR folks may be in fact different than an average climbers. Try looking for more information on that rig, it took me about 1 minute:
http://www.sarbc.org/r-mpfda.html
For those doing Trango bashing as to the single point of failure, the technical notice for the "Alpine Equalizer" has always had the notice to clove hitch the pieces if they weren't bomber.
You people need to excercise your reading skills.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
rockfox
Feb 28, 2003, 11:07 PM
Post #50 of 71
(6341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2002
Posts: 61
|
I just noticed something that I didn't pay attention to before (I have more time now). What happens when this piece takes a fall or is weighted at the 6 o'clock position. He is standing next to it now but if this were a belay station it would be weighted from below as well. Think about what happens to the center 'biners when they slide over to the left ABOVE the double 'biner link! :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
