|
|
|
|
norushnomore
Jun 15, 2004, 1:00 AM
Post #26 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
Guys, please comment on the following technique I have been using lately.
Let me limit the scope first: it is used primary for a moderate trad, switching leads.
Gear used to setup an anchor: Metolious PAS, 12/24 inch sling/biner, rope
Assume that you have three pro points, A,B,C
1. Clip PAS into A
2. Clip sling into B
3. Rope clove-hitched into sling
4. Rope clove-hitched into C
Done
Here are the benefits as I see them
1. Minimal amount of rope is used
2. No additional belay gear beside what you bring on a trad route is needed
3. Easily adjustable to get a nice load distribution between all three pieces
(PAS has loops and cloves are infinitely adjustable)
4. Static components disconnected by a dynamic rope allowing for some load direction change
5. Very quick to setup and remove
There are negatives too:
1. Your belay loop is the power point, would be awkward in case of a hanging belay
2. Escaping means redoing an anchor (but not the pro)
3. Anything else?
|
|
|
|
|
norushnomore
Jun 15, 2004, 1:01 AM
Post #27 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
Dub, removed
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jun 15, 2004, 1:40 PM
Post #28 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Well someone finally mentioned the atomic clip (bowline) I think.
Three loops, easy to tie and untie, can be equalized--- and very fast. All done with the rope and three pieces. IF you get paranoid you can still clove hitch each loop to it's pro.
YOU can also use that nutty two loop figure 8 bight knot, adjustable as well, and if you need more than two loops you can recurse to get 3 or 4 loops.
One thing I didn't see mentioned is that should you need to escape the belay, what situations can exist where you don't have to anchor the rope before starting any rescue effort?
Most self or leader rescue starts with an anchored rope, if you have not already anchored the rope then you have to do this step anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Jun 15, 2004, 4:29 PM
Post #29 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
Thnaks rgold for the pics and for the earlier analysis of the advantages of the cordalette for leading in blocks.
I have a question though on the 6-biner ropalette:
You are using a butterfly knot for the power point (smartly avoiding crossloading a biner here) but the belayer tie-in is then non-adjustable.
Usually, I prefer to clove-hitch to the power point.
Is there another variant then ?
What I like especially in the 4 biner version is the fact that as you do not need a double linkage between the 1st (or 2nd) protection to the powerpoint, you can have the rope directly going from the 1st to the 2nd pro and "en passant" have a redirection point.
Until this very clear pic, I was religiously going bck and forth between each pro and the powerpoint
As you have a full strength dynamic rope between the pros and the power point, one strand is enough.
Even with 4 pros, you could have the rope going:
from the powerpoint to pro 1 to pro 2 to powerpoint to pro 3 to pro 4 to powerpoint.
Last, I think that the naming 4-biner ropalette and 6 biner ropalette are misnomer, as they sound like you need a lot of hardware.
the 4-biner is in fact a 1 biner anchor (+1 if you need to clip back the rope +1 if redirection )
the 6-biner setup is in fact a 3 biner anchor, but could b done with 2
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Jun 15, 2004, 6:33 PM
Post #30 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
Another thanks to rgold for the pics.
These methods look completely viable, however, I can't begin to imagine that they wouldn't take more time to rig than a cordelette. And they certainly take more rope, and more effort and time to escape from, and are only an option if you're swinging leads.
It seems to me that the ideal times to use a rope instead of a cordelette are precisely the times when a cordelette is less than ideal (two bomber bolts, an anchor preceding a wandering or traversing pitch, etc.). These ropalettes, since they're basically way to rig a cordelette from a rope, don't offer any of the main advantages of non-cordelette methods (extreme simplicity, and self-equalization, to name two). The main advantage seems to me that they let you make a cordelette when you don't have one. A secondary set of advantages comes from having the whole rig made of dynamic rope. But I'm not sure how much this is worth to me.
In my personal experience with partners who use rope tie-in as a first resort, the resulting anchors have been slower and less well equalized than typical cordelette anchors. Which isn't to say that there aren't methods that are faster and more efficient; just that I have yet to experience them.
