 |

chopsticktown
Oct 9, 2012, 11:11 PM
Post #1 of 21
(11454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2011
Posts: 10
|
I think my nerves were getting to the best of me, I think this anchor was overkill. What do you think? The single cordelette tied off was a sufficient anchor by itself, wasn't it?
|
Attachments:
|
anchor.jpg
(95.2 KB)
|
|
|
 |
 |

shimanilami
Oct 9, 2012, 11:44 PM
Post #2 of 21
(11441 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
Yes.
|
|
|
 |
 |

theextremist04
Oct 10, 2012, 12:34 AM
Post #3 of 21
(11415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2010
Posts: 189
|
Are you expecting any different answers than on mountain project? You got some great info over there.
|
|
|
 |
 |

dan2see
Oct 10, 2012, 12:42 AM
Post #5 of 21
(11409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
chopsticktown wrote: I think my nerves were getting to the best of me, I think this anchor was overkill. What do you think? The single cordelette tied off was a sufficient anchor by itself, wasn't it?   That's a sturdy looking tree you chose, and it's good to attach your gear as close to the ground as possible. It's too bad you didn't show us what you have below the picture. I guess that's the edge of the cliff, and also I guess that you're hanging your climbing rope through a couple of biners, hanging over the cliff ? ?? ??? You've built two anchors on that tree, for redundancy. I'd say that each one has plenty of load-carrying capability. But they're both on the same tree. So if you guys manage to tear the tree out by its roots, both your anchors will go with it, and your redundant gear will both fly over the edge, and your rope with them. So here's what you should do: Go ahead and sling the tree. Use that sewn sling just like you have it, but set it at the bottom. Then find a different anchor, for your cordalette. It will probably be a tree or rock, further up the hill. So use that cord. Get another couple of slings, enough to hang your pair of lockers over the edge, for your top-rope. Equalize them somehow. You don't have to be perfect, and the two anchors don't have to connect to each other. What's that pink blob at the bottom of the picture? It looks like a girls mittens. That's another good idea! I went to climbing school at a cliff with easy access to the top of the cliff, for top-ropes. Our rule was to always set two anchors, each one strong enough, both totally independent from each other. As beginners, this rule saved our butts sometimes.
|
|
|
 |
 |

chopsticktown
Oct 10, 2012, 12:51 AM
Post #6 of 21
(11405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2011
Posts: 10
|
dan2see wrote: chopsticktown wrote: I think my nerves were getting to the best of me, I think this anchor was overkill. What do you think? The single cordelette tied off was a sufficient anchor by itself, wasn't it?   That's a sturdy looking tree you chose, and it's good to attach your gear as close to the ground as possible. It's too bad you didn't show us what you have below the picture. I guess that's the edge of the cliff, and also I guess that you're hanging your climbing rope through a couple of biners, hanging over the cliff ? ?? ??? You've built two anchors on that tree, for redundancy. I'd say that each one has plenty of load-carrying capability. But they're both on the same tree. So if you guys manage to tear the tree out by its roots, both your anchors will go with it, and your redundant gear will both fly over the edge, and your rope with them. So here's what you should do: Go ahead and sling the tree. Use that sewn sling just like you have it, but set it at the bottom. Then find a different anchor, for your cordalette. It will probably be a tree or rock, further up the hill. So use that cord. Get another couple of slings, enough to hang your pair of lockers over the edge, for your top-rope. Equalize them somehow. You don't have to be perfect, and the two anchors don't have to connect to each other. What's that pink blob at the bottom of the picture? It looks like a girls mittens. That's another good idea! I went to climbing school at a cliff with easy access to the top of the cliff, for top-ropes. Our rule was to always set two anchors, each one strong enough, both totally independent from each other. As beginners, this rule saved our butts sometimes. Thanks for that reply. I just recreated an anchor I used in a multi-pitch climb to bring up a second . My initial reaction with the cord was "yeah its bomber!" My nerves usually get the best of me and I second guess things, hence the overkill! I also like to get reassurance! That pink blob was my finger.
|
|
|
 |
 |

USnavy
Oct 10, 2012, 3:54 AM
Post #7 of 21
(11333 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
Yes, it is overkill. Just wrap a run of cordlette around the tree, throw on a locker, and call it a day. Easy stuff.
|
|
|
 |
 |

socalclimber
Oct 10, 2012, 10:29 AM
Post #8 of 21
(11293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
Jesus, that thing's huge! I appreciate being sure your anchors are good, but remember the more time you take, the more time you get less done. Meaning, if you move onto multi pitch routes, taking half an hour to rig an anchor is going to slow you way down. Efficiency is a key factor. This applies to both top rope anchors as well as any other anchor. At this point, if you are unsure, better to over build. It takes time to learn how to build good anchors quickly and have confidence in them. I'd certainly rather see that then some of the crap I've encountered over the years.
(This post was edited by socalclimber on Oct 10, 2012, 10:32 AM)
|
|
|
 |
 |

