|
tradklime
Feb 26, 2006, 7:12 AM
Post #351 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: What about just hitching into the anchor with the rope? Does nobody do that?
Ya, almost all the time. And I will continue to.
For what it's worth, when I set a power point anchor in the future on two bolts it will be a sliding-x with limiter knots. With gear/ ice screw anchors I will be using a 3 foot Trango Alpine Equalizer, using the climbing rope(possibly a sling) to make up the slack between the Alpine Equalizer and the pro. I will then be attached to the power point with a section of the climbing rope. Basically, what I've been doing in the past several months. I've looked at the extension potential of the 3 foot Trango AE and I decided to be confortable with it, as long as there is dynamic rope in the sytem.
This has been a great discussion and look forward to more ideas. Thanks to all.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Feb 26, 2006, 5:12 PM
Post #352 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
anyone want to do a recap post? with pics of the equalette, quad, etc labeled so there is not so much confusion? ive tried to follow this thread but it has become rediculously confusing
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Feb 26, 2006, 8:24 PM
Post #353 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
The system below seems to be a good solutions for the EMPA
(Equalized Multi-Point Anchor) problem, within a few constraints.
a) There are four anchor points.
b-1) There will be three pieces of cordage,
and three carabiners (excluding anchor 'biners).
or else
b-2) ... TWO pieces of cordage (single anchor-side one)
The cordage comprises an anchor-side pair of cords (7mm
nylon, e.g.), and a belay-side Equalization Triangle(ET) of
about a metre-long tape sling (though materials can differ).
"Glowering"'s p.20 (Friday, 24 Feb) post shows nicely what I
mean by "ET": clip into just ONE strand between limiter knots,
thus avoiding the binding action of the "X" to enhance the
equalizing adjustment of cordage around the 'biner. Note
that the unclipped strand between the knots should not be
(so) slack as Glowering shows, and I think that roughly
equilateral triangles are maybe a near ideal arrangement
--afterall, the anchor points if spread towards 120deg
really start multiplying the force! (Those posts showing the
"F -> F/2 -> F/4" aren't adjusting the "F" for this angle increase.
At 60deg angle, each leg has about 60% force; at 90, 70%,
and 120deg = 100%.)
The cordelette model uses a single anchor-side piece of cordage
and nothing else. The Sliding-X variations similarly use one piece.
Both of my solutions use a small (roughly metre-long piece formed
in an equilateral triangle with Overhand loops at 2 corners) piece
of tape (preferably? --and of Spectra, both for strength and low
friction!?) for a belay-side triangle that is connected by sliding
'biners to the 2 triangles formed in the anchor-side cord.
In the three-piece system, the anchor-side cord is of equal
lengths of cordage--this might be beneficial in employing the
cordage for other uses (one can always tie them together if
a single long piece is needed, afterall). Using two pieces here
also facilitates set-up.
The simplest system is made with two pieces of cord for
the anchor side (which will clip into the belay-side ET), each
forming one ET. With each piece, one ties a loopknot (here I
might recommend a Dbl.bowline, for a couple reasons) with about
a foot-long eye (i.e., sized when pulled taut), and then ties off
the line to this loopknot at an anchor. Then run the end to the
next anchor point, hitch it (or loopknot), and bring the end down
to the loopknot's eye. Pinch a bight about 5" from the knot,
and tie to it with a Sheet bend with the end. This now forms
one ET to be clipped to with one of the belay-side ET's 'biners.
Repeat with the other piece of cord for anchors 3 & 4, and
similarly clip into it with the other belay-side ET 'biner.
One can implement much the same structure with a single
piece of *cordelette*, but I don't see any advantage to having
this amount of cord as one vs. two pieces--and as two it's
both quicker to use here, and more adaptable to other uses.
But one would begin by tying interior loopknots (Overhand
looks easiest), and then having to tie the Dbl.Sheet bends
in reverse, using the full remaining length of cord--awkward.
Some points:
This system seems (on some cursory experiment, with mostly
in-line horizontal anchor points) to give good equalization and
freedom of movement. Hey, how much variance of angle is
the belayer ever likely to need?!
