|
knudenoggin
Mar 4, 2006, 8:55 AM
Post #476 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: 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,
Hey, these aren't like worms--they won't all grow back into cordelettes!
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=70185
That's not a "binding problem", that's an orgy!
:lol:
I really do not believe that this arrangement (which is complex) will give anywhere
near the sort of equalization that you imagine--the tape must move over a couple
sharp bends of metal, times four (w/the rings, 7 pieces for sliding).
As constrasted with the Compound Sliding-A I showed, where only 3 'biners
move over the tape. (And you'd need a pretty UNinclined HMS 'biner to avoid
added tape-on-tape friction--some are pretty rounded.)
*kNoggin*
|
|
|
|
|
charlesjmm
Mar 4, 2006, 11:52 AM
Post #477 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 75
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
charlesjmm
Mar 4, 2006, 12:48 PM
Post #478 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 75
|
RGold, I really like the Chopolette and while playing with it I found the following :
1) I used a weighing scale to test each leg and it does satisfactorily equalize amongst all pieces. (Basically, I substituted each leg with a telescopic scale).
2) The biners of the equalizer should be placed at about the same level since extension is controlled by the the lenght of the sliding x. This would minimize extension in case of any piece failure.
3) In failure mode I obtained the following extensions :
- 2" for a 4 piece rig :)
- 4" for a 3 piece rig :?
- 11" for a 2 piece rig :shock:.
I hope JL lab results will convince me this much extension is ok.
4) I did not chop up my cordelette so I used it to set it up like you did with the webolette. It takes some practice to calibrate it optimally. I would carry it pre-rigged.
5) Rings should be used for 4 pieces, otherwise friction in the sliding x affects equalization.
6) The knot of the Mammut sling encumbers movement of the slinding x.
7) It´s a very specialized system of gear, as presented.
Great idea, equalization is first priority for me.
CharlesJMM
|
|
|
|
|
winkwinklambonini
Mar 4, 2006, 1:16 PM
Post #479 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 1579
|
I can't help but think that there is unfounded fear developing of a system that is simple and works. In the big picture how many people die of a reasonably well made cordellette pulling out vs. rockfall, lowering off a rope, gear pulling, etc. I'm all for the advancement of technique, but if someone gets all self rightous on me this summer for using a cordellette I will be angry, and that will affect my climbing.
In reply to: Everything you climb with, from ropes to slings to nuts are all elastic, some are just more elastic than others. The issue that JL is talking about doesn't depend upon how elastic the anchor material is, only that it is elastic. You'd get the same effect if you used a steel cordallette to anchor with.
your right about the fact that everything is elastic, but stretch IS the reason there is the issue with the cordellette. So if something is less elastic(and dyneema and kevlar are much less elastic than nylon) than the issue is reduced. JL said that the pieces saw loads differing by up to 5Kn. At what point are differing load acceptable? 2 grams? Personally, if all the pieces are withing a couple of kn on a factor 2 fall, that's pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Mar 4, 2006, 3:39 PM
Post #480 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: So if something is less elastic(and dyneema and kevlar are much less elastic than nylon) than the issue is reduced.
I think you are misundterstanding what's happening here. Less elastic anchoring materials won't help, and can only make the situation worse. This is only in regards to the original cordallette design, not any of the new *-allettes people have been developing.
In reply to: JL said that the pieces saw loads differing by up to 5Kn. At what point are differing load acceptable? 2 grams? Personally, if all the pieces are withing a couple of kn on a factor 2 fall, that's pretty good.
I have no idea what a safe discrepancy in forces would be, but I'd say 5kN is definitely way too much.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Mar 4, 2006, 5:07 PM
Post #481 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: Let me stress, again, that the considerable friction of the so-called "pulley systems" will largely defeat their theoretical equalization (just as it does for MA hauling systems)--and many of the systems presented have compound pulleys (i.e, both at the anchor 'biners & the power point).... ...I really do not believe that this arrangement (which is complex) will give anywhere near the sort of equalization that you imagine--the tape must move over a couple sharp bends of metal, times four (w/the rings, 7 pieces for sliding). As constrasted with the Compound Sliding-A I showed, where only 3 'biners move over the tape. (And you'd need a pretty UNinclined HMS 'biner to avoid added tape-on-tape friction--some are pretty rounded.)
I absolutely agree that friction is a serious issue that might defeat the equalizing properties of a system, and that the only way to know what works, if anything, is drop tests (low load testing could be misleading, because static friction may have to be overcome). There is at least one other possibility that is not equipment intensive and at least does not have a load-bearing strand lying on top of several other load-bearing strands...
In reply to: What is particularly problematic with the vertical crack? --why won't this be simply a rotated horizontal arrangement? Seems that the inline nature here is a help, that more troublesome would be some diverse, unaligned spread of anchor points.
