|
|
|
|
sync
Jun 23, 2004, 2:30 AM
Post #1 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2003
Posts: 125
|
I saw this anchor setup at Devil's Lake, Wisconsin this past Saturday and wondered what the opinions of it would be here.
This first picture is of the overall setup:
http://img78.photobucket.com/...nchors/IMG_3261s.jpg
Then a few closeups starting with the pro and working down toward the biners (which are hidden over the edge of the rock):
http://img78.photobucket.com/...nchors/IMG_3262s.jpg
There are actually three separate nuts in this same crack and each has its own biner that is attached to the cordelette.
http://img78.photobucket.com/...nchors/IMG_3263s.jpg
http://img78.photobucket.com/...nchors/IMG_3264s.jpg
I'm just starting to learn how to set anchors, and have been watching and helping the more experienced people I climb with. I have set about four anchors by myself now and have read a lot about the principles in books like Freedom of the Hills and John Long's books, so I think I have a good idea about what constitutes a good anchor.
I have some opinions about this setup, but I wanted to read first what you guys thought.
EDIT: This is not my anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
shaggyj
Jun 23, 2004, 2:50 AM
Post #2 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 170
|
Some quick thoughts/observations
The top nut is a match fit, can't see the rest
Your gates are facing away from the rock which is good. Locking carabs would be better.
I'm not too thrilled with the two bight knots of cordelette linked together.
It looks like the webbing extending over the edge is girth hitched to the bottom piece of cordelette. IMO too many links. Could be simpler with longer webbing
|
|
|
|
|
wings
Jun 23, 2004, 2:57 AM
Post #3 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 283
|
There's no redundancy with respect to the rocks that all three pieces of pro are using. i.e. In the unlikely scenario that the one top rock moved, the entire anchor would fail.
The cord going from the cordelette to the webbing could be made redundant, either by tying an overhand on a bight at the webbing end (in case one strand gets cut), or by using another cord entirely (preferable).
The webbing has no redundancy either. One cut of the webbing and it slips out entirely.
- Seyil
|
|
|
|
|
r6driver
Jun 23, 2004, 3:11 AM
Post #4 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 95
|
The only part of this that really bothers me are the non-redundant cord and webbing girth-hitched together.
I would prefer to attach the bites of blue and orange cord with biners.
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Jun 23, 2004, 3:12 AM
Post #5 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
As a top rope anchor I would probably use this. Same comments as the other fellows. Locking biners on the nuts or doubled and reversed. No redundency on the webbing going over the edge. (That's the only major concern I would have) I would prefer to see a single extension as opposed to two seprate extensions. The nut placement looks pretty bomber. I wouldn't use it on a lead if I had better choices because it seems it could be dislodged fairly easily but TR I would trust it. Seems like there might be other places to place gear, since the pieces are close together they might put alot of force onto a small area of the rock and cause the rock to break (this is shear speculation and possibly wrong)
Aside from that I would probably climb on this.
|
|
|
|
|
sync
Jun 23, 2004, 3:21 AM
Post #6 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2003
Posts: 125
|
It just seems to me that a lot of the redundancy put in by using three pieces is taken out when the cordelette is attached to the two runners. A single failure on either of the runners below the cordelette and the whole anchor fails, right?
|
|
|
|
|
sonus
Jun 23, 2004, 3:22 AM
Post #7 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 120
|
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=21144
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 23, 2004, 3:30 AM
Post #8 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
No, that anchor probably wouldn't fail. Yes, you would be a fool to climb on that anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Jun 23, 2004, 3:32 AM
Post #9 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I really like these threads. Not having a whole ton of trad experience myself, I've never had to make an anchor since I usually wind up with bolted anchors on my trad climbs, so it's nice to get a chance to check out an anchor and then see what people have to say about it. :)
|
|
|
|
|
mtnrsq
Jun 23, 2004, 3:54 AM
Post #10 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2003
Posts: 70
|
I'd probably pad the edge where the runner drops over the side. Abrasion can be a real bummer. From the first picture it looks as though there are additional placements available that could spread things out a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jun 23, 2004, 3:57 AM
Post #11 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
That thing is nasty. I`ll second the above comments in relation to the nuts all in one crack so that if the boulder were to move the whole anchor would fail. I detest the fact that there is nylon attached to nylon, please, use metal to connect nylon elements. Why do people not use short lengths of static ropes in these types of top rope setups. A 30 foot length of static 11mm would be perfect for extending and redundancy. Kill the webbing going over the edge.
As stated by others this anchor is something that would not kill you but there are a lot of minuses to it. Could be improved an awful lot.