Failure of an anchor point seems to be pretty insignificant re
extension, esp. if angles between anchors aren't great, and
the unclipped side of the ET is shortened as described.
With an equilateral ET where each side is X long, the maximum
extension is X/2 (whereas for a similarly limited Sliding-X, it is X),
plus some pendulum, on one anchor-point failure.
Note that this implies 60-degree angles, and if the anchor-side
pair of ETs puts 60-deg to the belay-side's 60, that's 120deg,
and falling into the "too wide" zone (at 120deg, load on each leg
equals the load on the pair). If the unloaded span between knots
is less than half the loaded span, the extension is really minimal.
Either loopknot will be ring-loaded if its anchor point fails;
hence, the chosen knot must guard for this. (E.g., a so-called
"wrong-way/Left-handed/Cowboy" bowline is secure on ring-loading,
a normal bowline is not; a Dbl.Bowline is pretty good either way.
There are simple ways to secure a Bowline.)
The "Dbl.Sheet Bend" point (really more of a Becket Hitch if the
loopknot's anchor fails) if ring-loaded isn't much of a concern,
as the loaded strand is continuous running through it, and I
can't see how it might be loaded this way and then later be
loaded normally--it should only be abnormally loaded if its
anchor fails (and that won't miraculously be reconnected in
one incident).
------
RGold's 2nd (1:30pm) p.21 system seems to have solved
how to equalize a 3-point anchor, but that bunch of material
looks likely to give too much frictional interference, in practice.
So I remain skeptical about 3-point systems having much
equalization.
*knudeNoggin*
|
|
|
|
|
glowering
Feb 26, 2006, 11:53 PM
Post #354 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 386
|
:shock:
I have no idea why Junior thinks this is beyond the grasp of most climbers. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Feb 27, 2006, 1:38 AM
Post #355 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: :shock: I have no idea why Junior thinks this is beyond the grasp of most climbers. :wink:
Yeah, I need the picture book version of this. Reading this much techno-jargon is beginning to get a little hard to follow. I'd rather see the pics and interpret it myself.
Thanks to whom ever does this!
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Feb 27, 2006, 1:43 AM
Post #356 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
holy *^*)&*() if anyone made it more than 6 words into Knude's post i applaud and then i run away from you in fear...
again.. picture.. label.. simple all the talk of the physics and technical minisculities have turned this thread into a pile of mush.. sure there maybe some good bits in it but no one is giong to dig through the pile of crap anymore to find it
and for god sakes don't write out a description that has to be scrolled that far :wtf:
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 27, 2006, 1:53 AM
Post #357 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Gotta go with the gang on this one - in this case a picture really is worth a 834 words...
|
|
|
|
|
bdplayer
Feb 27, 2006, 2:54 AM
Post #358 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2003
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: Knots are easy, that isn't the problem. Understanding the physics of falling is beyond the grasp of most climbers...go to a crag and ask around, more than likely few can properly explain theoretical fall factor (let alone actual fall factor) or what the most important number is on a carabiner (hardly anyone will say open gate). It's taken a decade for climbers to finally understand that the cord-o-death has serious drawbacks for trad; should have been obvious but very few got it or said anything. Just look at some of the pics in this thread where people don't capiche the pulley effect.
Well, it may be true that many climbers aren't able to break out a chalkboard and diagram out fall factors and tell you the whys and physics of fall ratings, but pretty much every thinking climber out here knows what is good and what isn't . Something blatently wrong is, well, wrong, even though you can't tell why, in technical terms. Knowning physics is nice, but all the physics in the world won't help you if you can't equalize an anchor when you are 200 feet or 2,000 off the deck. Of course, by the same token, you don't have know all the details if you've got a bomber SERNE setup that wil keep you and your partner from dying.
Please, don't misunderstand: I think knowing the physics is great, but as a professional teacher of knuckleheads concerning highly dangerous activities, you have to get the information across to the greatest number of people, not the ones who understand the tiniest details the best.