billl7
Oct 10, 2012, 1:16 PM
Post #9 of 21
(11240 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
socalclimber wrote: Jesus, that thing's huge! ... I'd certainly rather see that then some of the crap I've encountered over the years. +1
dan2see wrote: That's a sturdy looking tree you chose, and it's good to attach your gear as close to the ground as possible This is also a good general point, to sling a tree as close to the ground as possible to lower the chance of leveraging out the roots.
dan2see wrote: So if you guys manage to tear the tree out by its roots, both your anchors will go with it, and your redundant gear will both fly over the edge, and your rope with them. ... find a different anchor, for your cordalette. It will probably be a tree or rock, further up the hill. ... totally independent from each other. There's a balancing point in here somewhere. A very small tree should be backed up in case it rips out. Certainly, a 1" tree - even well-rooted and totally healthy - falls in this category. At the other extreme, the sheer weight of a very large tree makes having a backup pointless. If such a huge tree breaks free, it'll tear out that redundant leg on its way down with you and your partner. We've all seen totally dead huge trees that fit this category that don't belong in an anchor. Assuming it is totally alive, your tree (6 to 8 inch trunk?) might be approaching "pointless" side of the balance point. But I wouldn't argue about whether it is or not - as an anchor it appears to me to be plenty strong enough by itself. Bill L
|
|
|
 |
 |

chadnsc
Oct 10, 2012, 2:20 PM
Post #10 of 21
(11216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
***This is assuming the tree is alive, in good shape, deep roots, ect. **** I think it's overkill as a single attachment point. Simply slinging the tree around it's base with a girth hitch would work just fine. I however would find a second anchor point to add some redundancy to the anchor setup. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
 |
 |

TimeSpiral
Oct 12, 2012, 7:42 PM
Post #11 of 21
(11036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2012
Posts: 25
|
Noob question incoming (so watch out!) ... How is the webbing and the red gate locking biner actually backing up this anchor? If the rope slung around the base of the tree fails it is just going to slip right through that locking biner. Maybe it's just the angle of the picture, maybe I'm not recognizing the knot. What am I missing? Do we have a scenario here where two working ends are coming over the top of the biner and two working ends are coming under the biner? In which case if the section wrapped around the tree fail, the stopper knot will load the webbing via the locking biner? Thanks in advance. Like I said, n00b ??? incoming.
|
|
|
 |
 |

kennoyce
Oct 12, 2012, 7:47 PM
Post #12 of 21
(11032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
TimeSpiral wrote: Noob question incoming (so watch out!) ... How is the webbing and the red gate locking biner actually backing up this anchor? If the rope slung around the base of the tree fails it is just going to slip right through that locking biner. Maybe it's just the angle of the picture, maybe I'm not recognizing the knot. What am I missing? Do we have a scenario here where two working ends are coming over the top of the biner and two working ends are coming under the biner? In which case if the section wrapped around the tree fail, the stopper knot will load the webbing via the locking biner? Thanks in advance. Like I said, n00b ??? incoming. Yes, the bolded portion is correct, the knot has 4 strands going into it, the biner is clpped with 2 of the 4 strands going over it, and 2 of the 4 going under it. It's still pointless though because the cord is already doubled around the tree and therefor backing itself up (i.e. you could cut one of the strands going around the tree and the anchor wouldn't fail).
(This post was edited by kennoyce on Oct 12, 2012, 8:01 PM)
|
|
|
 |
 |

acorneau
Oct 12, 2012, 7:53 PM
Post #13 of 21
(11029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
Never mind... Ken beat me to it.
(This post was edited by acorneau on Oct 12, 2012, 8:02 PM)
|
|
|
 |
 |

TimeSpiral
Oct 12, 2012, 8:04 PM
Post #14 of 21
(11017 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2012
Posts: 25
|
kennoyce wrote: TimeSpiral wrote: Noob question incoming (so watch out!) ... How is the webbing and the red gate locking biner actually backing up this anchor? If the rope slung around the base of the tree fails it is just going to slip right through that locking biner. Maybe it's just the angle of the picture, maybe I'm not recognizing the knot. What am I missing? Do we have a scenario here where two working ends are coming over the top of the biner and two working ends are coming under the biner? In which case if the section wrapped around the tree fail, the stopper knot will load the webbing via the locking biner? Thanks in advance. Like I said, n00b ??? incoming. Yes, the bolded portion is correct, the knot has 4 strands going into it, the biner is clpped with 2 of the 4 strands going over it, and 2 of the 4 going under it. It's still pointless though because the cord is already doubled around the tree and therefor backing itself up (i.e. you could cut one of the strands going around the tree and the anchor wouldn't fail). Thank you!
|
|
|
 |
 |