In any event, it seems like a good idea to have as many options in your trick bag as possible, so you aren't paralized by a dropped piece of gear or a slab of rock that won't submit safely to your one habitual method of rigging an anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Jun 15, 2004, 6:45 PM
Post #31 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
Someone rightly mentioned that John Long is not God. However, he may be the closest thing to an anchor authority that we currently have. Here are some passages clipped from "More Climbing Anchors," which he co-authored with Bob Gaines (a certified guide and climbing school director).
On Cordelettes:
The principal merits of the cordelette are expressed in the acronym SEB: S for Simple, in terms of the the simplest system using the least gear and minimum engineering stunts, "E" for Easy, referring to the ease and speed you can construct and clean a given anchor, and most importantly, "B" for Bombproof, which is self explanatory... Lastly the cordelette does not eat up lead rope ... what will you do when you're hanging off bleak crimpers and have run out of rope a dozen feet shy of the bolts? Curse yourself for not bringing a cordelette.
...
The limitation of of the cordelette is that it always results in a mono (one)-directional anchor. That is, force is distributed equally to various components of the anchor only the cordelette is loaded in one direction, usually straight down.
On rope tie-ins:
It is a great last resort--and a viable first resort given perfect and predictable conditions. However it is often a poor technique for longer routes, and is no longer considered a standard method.
...yields laborious and dubious equalization ...harder and more confining to change over ... harder to escape from and retreat in case of emergency ... uses more rope, sometimes needed for the following lead ... harder to rig an equalized directional.
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Jun 15, 2004, 7:29 PM
Post #32 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:roll:
|
|
|
|
|
gds
Jun 15, 2004, 7:34 PM
Post #33 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Posts: 710
|
In reply to: Do any of you guys actually find time to climb ?? Or are your lengthy dissertations pre written and stored on your computer somewhere for quick retrieval ??
Is pre written like pre equalized? If so then some here would say it is psuedo written. Or perhaps that's the point you're making?!
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Jun 15, 2004, 7:57 PM
Post #34 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Jun 15, 2004, 8:21 PM
Post #35 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
In reply to: Do any of you guys actually find time to climb ???
if i could find a way to climb while procrastinating at work, the internet would never hear from me again.
as far as your tie in method with the fig. 8, that sounds pretty cool. i can imagine it going up pretty quickly. it seems like it might take some practice to get it to eqaulize in the right direction, and to put you at the right distance (hard to adjust your distance from it), but once you get that dialed in it could be a nice alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Jun 15, 2004, 8:47 PM
Post #36 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: ...yields laborious and dubious equalization ...harder and more confining to change over ... harder to escape from and retreat in case of emergency ... uses more rope, sometimes needed for the following lead ... harder to rig an equalized directional.
Where's that perverted beating the dead horse icon thingy...
To each his own, but the above statements are wrong, except for the fact it uses more rope. The rest is your personal experience level.
BTW, we should organize a race of constructing 3 piece anchors. That way we can really know for certain which is the faster gun...the cordalette or the ropealette. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 15, 2004, 9:28 PM
Post #37 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In twenty years of climbing I had never once climbed with someone who used a cordelette while I was with them. (Recently, a few people I have met through this site have used one.)
Which set of people were safer to climb with?
I am not really advocating people to discard the cordelette. On the other hand, I wouldn't buy the claim that not using one is unsafe.
No one really knows if the use of a cordelette has actually increased safety. One thing it definitely does do is increase peoples comfort with a given anchor. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable.
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Jun 15, 2004, 9:42 PM
Post #38 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
In reply to: In twenty years of climbing I had never once climbed with someone who used a cordelette while I was with them.
At different points in history you would have been able to say the same thing about harnesses, helmets, sticky rubber, and clean pro. It doesn't necesarily prove (or disprove) anything.
I agree that there are plenty of ways to be safe without a cordelette, and plenty of ways to be deadly with one. I would never judge anyone's ability by their choice to use or not use a certain piece of gear or technique. The original question, though, had to do with weather or not a cordelette is useful. The poster was skeptical. My feeling is that they are useful more often than not, which is what my posts were about. But I'll shut up now, lest someone finds that dead horse icon.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jun 17, 2004, 8:03 PM
Post #39 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Cordalettes are unquestionably useful. The question is whether they are some kind of universal anchor solution. I think they are really special-purpose devices that are often not the best solution, but others see it differently. Mostly, I've been trying to argue that a lot of the "conventional wisdom" about rope-only anchors is just plain wrong, and it seems that another opportunity for these arguments has arisen.
