|
healyje
Feb 23, 2006, 10:30 PM
Post #277 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Cracklover - See my edits above...^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
flyinglow
Feb 23, 2006, 10:36 PM
Post #278 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
what i've seen on the AE (and gordolette to a somewhat more limited extent) is the ability to have the direction of pull change and all pieces are still loaded(because the rope can slide through the main power point)
it may not be perfect, but it seems like zippering will be less of an issue when all pieces are sharing the load(equalized, isn't that the point of all this?)
the problem with the equalette is the ability of the climber to truly equalize all the pieces(and accurately predict the exact direction of pull)
the AE and gordolette don't have to be as precise because there is some ability for the anchor to self equalize.
Is my pic correct for the equalette? it seems to work much like a cordelette, but is a bit easier to equalize(provided you can perfectly predict the direction of loading) What is the functional difference between a cordelette and the equalette ?(other than clove hitching the individual pieces of pro, which i thought wasn't an unheard of practice in some circumstances)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 23, 2006, 10:45 PM
Post #279 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
flyinglow
Yep, that looks like it. Can't quite tell, but John was saying two lockers, one on each of the two center strands. Otherwise that is the basic rig.
|
|
|
|
|
flyinglow
Feb 23, 2006, 10:50 PM
Post #280 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
my issue with the standard cordelette(fixed powerpoint, all legs fixed dimensions) and the equalette(somewhat mobile powerpoint? right?) is if the climber ascends diagonally and then falls there will be a load put on the anchor that isn't totally vertical, and might only load on a couple pieces.
with the alpine equalizer, sliding-X, gordolette(limited angle), when a side load is applied, the anchor should re-align and apply the load to all the pieces of pro instead of just one or two.
would the terms static(fixed direction of pull) and dynamic (possible different angles) equalization be too confusing with other climbing lingo?
i'm just throwing ideas out there, maybe they're good, maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 23, 2006, 10:50 PM
Post #281 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Healyje, thanks for the clarification.
In reply to: Cracklover, that's not what John's testing is revealing - they show a cordalette not equalizing well and the equallete equalizing extremely well. It equalized well when I tried it. ==================================== Edit: Ah, I see we are running afoul of verbage and definition here. "Equalization" is a bit of a "loaded" term in this discussion and being used interchangeably for two different meanings. 1) Spreading the load across anchors "evenly" ( now I'm cautious about that!)
I actually don't care for the word "equalized". What I want in my anchor is "distributed" force. In other words, I want to know that the force will be "reasonably" distributed across multiple pieces. So all the three point rigs that put twice as much force on the middle leg as the outside two are fine with me. Most all of the rigs described in this thread are capable of doing this even when the direction of force is not exactly what was anticipated. But unless I'm misunderstanding the equalette, it does not accomplish that successfully. It's better than the standard cordelette, because it will always distribute the forces over at least two pieces, but that's it.
In reply to: 2) The ability for the powerpoint to move or "slide" side-to-side ( in the case of a horizontal spread of anchors) These are clearly not the same thing. I'm not sure what term to use for #2...
I've always heard it referred to as "dynamic equalization". And it's not necessarily horizontal. It just means that the direction of force can be within some range of angles and still be equalized (or distributed).
In reply to: ... but I believe the definition associated with #1 is the operative one in the context John is using the term. He means that in a straight downward drop test all the individual strands equalize against the load quite well.
This only works if you define "down" as the direction that you've set up your rig to handle. Again, unless I've missed something.
Ah well, off to the climbing gym. Check in with y'all later!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
flyinglow
Feb 23, 2006, 10:52 PM
Post #282 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
there's two biners there, but they're not lockers, it was just a test rig and not something i was planning on trusting my life to.
thanks.
edit to add: In real world circumstances I would use lockers.
I wouldn't trust my life to the closet door either if i were you :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 23, 2006, 10:54 PM
Post #283 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: would the terms static(fixed direction of pull) and dynamic (possible different angles) equalization be too confusing with other climbing lingo? i'm just throwing ideas out there, maybe they're good, maybe not.
I'll leave it for RGold or John to come up with the right term, but I suspect though the consensus that static and dynamic have already been claimed as characteristics of rope.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Feb 23, 2006, 10:58 PM
Post #284 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
Ok, I agree, 2 legs of that setup (equalette or whatever the hell it is) get loaded at a time when the DOP is moved.
I think we need a post from John, with diagrams and definitions of these new terms. I can't see how any of the setup's John has mentioned equalize better than sliding x's linked together. I must be missing something....
Thanks!