If Senor Long wishes to put a chapter on nothing but physics, fall factors and other stuff in his book, though, that would be the coolest thing.
|
|
|
|
|
fingertrouble
Feb 27, 2006, 3:20 AM
Post #359 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 54
|
It's taken me a while to stumble across this great thread--I've been immersed in proofing my book, The Mountaineering Handbook (McGraw-Hill 2005), for its second printing. Hi, I'm Craig Connally (not Mountaineer's Handbook, John, and not Connolly, but thanks for the kind words on p13) :) . The book has been mentioned (favorably) on rc.com, I've sent a review copy to Jay Young, and you can check it out at Amazon. I hope my comments don't seem too self-serving among the many excellent contributions to this thread.
roy_hinkley_jr makes a number of good points, but I think he throws up his hands prematurely. It should be possible to make continuing improvements in the roped climbing safety system in equipment, techniques, and instruction. Nevertheless, I wouldn't expect to see the number of unfortunate incidents decline. Climbers will use these improvements to push their limits of boldness and athleticism without eliminating safety margins. Plus, there aren't enough incidents for a meaningful statistical analysis--the rope safety system hardly ever gets pushed near its limits. But that's no reason not to strive for improvements--as John and I attempt.
Roy laments that trad climbers aren't physicists, and he's right, few climbers truly understand the forces involved. Addressing that is a problem for writers of how-to books, such as John and my humble self: technical climbing is technical, after all, even though physics can be off-putting to many. My approach was to include a chapter on climbing forces, which starts with a sub-chapter called "Physics 001," before I talked about building anchors. I threw in simple, numerical examples, illustrations, and practical advice. Tell me what you think, Roy.
Let me mention that the principal points raised in this thread, even the correct ones and even those raised by John, are not actually new. Although my book's Anchors chapter was just one of 28 in a book that comprehensively covers general mountaineering, I did include:
[*:69318bfa78]Debunking of SRENE and the mutual incompatibility of E and NE
[*:69318bfa78]A long rant saying "shock loading" doesn't occur when there's climbing rope in the system, but might happen if, say, you clip in with a Spectra daisy, climb up, and then fall.
[*:69318bfa78]A claim that slip in the belay limits forces to far lower than most climbers appreciate. John reminded me of a little data probe: Chris Harmston of Black Diamond never saw a Stopper rated at over 10 kN fail over 8 years of looking. Chris concluded that forces exceeding 10 kN rarely occur in climbing falls; my calculations suggest a high figure might be close to half that.
[*:69318bfa78]A related claim that anchor security is far more important than anchor strength.
[*:69318bfa78]Shock loading due to extension when a placement in a multi-placement anchor blows is usually inconsequential.
[*:69318bfa78]Illustration of using clove hitches instead of a master knot for better adjustment of cordelette.
[*:69318bfa78]A claim that cordelette "equalization" is essentially impossible and instead actually amounts to redundancy, or if clever, redirection.
[*:69318bfa78]Illustration of improved sliding-X with limiter knots and without the X
[*:69318bfa78]etc, etc.
I'm not saying that all these insights originated with me, only that the ink did. John will have more space to explore such topics, and confirming tests, much more thoroughly. I'm referring to my book as a lowest common denominator, to show what information was available two years ago when it was first drafted, if anyone were interested enough to search out and separate the wheat from the much more voluminous chaff.
Let me also mention a few points from the book that weren't brought out in this thread:
[*:69318bfa78]A Factor 2 fall puts lower peak forces on the climber and belayer (and anchors) than does a Factor 1 fall.
[*:69318bfa78]In hard falls, the rope type has little effect on peak forces, be it one double, a single, or static rope.
[*:69318bfa78]Why not use 6 mm nylon cord for cordelettes?
Before you fire up your flamethrowers, work through the excellent real-world fall force calculator on the Petzl web site. After that, well, I haven't posted anonymously...