A number of posters have spoken of the complexity of the ropalette anchors and the extra time required to construct them. If someone finds these basic anchors complex, there's nothing I can say. As for time, I decided to compare total set-up and break-down times for the two methods.
I know that the cordalette doesn't stand a chance (in terms of gear or time) if the anchor pieces aren't clustered relatively closely, because extra slings and biners will have to be added to deal with the cordalette's fixed dimensions. So I set up an anchor to be as favorable as possible to the cordalette: three pieces at the same horizonal level about a forearm's width apart. Each piece had a carabiner installed.
With this starting configuration, I performed three trials each of the following procedures.
1. Set up a "four biner" ropalette. Stop the watch when anchored and ready to belay. Pause. Restart watch and break anchor down. Stop the watch when rope completely undone and carabiner racked. (Biners left on pieces.)
2. Set up the cordalette and tie in to power point. Stop the watch. Pause. Restart watch and break the anchor down. Stop when rope is undone and cordalette is racked. (Biners left on pieces).
For the three trials, the average set-up/break-down time for the ropalette was 72 seconds, and the average for the cordalette was a touch over 95 seconds. Advantage, ropalette by 23 seconds. Over a fifteen pitch trad climb, this would add up to a more than five minute advantage for the ropalette. Hardly a major difference (unless you are waiting on top in a lightning storm) but certainly an indication that you aren't going to lose any time if you know how to set up ropalette anchors.
Notes:
1. Set-up times were within a few seconds of each other, with the cordalette having a slight advantage. The cordalette lost because of break-down times, and it may be that another method would yield different results. I used the fastest method I know for racking a cordalette on the harness, namely folding in thirds, twisting, and clipping up. If you size your cordalette so that it can be carried over the shoulder, you might bring set-up/break-down times closer to the ropalette.
2. I tried to be efficient but didn't hurry in any of the trials.
3. I used a Mountain Tools Ultratape Webolette for the cordalette trials.
4. In one of the three cordalette trials, I fumbled a little while tying the knot and the result was poor equalization---the entire load was on the center strand with a quarter inch or less of slack in the two outer arms. In real life, the knot should have been retied. This would have killed the cordalette's average, though, and I didn't do it. Poor equalization requiring retying is a pretty common event with cordalettes, as is evidenced by the regularity with which people mention strategies (almost all of which are no good) for restoring equalization without retying. This means that, in fact, the real-life cordalette average set-up/break-down time would be longer than the ones I obtained. Ropalettes, which are constructed strand by strand, virtually never come out poorly equalized, and because of the clove hitches, any adjustments are quick, easy, and don't involve untying and retying knots. This means that if I had done lots more trials and refused to settle for poor equalization, the time advantage of the ropalette would have been more substantial.
5. In addition to the factors mentioned in 4, a long trad climb without installed anchors is likely to have at least a few stances in which the pro cannot be connected with a cordalette without additonal slings. The time and gear for ropalette set-up and break-down doesn't change under these circumstances, but the cordalette times become longer.
6. Even with my pieces placed pretty close together, the strand angles in the cordalette were significantly bigger than the ropalette, so the anchor loads would have been higher for the cordalette.
YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
megableem
Jun 17, 2004, 9:36 PM
Post #40 of 51
(7042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 13, 2004
Posts: 160
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Jun 18, 2004, 5:36 PM
Post #41 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
fitz
Jun 21, 2004, 3:33 AM
Post #42 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 363
|
I am actually surprised at how polarized some of the posts in this thread are. It's just a tool, like cams or stoppers. I generally carry one on multi-pitch trad and alpine because it is very handy for self rescue. Rather I use it for an anchor or not depends on the circumstances.
With a weaker partner, or moving in a group, I use it a lot. As someone else mentioned, it is less hairy than switching ends. Also, if you take the time to find and build an anchor above your stance, your lower back will thank you for belaying/hauling someone off it.
But again, as fond as I have become of one since first being introduced to it by a long time guide, it is still just a tool, not a one size fits all anchor solution.