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Feb 23, 2006, 11:51 PM
Post #285 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Healyje, your definition of #2 would be its ability to, re-equalize
|
|
|
|
|
antiqued
Feb 24, 2006, 12:36 AM
Post #286 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243
|
Great stuff guys - sorry i can barely find time to read it all and work, much less post or add photos.
Rgold - your teaching career has served your writing well (or vice versa?).
JL - could you drag up some friction numbers for the sliding X from your experiments? The equalette only equalizes two placements, as the X does. But you preferred it, presumably because tests showed that the sliding X didn't slide as well. How much worse?
Other approaches posted here (gordolette, charles' multi-X,....) involve more cord crossings than the sliding X - what does the data look like for the slidingX?
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Feb 24, 2006, 1:20 AM
Post #287 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Normally, you can only be pulled off the loading axis (as in the pic) when someone is following. On the lead, the most important task is to get a bomber placement just off the belay, directly above the anchor. In those rare cases where you traverse directly left or right off the anchor you need to use a more elaborate riging system if you anchors are not bolts of poins (multidirectional).
In the illustration a few posts back--If your 4 placements are in a horizontal crack, you simply clip each pair off with a sliding X and clip these to two arms of an equalette. That's what we been field testing this last week. In a vertical crack where the loading axis is up and down, this is not a problem. With a cordelette, you'd only be on one piece, and with sliding x's you can only work with two pieces at a time or you're left with a system that is much too complicated with knots and doodads all over the place.
No single riggig system will do everything, everytime. And if you did find such a system it would be remarkably involved and busy. It seems the combination of sliding x's and the equalette offer two systems that will basically cover you in most all situations. Also, a directional will address many of these problems, though I rarely use one myself.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
gordo
Feb 24, 2006, 2:02 AM
Post #288 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
Ok, I'm NOT the authority here at all, but I want to try to put this into perspective. This is what I get out of all our discussion, all of my experiments, discussions with John Long and those who are field testing these, and PMs from lots of guys. This summary is my opinion only, not anyone elses.
Agreed: Equalization, extension, redundancy are all important, but also mutually exclusive when taken as 100% of any one. Another factor that MUST be factored in is simplicity (KISS) and speed. And one more thing I think we should consider when hanging on the side of a mountain is the Bomber-ness or meak-ness of the placements.
So, for me....Given 2 placements, I'm still using the Modified Sliding X for all the reasons we love it: Equalization is perfect, extension is minimal, it's simple, it's fast, it's redundant.
Given 3 or 4 Bomber placements, I'm using the Equalette. Yes, it's ABSOLUTELY true that when the power point is taken off the original line it is not going to keep all pieces equalized. So why use it? It is HANDS above the cordolette, which weighted only one piece in reality, regardless of what direction the pull is in. At least the Equalette keeps the 2 sides equalized at all times, and the loss of one pieces still results in equalized loads between the 2 sides. It FAST and EASY to set up. About the same as the Cordolette. Also is redundant and limits extension.
Given 3 or 4 placements that are "less than Bomber" (and we've all been there right?) and plenty of time, I'm using either the Multiple sliding X's or the Gordolette. I consider these equal in most respects. Both equalize well over a wide but limited range, both are redundant, both have limited extension. I like the Gordolette better for a couple of reasons. One, it uses the same gear I always use (for the Equalette/Cordolette), it uses fewer biners, and as I see my own world, I don't want to carry extra slings and be thinking "I better save these in case I need them for an anchor."
Don't forget, you can mix and match. 2 pieces on one side with a sliding X, then tie in with an Equalette on that side and the one piece on the other side.
|
|
|
|
|
jeremy11
Feb 24, 2006, 2:22 AM
Post #289 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2004
Posts: 597
|
just special ordered 20 feet of 8.8 mm sterling DYNAMIC rope from gearexpress.com yippee!! :D
now I'll just need to find some multipitch to use it... gotta love east coast.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Feb 24, 2006, 2:29 AM
Post #290 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Sounds like a new generation of dangerous climbers is about to be created...they think they're being "safe" while actually creating more problems than they solve.
|
|
|
|
|
gordo
Feb 24, 2006, 2:31 AM
Post #291 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
In reply to: Sounds like a new generation of dangerous climbers is about to be created...they think they're being "safe" while actually creating more problems than they solve.
Huh? Please provide input.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Feb 24, 2006, 2:33 AM
Post #292 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
I agree gordo,
Its nice to know we have a lot of choices for different circumstances and can feel safe using a variety of offerings put up in this post. Much has been learned and many more question opened up too.
|
|
|
|
|
hemp22
Feb 24, 2006, 3:22 AM
Post #293 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 94
|
I like the simplicity of the equalette, but still have a couple questions/concerns.
First: why the two lockers?