In my book I give the cordelette a bit more credibility than it's receiving in this thread. Partly that's because I think it's a tool, basically a long runner, that's underutilized by mountaineers. I also point out that its traditional application doesn't result in equalization. Obviously trad climbers have been attracted to the cordelette, it doesn't seem to be killing them, and many will continue to use it, though perhaps for the wrong reasons. Adding a third placement to a 2-placement anchor increases overall strength by 50%, but only if each leg is equally tensioned in 3-dimensional space. Rich Goldstone I think, and maybe others, have emphasized that this must occur at the instant of peak fall force, not simply when the anchor was built. That's a severe constraint, potentially requiring the anchor be self-equalizing, that each leg have the same number of strands, and that all legs be of the same length. (BTW: charlesjmm's proposal gets closer if you simply unclip one of the middle bights.)
One piece of secure pro has all the strength you'll ever need (in good rock, but maybe not in choss, ice, or snow). If you intend to place two or more, ask yourself why. The answer will seldom be equalization ("one is too weak, so I need to equalize more")--that if you don't pull too hard on a placement it won't fall out. More likely it's that you aren't sure of the direction of applied forces (so you actually need redirection) or you aren't completely confident of the placements' security (so you need redundancy). Nevertheless, most climbers start off looking for equalization, which could be an inefficient or misleading approach.
Here's how I see it: If you do conclude that two placements are necessary or if it's just simpler to rig for equalization, ask yourself if extension is an issue (after convincing yourself that if one placement blows the resulting direction of force doesn't guarantee the other will, too). Typical fall factors are .3 or less; how does your situation compare? (fall factor is the distance of a fall divided by the effective length of dynamic rope available to absorb fall energy and reduce peak forces) In the majority of cases extension is not important, so use a sliding-X with a sling that's long enough to make the included leg angle 60 degrees or less, preferably 30 degrees or less.
If you think that extension is a concern (that it might be, say, several feet), or if you have extra time on your hands, tie limiting overhand knots in the runner a foot or so apart and simply clip to the pocket between them, without using the X method.
If your level of confidence is even lower (or if you have even more time on your hands) you might contemplate adding a third placement, but give thought to whether you actually require equalization and whether you can hope to achieve it. Studying the comments of this thread will be informative and should convince you that true equalization is elusive.
If you believe that you need to construct a 4-placement equalized anchor, what you are basically concluding is that none of the 4 will hold body weight. I'd think that this would be rare for most climbers, more an example of the "infinite number of monkeys" school of anchor building. It's essentially impossible to equalize a real 4-placement anchor.
Much work has been expended in this thread working out clever complex anchors, many having amusingly excess complexity (mountaineers hate complexity), but little on why to use one or where to use it. In my book, I go on at length about the critical importance of the first anchor after the leader's belay, which I called Anchor #1 and which John calls the "Jesus nut." The belayer's anchor deserves far less attention, but that is where most trad climbers focus their efforts. When belaying the second (very different from belaying the leader), I strongly recommend belaying off an anchor (with Münter hitch or autoblock brake), not off your harness and not through a redirect unless you really have no other option; more on why in the book, along with a superior method for releasing that autoblock. This anchor doesn't need to be strong at all, so focus on making it very secure. I also note that many contributors to this thread illustrate using runners containing Spectra/Dyneema; this is a bad idea for several reasons, principally because it has far less energy absorbing capability compared to nylon and because knots (including clove hitches) in Spectra/Dyneema webbing tend to slip under force.
Will Rogers said, "It's not what we don't know that's the problem, it's what we know that just ain't so."
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Feb 27, 2006, 3:21 AM
Post #360 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: holy *^*)&*() if anyone made it more than 6 words into Knude's post i applaud and then i run away from you in fear...
something was beyond the grasp of most climbers! Easy to read vendor hype about
wonder cord rated for 5,000# and only 5.5mm, and then go hang on it.
But a challenge to that, and the reasoning for it, well ... wait for testing!
One point I don't think yet made was the lack of info in such vendor marketing,
such as how that tensile figure was got, and what happened to the wonder
cord when knotted (cf. Tom Moyer's testing of Fig.8 knots in it, e.g.).
Btw, this cordelette anchor testing has some bearing on this discussion:
http://www.mra.org/...ent_Grant_Awards.htm
See the report by Beverly et al. , which is 2nd on the page. (They never
come outright and say so, but by implication they test 7mm nylon cord.)