-jjf
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Jun 21, 2004, 4:52 AM
Post #43 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Okay, I've been very interested in this debate as the vast majority of people I climb with DO use a cordalette (and I do, too). Also, the vast majority of people i climb with have learned within the last 5 years.
So I wonder: do you sages out there exhibit a greater wisdom than we newbies, or do you exhibit a reluctance to change?
That said, I know MY rope anchors are few and far between because I've learned using the cord, and I am most definitely faster with it. I've had numerous occasions where I've been forced to simul, and cleaning up an anchor ont he fly would be that much harder with a rope anchor, I think.
That said . . . I want to learn. Am I sealing my fate with the cord when I should really be proficient at rope anchors?
|
|
|
|
|
davo
Jun 21, 2004, 8:31 AM
Post #44 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2004
Posts: 6
|
just wondering while i was looking and thinking about some of the ropelette set-ups people have sugested. some of these involve clove-hitching to a biner and having both strands weighted (or with the potential to be weighted), either by going back down to the power point or to another power-point for re-directing the belay. i have read (no, not just in john long's books) that you sacrifice significant biner strength (i don't understand the physics of it) by loading the strand of the clove-hitch not closest to the spine of the biner. Is this dangerous? Just wondering what people think.
|
|
|
|
|
davo
Jun 21, 2004, 8:32 AM
Post #45 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2004
Posts: 6
|
just wondering while i was looking and thinking about some of the ropelette set-ups people have sugested. some of these involve clove-hitching to a biner and having both strands weighted (or with the potential to be weighted), either by going back down to the power point or to another power-point for re-directing the belay. i have read (no, not just in john long's books) that you sacrifice significant biner strength (i don't understand the physics of it) by loading the strand of the clove-hitch not closest to the spine of the biner. Is this dangerous? Just wondering what people think.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Jun 21, 2004, 6:27 PM
Post #46 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: i have read (no, not just in john long's books) that you sacrifice significant biner strength (i don't understand the physics of it) by loading the strand of the clove-hitch not closest to the spine of the biner. Is this dangerous? Just wondering what people think.
The idea behind this is that it is best to load the biner so that the spine takes most of the loading. It is similar to the concept behind why "D" shaped biners are stronger than ovals. Whether or not it is "significant", I don't know. I'd love to see some testing/ data on this, because intuitively it doesn't seem to me that it would be significant in relation to the loads the biner will experience.
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Jun 21, 2004, 6:29 PM
Post #47 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
In reply to: So I wonder: do you sages out there exhibit a greater wisdom than we newbies, or do you exhibit a reluctance to change?
started climbing over 10 years ago, was introduced to a cordelette about 2 years ago, and now use it in one form or another at about 3 out of 4 belays.
that being said, i may not be a good example, because i didn't learn to climb WELL initially. specifically, i survived my early years (and associated anchors) in the traditional way: by sheer luck. so i never really developed any rigorous anchoring habits back then that i had to break. learning to use a cordelette corresponded with when i started studying how to do everything systematically for the first time.
if some new method comes along that has real advantages, i hope i'll be open minded enough to embrace it. there's always more to learn, and there's almost always a better way to do something.
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Jun 21, 2004, 6:32 PM
Post #48 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
In reply to: just wondering while i was looking and thinking about some of the ropelette set-ups people have sugested. some of these involve clove-hitching to a biner and having both strands weighted (or with the potential to be weighted), either by going back down to the power point or to another power-point for re-directing the belay. i have read (no, not just in john long's books) that you sacrifice significant biner strength (i don't understand the physics of it) by loading the strand of the clove-hitch not closest to the spine of the biner. Is this dangerous? Just wondering what people think.
I haven't seen test done specifically clove hitches loaded on the "wrong" strand, or more specifically on this arrangement in an equalized anchor.
It's a reasonable question, though, given that carabiners do fail, probably more than any other piece of gear we routinely use. Here's a post written by Chris Harmston (ex Black Diamond Materials and QC manager):
"It is very possible to break biners (good
ones) well below their rating. Ratings are generated by testing between
two 12 mm steel pins seated against the spine of the biner. The closer
the loading is to the nose of the biner (closer to the gate) then the
weaker it will be and it can easily fail below the rating. Loading a
biner with its nose hook on a bolt hanger can break it under body weight
even though it has an open gate rating of 7 kN. In closed gate, biners
break below their ratings when tested with slings because the sling
applies more load to the nose than to the spine (in comparison to steel
pins). 1" slings will cause biners to break weaker than 1/2" slings
(assuming the biner breaks first--which usually happens by the way). Much
of this type of information is also supplied with carabiner instruction
tags."