I understand that (A) you wouldn't want to just clip one of the 2 strands between the limiter knots, because if that strand cuts you're toast,
and (B) you also wouldn't want to just clip around the two strands together, because then if one side of the Equalette completely blows, then your locker slides off that end.
But why not just put a half twist into one of the strands between the limiter knots, and then clip the biner through that loop and the other strand, just like we do w/ a sliding X?
Second: JL, when testing the equalette w/ 3 or 4 placements (and not all legs being equal), do the tests show it to even distribute the force of the fall between all 3 or 4 pieces?
Even when the Direction of Pull is straight down (or however it was intended to be), it seems like it would distribute most of the load to only 2 pieces- the 2 w/ the shortest leg on each side of the limiter knots. For example, if you have 2 parallel vertical cracks, and you put two pieces in each crack, then the equalette would have shorter legs going from the limiter knots to the lower piece in each crack. And then, just like the issue w/ the original cordalette, the lower pieces would take most of the weight because those legs are shorter. So, even without moving the direction of pull, it seems to mostly just distribute the force between the lower 2 placements.
[So, I also realized that you could get better distribution between all 4 pieces of you rotated the Equalette - so that you have the 2 legs coming from 1 limiter knot going to the 2 lower pieces, and the 2 legs coming from the other limiter knot going to the 2 upper pieces. That way, you have something closer to cordalettes with near-equal length legs, which would distribute better. But, then you lose your ability to move the Direction of Pull side to side.] I suppose I might not be explaining this too well, so I could probably try to upload some pictures.
In theory, it seems to me like the Equalette behaves similarly to 1 sliding X joining two 2-point cordalettes. (This is still better than an old 3- or 4-point cordalette, though.)
So, the equalette may not be the best for evenly distributing the force between 3+ placements, but it does a pretty good job (and the AE systems or multiple-sliding-x systems might distribute better, but not be as quick and simple)
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Feb 24, 2006, 3:26 AM
Post #294 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
This just in: The field testers just told me that that picture featuring the unweighted arms of the Equalette is not strictly accurate because the master point was not sufficiently weighted, or weighted at all. When the master point is weighted--as with a belayer's body weight--and off axis loading occurs, the master point slips toward the directional of pull and equalization--across all four placements--is maintained. This slipping master point is facilitated by using anodized pear biners, which glide fluidly even under great loading. Of course the master point will only slip so far before running into a limiter knot, but from what I'm being told, for this to realistically happen the rope would have to be clipped through a point of pro (the last piece before the belay) way off the plumb line (left or right), and the second would have to fall on that pro before reaching it. And that's a pretty rare scenario in which the loading would rarely if ever get very high as it's a second falling on a top rope, as opposed to a leader falling directly onto the belay--which is a super rare thing, thank God.
Thanks to Tom Cecil, Bob Gaines, Gordo and others who have put in the hours to field test this stuff. I think we're getting closer to a few basic systems (Sliding X with limiter knots and anodized biners; equalette, Gordoette; and the Quad for top roping and sport/bolt anchors) that will cover just about anythng the rock can throw at us. I also want to stress that the cordelette, when rigged with perfectly equal arms and lashed to two bomber placements, is still a viable rigging tool, even though it doesn't test out as well as the other systems. The cordelette is only clearly less effective when combining more than two placements and when the arms are of unequal lengths. That much said, I wouldn't expect every climber to give up the cordelette anytime soon. Many will continue with their same ways, not understanding that the cordelette was never actually proven to be effective in equalizing in the first place.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
glowering
Feb 24, 2006, 6:46 AM
Post #295 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 386
|
I get the same result of the equalette not equalizing among all 4 pieces, even with weight applied. As shown in the previous diagram and picture it is like a sliding X connected to two tied cordelettes, those tied cordelettes won't equalize.
It seems the a sliding X under two sliding Xs (photo below) acheives the best possible equalization for 3-4 pieces of pro. (please ignore bad angles between placements, two lines to center piece of pro and poorly spaced limiter knots)
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7301/3x8rd.jpg
Here is a sliding X under two sliding Xs built with one cordelette and 2 additional biners. Not simple by any means but perhaps it will help stimulate some more ideas.
http://img159.imageshack.us/...9/6107/cord3x2yu.jpg
Was there a diagram of the quad in this thread? I can't seem to find it.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Feb 24, 2006, 7:01 AM
Post #296 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: John or RGold (or others), I've read several statements now by flyinglow, charlesjmm, and others to the effect that "middle leg carries twice the load than the outer ones". I'm not an engineer and looking at the photos I'm really not getting that statement. It doesn't look to be true on the surface so I'm asking what you two or others think about these statements? Are they really true?