I`ll be the olympic anchor building judge from Australia and give this anchor a 2.1 out of ten.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jun 23, 2004, 4:13 AM
Post #12 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
I'd have to agree with Phil, it is fairly nasty. I began reading through, looking at each picture in sequence and the first close up, I thought 'Oh yeah, I'd probably be fine with that'. Then as I looked at each following picture my nose scrunched up more and more until I gave a little 'ooo' at the final picture of the sling hitched to the cord. Um..... it seems to get worse from the nuts to the edge. The edge is where most movement will be and its the least fail-safe portion of the anchor. As stated.... no redundancy. It seems the person who set it up, hadn't set one there before, and as they built it they started to run out of slings and cords etc. It would be best (If that's the only crack) to keep each nut spearate all the way to the final toproping locking carabiner....in effect having three full isolated pieces connecting the toprope locking biner which is over the edge.
....by the way, good photos.
....Dave
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 23, 2004, 4:38 AM
Post #13 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Do any of you guys actually climb, or do you just post sh!t on the internet for fun? I too have some questions about why the anchor was constructed as it was (particularly padding the edge at the inflection point) and perhaps it could have been done better, but get real. That is obviously a TR anchor and I'll bet you could hang your car off that anchor with no problem what-so-ever.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
wings
Jun 23, 2004, 4:44 AM
Post #14 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 283
|
In reply to: Do any of you guys actually climb, or do you just post sh!t on the internet for fun? I too have some questions about why the anchor was constructed as it was (particularly padding the edge at the inflection point) and perhaps it could have been done better, but get real. That is obviously a TR anchor and I'll bet you could hang your car off that anchor with no problem what-so-ever. Curt
My employer is not in the business of paying people to climb, however they don't mind too much if I spend some time online offending the sensibilities of others, so I took them up on the offer.
Would you stand under said car while it was hanging off that anchor?
- Seyil
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jun 23, 2004, 4:47 AM
Post #15 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
curt wrote:
In reply to: Do any of you guys actually climb, or do you just post sh!t on the internet for fun? I too have some questions about why the anchor was constructed as it was (particularly padding the edge at the inflection point) and perhaps it could have been done better, but get real. That is obviously a TR anchor and I'll bet you could hang your car off that anchor with no problem what-so-ever.
...your post certainly doesn't give much insight into a better solution.... as this is why the topic was posted in the first place.
....who's the one posting sh!t?....hanging cars off topropes doesn't really give an indication of toprope dynamics.... give the car one little swing and see what happens!
....obviously my worthless 0.02c
....Dave
|
|
|
|
|
godskid5
Jun 23, 2004, 4:50 AM
Post #16 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 197
|
cool, a pop quiz!!
foth 17th, got the 3 bombproof anchors, but it does kinda defeat the purpose if they are all in the same spot, right?
the anchors appear good to start, then the cordelette is iffy, and finally the ONE peice of webbing on the sharp edge!! ouch.
is jerry rigging a good thing in climbing? i didn't think it was. right tools for the right job eh?
what did i win?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 23, 2004, 5:01 AM
Post #17 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: curt wrote: In reply to: Do any of you guys actually climb, or do you just post sh!t on the internet for fun? I too have some questions about why the anchor was constructed as it was (particularly padding the edge at the inflection point) and perhaps it could have been done better, but get real. That is obviously a TR anchor and I'll bet you could hang your car off that anchor with no problem what-so-ever. ...your post certainly doesn't give much insight into a better solution.... as this is why the topic was posted in the first place.
Actually, I did suggest an improvement--padding the rock edge. But, really that anchor has ample overkill and there is no need for me to offer a "better solution" since what is shown is adequate for the purpose. Not perfect, perhaps, but surely good enough.
In reply to: ....who's the one posting sh!t?....hanging cars off topropes doesn't really give an indication of toprope dynamics.... give the car one little swing and see what happens!
Weight and force are the same thing. Go back to school.
In reply to: ....obviously my worthless 0.02c ....Dave
Obviously.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 23, 2004, 5:12 AM
Post #18 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
That anchor is not adequate.
Redundancy is about as basic a requirement as you can get for an anchor to qualify as being adequate. (disregarding anchoring to a bomber tree)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 23, 2004, 5:14 AM
Post #19 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: That anchor is not adequate. Redundancy is about as basic a requirement as you can get for an anchor to qualify as being adequate. (disregarding anchoring to a bomber tree)
Dan,
Please support your argument and describe for me, in some detail, exactly how this anchor will fail if you TR on it. I am quite curious.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
tech_dog
Jun 23, 2004, 5:16 AM
Post #20 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2004
Posts: 224
|
Assuming good quality rock, the first stopper looks pretty good. If the other two are as good, I'd be happy but not thrilled with the pro.