Now, let me try to explain again, BRIEFLY; it really is pretty simple.
(And I'll try to finagle images--or an image maker will figure it out
--after all, JL didn't post pics, but words, and got confirmation w/Jeremy's Equalette image)--::
Consider the Sliding-X w/limiter knots (and, as JL notes, not all so far from
the centered load point): clip just ONE strand (no "X"), and shorten the unclipped strand
so that it runs nearly taut between the knots--like an upside-down 'A', for a
downward load.
The 'biner is clipped in that triangle of the 'A', w/no twists/wraps.
This (1) greatly relieves the friction on the 'biner so it readily equalizes,
and (2) cuts extension on anchor failure to HALF the length of that knot spanner.
Glowering (p.20) shows this, but w/o the knot spanner part being near taut.
This structure is what I propose be made at the belayer end of the anchor,
and it will be clipped into like structures formed by the cord, on the anchor side.
Using a Spectra/Dyneema (low friction) sling for this belayer end triangle
should be good (about 1 foot long sides, and limiter knots are Overhand
loop knots, clipped w/'biners).
And this belayer Equalizing Triangle is clipped into the anchored cord.
How to tie cord? Make a loop knot (eye about a foot long seems good).
Tie off this to an anchor point (clove hitch, say); continue w/end to adjacent anchor
point (2nd clove)--as shown for the Equalette.
Now bring the end back to the loop knot's eye and tie to one side of the eye
with a Sheet Bend (pinching the side into a U shape, ...). Again, for size,
about 5-6 inches from the loop knot seems good (max extension on failure in this ET
thus is about 3 inches).
And use two such cords, over 4 anchors. (Why presume to have a single, long cord,
vs. 2 pieces?)
(It can be done w/a single long cord, with a slightly altered method.)
*knots in the knude*
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Feb 27, 2006, 3:24 AM
Post #361 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: holy *^*)&*() if anyone made it more than 6 words into Knude's post i applaud and then i run away from you in fear...
something was beyond the grasp of most climbers! Easy to read vendor hype about
wonder cord rated for 5,000# and only 5.5mm, and then go hang on it.
But a challenge to that, and the reasoning for it, well ... wait for testing!
One point I don't think yet made was the lack of info in such vendor marketing,
such as how that tensile figure was got, and what happened to the wonder
cord when knotted (cf. Tom Moyer's testing of Fig.8 knots in it, e.g.).
Btw, this poorly reported testing has some bearing on this discussion:
http://www.mra.org/...ent_Grant_Awards.htm
See the report by Beverly et al. , which is 2nd on the page. (They never
come outright and say so, but by implication they test 7mm nylon cord.)
Now, let me try to explain again, BRIEFLY; it really is pretty simple.
(And I'll try to finagle images--or an image maker will figure it out
--after all, JL didn't post pics, but words, and got confirmation w/Jeremy's Equalette image)--::
Consider the Sliding-X w/limiter knots (and, as JL notes, not all so far from
the centered load point): clip just ONE strand (no "X"), and shorten the unclipped strand
so that it runs nearly taut between the knots--like an upside-down 'A', for a
downward load.
The 'biner is clipped in that triangle of the 'A', w/no twists/wraps.
This (1) greatly relieves the friction on the 'biner so it readily equalizes,
and (2) cuts extension on anchor failure to HALF the length of that knot spanner.
Glowering (p.20) shows this, but w/o the knot spanner part being near taut.
This structure is what I propose be made at the belayer end of the anchor,
and it will be clipped into like structures formed by the cord, on the anchor side.
Using a Spectra/Dyneema (low friction) sling for this belayer end triangle
should be good (about 1 foot long sides, and limiter knots are Overhand
loop knots, clipped w/'biners).
And this belayer Equalizing Triangle is clipped into the anchored cord.
How to tie cord? Make a loop knot (eye about a foot long seems good).
Tie off this to an anchor point (clove hitch, say); continue w/end to adjacent anchor
point (2nd clove)--as shown for the Equalette.
