Now you're making the same mistake. There's no reason to think that the D/A/CH approach is superior to Long's concepts. Largo's work with sterling is not any less scientific than the tests you are talking about.

There is major flaws in John Long's testing. This has been pointed out numerous times in this thread and previously. His conclusions about shock loading not mattering are plainly false. This should be obvious through high school physics and has been shown in tests.

Nobody has died because FF2 falls are rare and anchor piece failures are also rare.

yes, i jsut wanted to get rid of the knots. and although mammut and edelrid and others come up with slings which have a loop sewn in you still have to make 2 glove hitches.....

I don't get it.

For years (at least 2) me and my friends have been using slings and biners. Two-foot slings, 4-foot slings with knots, sport draws, trad draws. We use these things for personal anchor, belay anchor, quick safety, and secure hanging around. Slings and biners work on sport, trad, and ice, and top-rope, for just one climber or for two or three even.

I've seen a few varieties of PAS or similar at the climbing store, and I don't get it. They don't do anything better or easier. In fact I think some of those gadgets are dangerous.

Now you're making the same mistake. There's no reason to think that the D/A/CH approach is superior to Long's concepts. Largo's work with sterling is not any less scientific than the tests you are talking about.

And why exactly wouldn't you use one of those options to construct a better quality anchor?

Or if you really want some silly pre-rigged gizmo you can buy an alpine equalizer, make a quad or equallete, or find some other gimmick to latch onto.

Why would you take a device that does an - arguably - good job as a personal tether re-purpose it into an - arguably - poor anchor and then carry an additional piece of gear to tether with?

Are you looking for weight savings? Security? What? What exactly is wrong with the systems that people have been using for decades? I am not against innovation, but I hardly see that happening here.

The clove hitches are key to avoiding extension, and also they offer the ability to share the load on more points, if a situation arises where you have more points than just two, or another situation where you do not have a master point. With the belay sling i can easily construct a fairly complex (trad) anchor with all pieces in it without any slack, whereas the PAS will almost always introduce quite a bit of slack in the system (which you do want to avoid, due to the possibility of extension).

Am I? To be honest I do not know what kind of testing Long did.

He tested extension during fall with a dynamic rope between the falling mass and the anchor. As expected there was little shock effect of the extension because there was negligible mass at the belay.

If he had tested with a belayers mass as part of the belay he would have had entirely different results.

He tested extension during fall with a dynamic rope between the falling mass and the anchor. As expected there was little shock effect of the extension because there was negligible mass at the belay.

If he had tested with a belayers mass as part of the belay he would have had entirely different results.

No offense, but not understanding how something works actually prohibits you from forming a qualified opinion on the subject, not the contrary.

Is there data on that somewhere?

Jay

You know that the forces are high when a mass(belayer) falls onto a static anchor. You know that extension with a belayer in the system can be like a fall of the belayer onto a static anchor. Furthermore the belayer is being accelerated greater than gravity by the partners fall. So the shock load could be greater.

Data?
Here is some other testing on extension. Their methodology is as equally incorrect as JLong. In reality the system is a mix of mass at the anchor and a mass sepparated by a spring (rope). JLong didn't include the mass at the anchor. These guys didn't include the mass on the spring.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...d;page=unread#unread
http://www.shariconglobal.com/...g_Anchor_Systems.pdf

Of course if you use your climbing rope to build the anchor then we can forget about all this concern about shock loading.

Is there data on that somewhere?

Jay

did you have a look at the link i posted?

I'll take a look at those links. Maybe they cover this, but how serious is shock-loading when the anchor is constructed from static materials but the belayer is tied-in with a dynamic rope?

Jay

Look? Yes. Understand? No. I don't read German.

Am I? To be honest I do not know what kind of testing Long did. All i know is that the testing the AU alpine club does are real world settings with realistic situations at the anchors. And it is 100% proofen that extension is much worth than a swing. That is just a fact. I can show you the numbers. Is there anything unclear in that? Have you even read any of these studies????

I am not talking about differences in the US or Europe, I am talking about what is proofen to be the better. And if you can show me any "more realistic" or more meaningful research which will proof that i am wrong, I am happy to change my mind. But just in denying that these tests are not good without even given a reason.....ah well....

Ey, if you value this discussion, why are you getting defensive? I'm Austrian myself and I know the local approach and the latest studies pretty damn well. And alternative testing, the specific Austrian conclusions for alpine anchors, and so on. As I wrote earlier, I've tried to get the best out of the US and D/A/CH approaches in such discussions, but now I think that there are fundamental differences in culture and practice that make this very hard to do. That's why I used the word paradigm. You can look that up in combination with the name Thomas Kuhn to get a better idea why I think this is accurate.

Btw, many things have been "100% prooven" and "fact" on both sides of the argument. Maybe a little less cultural arrogance on your part if you want to get something out of this discussion? Or do you really want to evangelize every climber out there and do you really want to do this via rc.com? Crazy

I don't think Adan displays excessive defensiveness or cultural arogance.

There is a paradugm clash here and there is a clear conflict on this issue of extension. This isn't going to be solved by further debate in this thread.

The PAS is fine for an anchor it does the job. I don't think a PAS is an ideal anchoring solution. However I don't see how it is worse that the common US method of a sliding-x.