Perhaps another minor comment: In a four piece anchor with the equalette and assuming a horizontal placement, consider the failure of a center piece. The load will probably be distributed between pieces 1 and 3 OR 2 and 4. But in the case of a fully distributed anchor like your latest and the failure of a center piece, the load plus any multiplicative forces due to angle will be thrown to the outer two pieces.

So, in a fully distributed system like your latest, even though each piece initially sees the same load and that per-piece load can never be more than the load from the sharp end of the rope (assuming a centered piece), things can change disasterously if the center piece blows and the outer pieces are widely separated.

Of course, multiplicative forces due to angles is not a new concept. It.s just that this thread presents a new view of it IMHO.

Bill L.

That means that any conclusion you derive for the Modulette regarding the outer legs (angles, load multiplication, etc.) will also apply to the Equalette.

charlesjmm, there may be a subtle but worisome flaw in your Modulette. Consider this:

The rig consists of two bights (formed between the center leg and each outer leg) and a loop formed between the two outer legs. The biner clips all three. The loop equalizes tension between the outer legs; the middle leg plays no part, which is why there's little extension if it goes missing.
The two bights distribute tension between the outer legs and the middle leg, but unfortunately, not equally. In fact, their result is twice the tension on the middle leg as on the outer ones. You can see this if you deliberately tie the loop component with slack.

The problem seems to be that the limiter knots don't let the cord slip around the biners at the ends of the outer legs. At a minimum these effects seem to require meticulous construction of the limiter knots (which is what cracklover was getting at), but I don't see any way to do that properly or to test for success.

Other designs may also have the problem of apparent, but not actual, balance of tension (force); the analysis can be tricky.

Why is anyone worried about what happens when 2 out of 3 placements fail? If one placement could hold the load, why was equalization attempted in the first place? A strategy of redirection or redundancy would likely have been more appropriate, and might have prevented failure of the two placements.

If one placement could hold the load, why was equalization attempted in the first place?

A strategy of redirection or redundancy would likely have been more appropriate, and might have prevented failure of the two placements.

Has anyone pointed out that the Equalette would rarely be equalized? This is because in order for the two placements on each side (joined at the limiter knots) to be equalized the cords to the placements would have to be exactly the same length. Even with two long, equal length legs on one side and two short, equal length on the other side the long side will stretch more under load and could use up the self-equalization range before the rig self-equalizes.

Has anyone pointed out that the Equalette would rarely be equalized?

Has anyone pointed out that the Equalette would rarely be equalized?

And charlesjmm I'd think one would want an easy test to confirm that the Modulette's limiter knots were tied in such a way that forces would be equalized under load. Short of dropping your partner, I mean.

John,
Does a static cordellette reduce the aforementioned inequality of multi-length cordellette arms? :?:

When I picture a cordellette getting loaded in a vertical crack with three different length arms, I see the shortest being loaded most because it doesn't need to stretch as much in order to take load, while the longest arm is waiting for the knot to pull it..........But, what I'm thinking is that the arms of a static anchor wouldn't notice differing lengths as much since whether an arm is long or short, it doesn't need to stretch to load up.

Were both static and dynamic cordellettes tested in identical situations, and if so, was there a difference?

BTW, I've been trying some of the suggestions, but I find that if you tie limiter knots, the self equalizing suffers, thus taking away from their advantage a bit.

All I can picture is myself- clinging to my belay ledge 300 ft. off the deck screaming DOH! *echo-echo-echo* as I watch a couple strands of my chop-olette fall to earth from my untying the bundle of cords

If you look at the two systems beyond the equalette that show promise -- the Gordolette and the Moosealette

The equalette will never perfectly equalize 3 or 4 pieces ...

and the equalizing anchors are ones that, because of some pulley system, equalize the load to the anchor points.

... limiter knots in system with more than two arms mean that you don't have an equalizing system, just an orientable one. None of the rigs with limiter knots will, in principle, do any better at load distribution in a vertical crack than a cordelette, which doesn't do well at all.

In this approach, a 20-foot cordelette (I had to go out and buy one for my sadistic purposes) has been mercilessly chopped into four 5-foot pieces, each with a small clip-in loop tied in one end. ...
I'm guessing there will be less friction and clutching with the dental floss. Perhaps 5 or 6 mm dyneema cord would be as good or better.