deschamps1000
Oct 12, 2012, 10:35 PM
Post #15 of 21
(10979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343
|
dan2see wrote: chopsticktown wrote: I think my nerves were getting to the best of me, I think this anchor was overkill. What do you think? The single cordelette tied off was a sufficient anchor by itself, wasn't it?   That's a sturdy looking tree you chose, and it's good to attach your gear as close to the ground as possible. It's too bad you didn't show us what you have below the picture. I guess that's the edge of the cliff, and also I guess that you're hanging your climbing rope through a couple of biners, hanging over the cliff ? ?? ??? You've built two anchors on that tree, for redundancy. I'd say that each one has plenty of load-carrying capability. But they're both on the same tree. So if you guys manage to tear the tree out by its roots, both your anchors will go with it, and your redundant gear will both fly over the edge, and your rope with them. So here's what you should do: Go ahead and sling the tree. Use that sewn sling just like you have it, but set it at the bottom. Then find a different anchor, for your cordalette. It will probably be a tree or rock, further up the hill. So use that cord. Get another couple of slings, enough to hang your pair of lockers over the edge, for your top-rope. Equalize them somehow. You don't have to be perfect, and the two anchors don't have to connect to each other. What's that pink blob at the bottom of the picture? It looks like a girls mittens. That's another good idea! I went to climbing school at a cliff with easy access to the top of the cliff, for top-ropes. Our rule was to always set two anchors, each one strong enough, both totally independent from each other. As beginners, this rule saved our butts sometimes. Uhhh... no offense, but you will find this answer to be funny once you have been climbing for a few years.
|
|
|
 |
 |

deschamps1000
Oct 12, 2012, 10:38 PM
Post #16 of 21
(10977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343
|
People... all you need to do with a big freakin tree like that is walk around it so that the rope you are tied to circles the tree, and clip in to the rope. You are now anchored to the tree. Now belay your second. 1 locking biner and boom, done. If you would like to get fancy you can tie a seperate knot in the rope to attach an autolocking belay device to.
|
|
|
 |
 |

dan2see
Oct 13, 2012, 2:45 AM
Post #17 of 21
(10907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
deschamps1000 wrote: ... Uhhh... no offense, but you will find this answer to be funny once you have been climbing for a few years. Well it has been a few years. To tell the truth, most of my friends don't do top-roping anymore, we generally lead to the top, build an anchor (a good one), and lower down. Then the next guy pulls the rope down and leads it all over again. We might leave the anchor up there, for convenience, but often not. The idea of building two separate, independent, strong anchors is a simple rule for beginners, especially if they're sharing the top-rope. It's an easy rule that will save your butt. You do that for a few years, and your style, technique, and attitude changes, or maybe even your climbing scene changes. Then you can look back and laugh at how silly you looked back then.
|
|
|
 |
 |

Alimali
Nov 1, 2012, 4:14 AM
Post #18 of 21
(10412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2012
Posts: 27
|
I don't know shit about this stuff, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. But from what I can see it's not necessarily about overkill, rather than pointlessness. The possibility of something going wrong with just the single cordelette was more likely to be the tree getting pulled out than the cordelette undoing, or snapping, or whatever. So wouldn't it make more sense to find another anchor point as a back up, rather than backing up on the same tree? It just seems like a waste of time to do what you'e done. But like I said, I know next to nothing on these matters...
|
|
|
 |
 |

dan2see
Nov 1, 2012, 4:06 PM
Post #19 of 21
(10339 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
Alimali wrote: I don't know shit about this stuff, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. But from what I can see it's not necessarily about overkill, rather than pointlessness. The possibility of something going wrong with just the single cordelette was more likely to be the tree getting pulled out than the cordelette undoing, or snapping, or whatever. So wouldn't it make more sense to find another anchor point as a back up, rather than backing up on the same tree? It just seems like a waste of time to do what you'e done. But like I said, I know next to nothing on these matters... OK Ali, you share ChopStick's lack of experience. But CS's photo showed intelligence: he saw a problem, and acted to correct it. And that ability will keep CS and his friends alive, in future challenges.
(This post was edited by dan2see on Nov 1, 2012, 4:17 PM)
|
|
|
 |
 |

Alimali
Nov 2, 2012, 2:15 AM
Post #20 of 21
(10218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2012
Posts: 27
|
For sure, I didn't mean to criticize him as such, in the end someone like himself will probably be more knowledgeable than half the douche bags on here who think they know everything and refuse to learn how to improve or criticize their own anchoring.
|
|
|
 |
 |

patto
Nov 2, 2012, 2:52 AM
Post #21 of 21
(10204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Alimali wrote: The possibility of something going wrong with just the single cordelette was more likely to be the tree getting pulled out than the cordelette undoing, or snapping, or whatever. You are grossly underestimating the strength and reliability of a decent tree. The likelihood of a tree of that size failing is even less than the very small likelihood of properly configure cordellette failing. Both are pretty much unheard of. That said the occurrence of improperly tied and configured cordellettes is not unknown.
|
|
|
 |
|
|