Now bring the end back to the loop knot's eye and tie to one side of the eye
with a Sheet Bend (pinching the side into a U shape, ...). Again, for size,
about 5-6 inches from the loop knot seems good (max extension on failure in this ET
thus is about 3 inches).
And use two such cords, over 4 anchors. (Why presume to have a single, long cord,
vs. 2 pieces?)
(It can be done w/a single long cord, with a slightly altered method.)
*knots in the knude*
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Feb 27, 2006, 4:53 AM
Post #362 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Moderators: LOCK this thread!! It's about to turn into the Mother of all geek battles. Way, way too many potential tangents. This could take hundreds of pages to sort out. :evil: :shock: :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Feb 27, 2006, 5:42 AM
Post #363 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: Let me also mention a few points from the book that weren't brought out in this thread:
[*:abe19fcd20]A Factor 2 fall puts lower peak forces on the climber and belayer (and anchors) than does a Factor 1 fall.
[*:abe19fcd20]In hard falls, the rope type has little effect on peak forces, be it one double, a single, or static rope.
[*:abe19fcd20]Why not use 6 mm nylon cord for cordelettes?
Before you fire up your flamethrowers, work through the excellent real-world fall force calculator on the Petzl web site.
(maybe they have M$ programmers?) over the years of testing done by various
places? --of low-elongation ropes & dynamic ropes, with diff. FFs?
> In my book I
... caught my attetion w/ the assertion that the Yosemite Bowline is stronger than
the Fig.8 loopknot! Though nowhere have I ever seen testing that didn't show
the Fig.8 (of some, seldom shown orientation) stronger than the Bowline (and there's
nothing I can see of the YoBowl.'s end tuck to aid strength). E.g., cf. testing done
by K.A.Milen & MacClaren (who nicely actually report WHERE the knots break!),
which puts the (YB/F8) resp. strengths at 54-60 v. 73-69 (resp. of laid/braided
PES rope).
Another wrote "Knots are easy, that isn't the problem.": then why are they so confounded
in the press? It's absolutely appalling what has been passed down through the
years in many knots (& some special-user) books. Repeated often enough,
myths become their own reality. --but that's another topic. Still, touched on
by Craig & his book vis-a-vis others', in part.
In reply to: If you think that extension is a concern (that it might be, say, several feet), or if you have extra time on your hands, tie limiting overhand knots in the runner a foot or so apart and simply clip to the pocket between them, without using the X method.
of shortening the unclipped strand. It really does chop the extension.
In reply to: If you believe that you need to construct a 4-placement equalized anchor, what you are basically concluding is that none of the 4 will hold body weight. I'd think that this would be rare for most climbers, more an example of the "infinite number of monkeys" school of anchor building. It's essentially impossible to equalize a real 4-placement anchor.
essentially making a hierarchy of Sliding-X (w/o the X) structures--two into
four works; but three, there's the rub--and the clever "W" involves too much
friction, which the, hmm, Sliding-A (aka "ET") doesn't.
In reply to: Much work has been expended in this thread working out clever complex anchors, many having amusingly excess complexity (mountaineers hate complexity), but little on why to use one or where to use it.
tied to a big tree? --we want intricate things to rival the hanging of stockings by
S.O.s in the bathroom (nb: this hasn't been much a equalized-gender thread).
In reply to: Will Rogers said, "It's not what we don't know that's the problem, it's what we know that just ain't so."
In reply to: ... as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.
--I gotta go, past my bedtime,
*knudeN*
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 27, 2006, 2:02 PM
Post #364 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
It's off-topic, but fingertrouble - care to justify this statement: "A Factor 2 fall puts lower peak forces on the climber and belayer (and anchors) than does a Factor 1 fall. "
Remember that this comes after your assertion that slip in the belay pretty much always reduces forces. There is no slip from a FF2.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
gordo
Feb 27, 2006, 2:37 PM
Post #365 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
Wow...that's an interesting turn for this thread. Anybody else got a book to sell? :lol: (just kidding guys)
Soooooooooooo.................Am I right in thinking we're hearing that anything over a 2 piece anchor (given good rock and pro) is a waste of time? Call it mental...'cause I am...but 3 is a minimum for me, period. I don't sweat equalization that much with great placements, but I like the backups.