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Jun 21, 2004, 6:34 PM
Post #49 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: Am I sealing my fate with the cord when I should really be proficient at rope anchors?
You should be proficient with both. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. In some circumstances, one is clearly better than the other. Probably in most circumstances, it will come down to personal preference.
However, I think rgold has outlined some very good points to consider, in this thread and in others. Understanding the limitations of the gear/ techniques we use is the best thing we can do to improve our safety.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jun 21, 2004, 8:57 PM
Post #50 of 51
(7041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: do you sages out there exhibit a greater wisdom than we newbies, or do you exhibit a reluctance to change?
You are asking the so-called sages to indulge in honest introspection, a quality not in great evidence here and not an especially strong suit for humans generally. But if we are going to postulate that the old-timers may be "reluctant to change," it is only fair to at least consider that younger climbers may be "reluctant to learn." In any case, decisions ought to be based on arguments and facts, not misinformation, uncritical appeals to authority, and habits that die hard.
As for this old-timer, I used to carry cordalettes on all climbs, but went back to using them as special-purpose devices when I found that they weren't all that useful to me. But I do not find basic rope anchors to be complex, I can set 'em up and break 'em down as fast or faster than cordalette users, and so, when appropriate, they constitute a viable choice---for me.
In reply to: the vast majority of people I climb with DO use a cordalette (and I do, too). Also, the vast majority of people i climb with have learned within the last 5 years.
Right. The evolution of both climbing and climbing instruction clearly favors cordalettes.
In climbing, trad climbs in which both the protection and belay anchors are placed by the climbers are a declining species. More and more multipitch trad climbs have installed anchors which are almost always optimized for cordalette use. This means that climbers who have learned in the past 5-10 years and who have little or no experience in more remote settings may have experienced a narrow range of anchoring situations and so have found little need for anything other than a cordalette. As "sport" belay stations become the norm on "trad" climbs, the need for adaptable anchor strategies could become the province of a few specialists in back-country first ascents (in the same way that skill in piton placement, testing, and removal is no longer a universal attribute of competent climbers).
A second source of cordalette "bias" comes from the conventional wisdom that 3 anchors is sufficient almost all of the time. I seem to remember Long giving 4 as a standard, but no matter, 3 seems to be the magic number. Personally, I think I use 4 anchors (not counting a directional) about half the time, usually because at least one of any three I can place with what's left of my rack is a small piece or a less than optimal one. When you get past three anchors, a cordalette by itself is often too short.
A third influence comes from guides. Now there is no question that cordalettes make sense for guided parties, and there is also no question that it is easier to teach beginners how to tie a figure-8 knot at the end of a cordalette, and so the current "education system" is skewed in favor of cordalettes because they are the most convenient thing for the teachers.
In reply to: some of these [ropalette] involve clove-hitching to a biner and having both strands weighted (or with the potential to be weighted)...I have read ...that you sacrifice significant biner strength (I don't understand the physics of it) by loading the strand of the clove-hitch not closest to the spine of the biner. Is this dangerous?
The physics is that the clove hitch is perhaps an inch wide, and if the strand furthest from the spine is weighted, the leverage resulting from the one inch distance from the loaded strand to the spine reduces the breaking strength of the carabiner. The same consideration applies to the Munter hitch.
If the outer strand of a single clove hitch has to bear the entire 9 kN load of a factor 2 fall (extremely unlikely for several reasons), the question is whether the potential lever arm puts a 22 kN biner at risk. (This is different from what might happen with a quickdraw sling in a leverage position on a biner, because the pulley effect of catching the fall could transmit perhaps a 15 kN load to the end of the lever.) I don't know of any tests of the anchoring situation, but I have never read or heard of a clove-hitched anchor carabiner breaking during a catch, no matter how severe the fall, and I don't personally think the clove hitches present any danger. In any case, since cordalettes frequently create bigger angles between the strands than the rope-only anchors I described, it is probably a wash as to which additional (but probably insubstantial) risk factor you want to embrace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