I'd have used locking biners for the pro.
The double fisherman's looks like it could be a bit loose, but I can't tell for sure. I'd pull on it a bit more just to make sure.
The two bight knots are a bit ugly, but it's a double loop and a triple loop, and I'd trust it.
Extra credit for what looks like a triple fisherman's knot on the red cord.
The girth hitch is a bit ugly, and would start to make me a bit nervious.
Buzz... I would not want to use the single piece of webbing hanging over an edge. I would definitely improve this by using redundant slings, or by using one of the super heavy duty singing rock sheathed eye slings.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jun 23, 2004, 5:22 AM
Post #21 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
curt wrote:
In reply to: Actually, I did suggest an improvement--padding the rock edge. But, really that anchor has ample overkill and there is no need for me to offer a "better solution" since what is shown is adequate for the purpose. Not perfect, perhaps, but surely good enough.
So you're saying the knot linking the cord to the webbing near the edge is 'adequate'? All the system needs is a 'bit of padding'?
kachoong wrote:
....who's the one posting sh!t?....hanging cars off topropes doesn't really give an indication of toprope dynamics.... give the car one little swing and see what happens!
curt wrote:
In reply to: Weight and force are the same thing. Go back to school.
I was stating that movement sideways, up or down of any MASS will encounter different forces (in most cases greater) than if a MASS is just hung off it (without movement). I didn't even mention weight and force being the same thing?
This toprope setup IMO is not adequate.
....Dave
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 23, 2004, 5:28 AM
Post #22 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: Dan, Please support your argument and describe for me, in some detail, exactly how this anchor will fail if you TR on it. I am quite curious. Curt
It fails rule number one in my rule book.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 23, 2004, 5:38 AM
Post #23 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Dan, Please support your argument and describe for me, in some detail, exactly how this anchor will fail if you TR on it. I am quite curious. Curt It fails rule number one in my rule book.
OK, I see three nuts (redundant) placed for a TR anchor that are (if the first nut that we can see is any indication) bombproof. These three nuts are equalized by a cordalette which is then connected to another piece of doubled cord. So far, I see nothing that would fail at less than 5,000 pounds or so, in my estimation. This cord is then connected to a piece of webbing which is (admittedly) running across the edge of the rock--and I commented about that earlier, as a potential area of concern.
If you are going to tell me that you have never placed 2 or 3 or more pieces in a single vertical crack as an anchor (in Yosemite, perhaps) then I call BS on you. That anchor is safe.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jun 23, 2004, 5:48 AM
Post #24 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
curt wrote:
In reply to: OK, I see three nuts (redundant) placed for a TR anchor that are (if the first nut that we can see is any indication) bombproof. These three nuts are equalized by a cordalette which is then connected to another piece of doubled cord. So far, I see nothing that would fail at less than 5,000 pounds or so, in my estimation. This cord is then connected to a piece of webbing which is (admittedly) running across the edge of the rock--and I commented about that earlier, as a potential area of concern. If you are going to tell me that you have never placed 2 or 3 or more pieces in a single vertical crack as an anchor (in Yosemite, perhaps) then I call BS on you. That anchor is safe. Curt
I agree that the top section of the anchor is fine, absolutely bombproof, given the block doesn't move. My concern is 100% the single webbing, which I agree you have said In reply to: why the anchor was constructed as it was (particularly padding the edge at the inflection point) and perhaps it could have been done better,
....Dave
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 23, 2004, 6:03 AM
Post #25 of 219
(16453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: curt wrote: In reply to: OK, I see three nuts (redundant) placed for a TR anchor that are (if the first nut that we can see is any indication) bombproof. These three nuts are equalized by a cordalette which is then connected to another piece of doubled cord. So far, I see nothing that would fail at less than 5,000 pounds or so, in my estimation. This cord is then connected to a piece of webbing which is (admittedly) running across the edge of the rock--and I commented about that earlier, as a potential area of concern. If you are going to tell me that you have never placed 2 or 3 or more pieces in a single vertical crack as an anchor (in Yosemite, perhaps) then I call BS on you. That anchor is safe. Curt I agree that the top section of the anchor is fine, absolutely bombproof, given the block doesn't move. My concern is 100% the single webbing, which I agree you have said In reply to: why the anchor was constructed as it was (particularly padding the edge at the inflection point) and perhaps it could have been done better, ...but it really needs to be changed....especially for those who may believe you and go rig up something exactly the same. Abraision can sever webbing very quickly. ....Dave
OK sorry then, maybe we were saying essentially the same thing. I got the impression from reading the posts previous to my inital contribution here that there was more in question than just the issue of the webbing running over a potentially sharp edge.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