Here is one of the anchor pictures (pending approval) with a few extra decorations.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=69897
Strand tension is denoted by T. The indicated pulley actions guarantee that the strands all have the same tension (or would in the absence of friction on the biners).
The anchor loads are indicated near the anchors, and are obtained by adding the strand tensions for each strand running from the anchor. The middle anchor here has double the load of either of the end anchors.
|
|
|
|
|
flyinglow
Feb 24, 2006, 7:30 AM
Post #297 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
The equalette didn't seem to do so bad if the pieces were close together, but when they're further apart you get very little range where the pieces all share load. I can't see a good way to equalize 3 pieces either. same problem with the multiple sliding x's: one piece always gets more of the load.
Does anybody yet know what a Quad is? i still havent read a description or seen a pic.
even so, i still think the alpine equalizer/gordo-mod is probably the way to go for 3 pieces of pro, it equalizes and has a pretty good range of angles it can be loaded from.
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Feb 24, 2006, 11:51 AM
Post #298 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
The equalette "quality" above regular cordelette bunched up knot resides partly in the adjustement of each strand tension via the clove hitch.
It adds sliding X behavior between at least (any) 2 pieces (and more if rigged and operating under the sames rules).
I believe in particular that the placement of the limiter knot is a very important variable. My geometry is way forgotten, but it seems that the higher it is , the more open the angle to the pro, with 2 important consequences: the load on each pro is increased, But the range of direction of pull for which each pro will still play is increased as well
I was never sold on the cordelette, and the equalette improves noticeably on it.
Yet, it misses a sort of "self-correcting capability which is for me important for anchor setup. Either for les trained climbers or for climbers who are tired, a self-equlizing anchor appears to me much more "forgiving" than a anchor whose quality depends on the rigging.
So far, I have :
2 pieces : sliding X with limiter knot
3 piece gordolette (or papounette variant where one of the clocehitch is replaced by a bight)
4 pieces: dual sling X (2 above and 1 below)
Ps: using dual sliding X on 3 piece leads to the central piece holding twice as much as each of the other piece
|
|
|
|
|
gordo
Feb 24, 2006, 1:14 PM
Post #299 of 915
(121711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
In reply to: First: why the two lockers?
I've done it with one in the "sliding X" configuration in the 2 loops...It's weird. Much more friction, and it shortens the one loop REALLY bad. (This happens with a "modified sliding X" too, so I tie my limitin knots after the biner is in place. The 2 biners gives bertter "slide" and one more piece of redundancy.
Quad: Start with your cordolette in the loop but with no limiter knots. Double it over. Proceed to make the Equalette with the double overed cordolette. The result is a fixed piece of gear that has 4 loops for tieing off pro with cloves and 4 loops for the master point.
As john mentioned, this is more for Topropes, sport anchrs (often TR'd) or other heavy duty use situations that warrant a specialized piece (you won't want to tie and untie this rig).
Just keep the big picture in mind. It's all a matter of degrees. If equalization was all that mattered, we'd all us the Alpine Equalizer and call it good. If all that mattered was no extension and redundancy, the Cordolette would be the bomb. But if we're looking for a compromise your going to give up something. I think the siplicity of the Equalette makes it a good alternative.
I can't see me doing 3 sliding x's on the side of a mountain given bomber placements and 5 pitches to go. I loved the Cordolette, and the Equalette is almost as fast. So is the Gordolette for that matter.
Several have pointed out that using loops (one or 2) or quickdraws increases the flexability in the Gordolette...but as always, you sacrifice. It increases the extension, and it increases the complexity. You can't leave the loops in it because they will be in different places each time. NOT saying it's a bad idea, we just need to keep simplicty in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
glowering
Feb 24, 2006, 5:26 PM
Post #300 of 915
(121702 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 386
|
With the limiter knots in the sling (for a single modified sliding X) it doesn't even need the X. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of the X is so if one leg of the anchor blows out the whole thing won't fail. With the limiter knots in place they will serve the same function. So you could just clip through one strand of the sling. This would eliminate the binding of the sling on sling contact, which Largo suggests mitigating with a large anodized biner.
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2226/nox4gq.jpg
With 3-4 bomber placements the equalette looks great, but for marginal placements a triple sliding X would give me the best confidence and the version below (with 4' slings on top, 1' on bottom) sets up almost as quick, but uses more gear than the equalette.
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3537/3x20hl.jpg
In reply to: DUO-GLIDE: Start with your cordolette in the loop but with no limiter knots. Double it over. Proceed to make the Equalette with the double overed cordolette. The result is a fixed piece of gear that has 4 loops for tieing off pro with cloves and 4 loops for the master point.
Did you mean quad? Duo-glide is the so last week name for the equalette. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