FWIW I used the Equalette once and the Gordolette once this Sunday. The majority of our climbs had fixed anchors or natural stuff (tree/boudlers) or I would have used it a lot more. Both were simple, both were fast. I guess "complex" is in the eyes of the beholder.
Good day to all.
|
|
|
|
|
johngo
Feb 27, 2006, 5:34 PM
Post #366 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2005
Posts: 37
|
Hi Craig,
Thanks for adding your wise words (and my face still red for misspelling your name and book title!)
It looks like this thread will now bloom to another 25 pages, with some of the inflammatory ideas you tossed out. (Please folks, let's try to stay on topic!) If you have issues with Craig's icon-kicking ideas (I sure did at first glance), I suggest you read his book and then come back here to debate them after you understand his line of thinking.
Craig, please check your PM as you have one waiting for you.
- johnGo
|
|
|
|
|
tarzan420
Feb 27, 2006, 6:21 PM
Post #367 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 678
|
In reply to: There is no slip from a FF2.
Huh? Suppose climber falls 20ft above the belay, with no gear in, and the rope NOT clipped through the anchor, i.e. running straight from the climber to the belay device. This is FF2, why wouldn't the rope slip?
(sorry about the thread drift...)
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Feb 27, 2006, 7:13 PM
Post #368 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: One piece of secure pro has all the strength you'll ever need (in good rock, but maybe not in choss, ice, or snow). If you intend to place two or more, ask yourself why. The answer will seldom be equalization ("one is too weak, so I need to equalize more")--that if you don't pull too hard on a placement it won't fall out. More likely it's that you aren't sure of the direction of applied forces (so you actually need redirection) or you aren't completely confident of the placements' security (so you need redundancy). Nevertheless, most climbers start off looking for equalization, which could be an inefficient or misleading approach.
Well said. Most rock-climbers don't venture into the land of poor pro and bad rock.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 27, 2006, 8:22 PM
Post #370 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: There is no slip from a FF2. Huh? Suppose climber falls 20ft above the belay, with no gear in, and the rope NOT clipped through the anchor, i.e. running straight from the climber to the belay device. This is FF2, why wouldn't the rope slip? (sorry about the thread drift...)
You're absolutely right about that. I was thinking of a FF2 directly onto the anchor, say with a gri gri.
For the sake of avoiding thread drift, I'm not going to continue with this thread of conversation, though the bait is tempting.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 28, 2006, 4:17 AM
Post #371 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ...A Factor 2 fall puts lower peak forces on the climber and belayer (and anchors) than does a Factor 1 fall...
Perhaps McGraw-Hill are more gullible than some of us and they believe your nonsensical drivel. Perhaps your next book could assert that the world is, in fact, flat. You're an idiot.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 28, 2006, 6:28 AM
Post #372 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
knudenoggin, Yer still killing me - pics? Post'em up...
Curt - man, as creator of the "foot belay" are you really throwing rocks in this thread...?
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 28, 2006, 7:29 AM
Post #373 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
knudenoggin,
Yer still killing me - pics? Post'em up...
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Feb 28, 2006, 8:41 AM
Post #374 of 915
(114391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: ...A Factor 2 fall puts lower peak forces on the climber and belayer (and anchors) than does a Factor 1 fall...
This statement is only 33% correct (if by anchor you mean last piece in the factor 1 fall case).
In reply to: Perhaps McGraw-Hill are more gullible than some of us and they believe your nonsensical drivel. Perhaps your next book could assert that the world is, in fact, flat. You're an idiot.
Tough crowd! You should definitely use this as a blurb on the back cover of your book though! :)
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Feb 28, 2006, 12:29 PM
Post #375 of 915
(114424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
Just.......... ...........Read............ .............all.............. ..............25......... ................pages..................... ..............................Brain............ .......................Hurts.............................
IMHO everything has been impressive, including the basis behind every answer. I think that this evening I am going to fiddle around and try to incorporate the best IMO and see about posting some pics and explanations. It is also nice to see various authors taking a keen interest with all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