The vertical crack has guaranteed unequal arm lengths, and some arm lengths can easily be multiples of other arm lengths. In the vertical alignment, the tension in the arms will be inversely proportional to arm length. Only a pulley system (that actually works) can mitigate this inequality of load distribution if there are more than two arms.
In reply to: Only thing wrong is that (and these are rather WIDE angles!) the unclipped "spanner" strand is way slack, and the knots in the blue sling aren't well balanced for their masterpoint. Esp. for narrower angles, the "SPANNER" strand will be shorter, almost taut, and determines extension: HALF its length! The righthand tape, purple, more nearly shows what it should be.
And the time consumed in fussing with everything to get it right is another obstacle to adoption.
A problem with the cascading two-anchor equalizers is that they don't seem to apply to the most common three-piece anchor and they use up a certain amount of vertical height, which might in some cases place the power point too low.
The chopolette offers a single system, easy and quick to inspect and adjust, that is used the same way for all configurations and anchor styles (and is no more droppable than a cordelette). But I agree with Knude that it's no good without a decent equalizer.
In reply to: I can't help but think that there is unfounded fear developing of a system that is simple and works. In the big picture how many people die of a reasonably well made cordellette pulling out vs. rockfall, lowering off a rope, gear pulling, etc. I'm all for the advancement of technique, but if someone gets all self rightous on me this summer for using a cordellette I will be angry, and that will affect my climbing.
I think you have a point. One should not confuse an enthusiastic search for equalizing alternatives with a total rejection of fixed power point anchors.
I usually just tie in with the rope in a fixed power point anchor configuration and expect to continue doing that with most of the anchors I place. That is a simple system that works, and yet many climbers have found the extra encumbrance of twenty feet of 7 mm perlon to be some kind of improvement. I could easily say, "in the big picture, how many people die of a reasonably well made climbing-rope-only anchor pulling out vs. rockfall, lowering off a rope, gear pulling, etc.?" If such an argument were valid, then it provides a perfectly good reason to reject the cordelette too.
People buy insurance policies for unlikely events all the time, because of the catastrophic costs of such an event. Total anchor failure is certainly a catastrophic event, and although very rare, it has happened mostly to experienced climbers. In the same sense that people buy insurance, climbers are presumably interested in the best anchors they can get, even if the events they are guarding against are unlikely. Equalization has always, for obvious reasons, been high on the list of desiderata, although the methods for achieving it have been highly flawed. Whether significant improvements are possible without introducing complexity and special-purpose solutions that are not practical in the real climbing world is still open to question, but JL has opened up the discussion in a way that no one else has been able to do.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 4, 2006, 5:34 PM
Post #482 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: In reply to: I can't help but think that there is unfounded fear developing of a system that is simple and works. In the big picture how many people die of a reasonably well made cordellette pulling out vs. rockfall, lowering off a rope, gear pulling, etc. I usually just tie in with the rope in a fixed power point anchor configuration and expect to continue doing that with most of the anchors I place. That is a simple system that works, and yet many climbers have found the extra encumbrance of twenty feet of 7 mm perlon to be some kind of improvement. I could easily say, "in the big picture, how many people die of a reasonably well made climbing-rope-only anchor pulling out vs. rockfall, lowering off a rope, gear pulling, etc.?" If such an argument were valid, then it provides a perfectly good reason to reject the cordelette too.
Based on the data we do have, significantly more people have died using a cordolette than using a climbing-rope-only anchor. To paraphrase Winkie: I'm all for the advancement of technique, but if someone gets all self rightous on me this summer for using a direct tie-in I will be angry, and that will affect my climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Mar 4, 2006, 5:50 PM
Post #483 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: I can't help but think that there is unfounded fear developing of a system that is simple and works. In the big picture how many people die of a reasonably well made cordellette pulling out vs. rockfall, lowering off a rope, gear pulling, etc. I'm all for the advancement of technique, but if someone gets all self rightous on me this summer for using a cordellette I will be angry, and that will affect my climbing.
How we all hate to change our ways . . . I kinda figured some folks would cling to the old per rigging strategies--but let me admit this much:
A dozen years ago, I promoted the cordelette across the board. Testing found that it didn't work as advertised--or even close to as advertised. Unless a cordelette has perfectly equal length arms, and is attached to TWO side by side placements (like bolts), it does not function remotely as well as other systems. You should not use the cordelette to connect 3 pieces in ANY configuration. In fact, if you are trying to rig up anything but two side by side pieces, there is no such thing as a "well made cordelette."
Can I make it any plainer? I have no vested interest in any rigging system save the one that actually works.
Why have more of these systems not failed in the past. Simple: very few belay anchors ever sustain a factor 2 fall, or anything close to it.
If you insist on using the cordelette (in any configuration beyond the 2 side by side placements)--have at it. No one's stopping you. But do so knowing that testing (by the most experienced drop-tester in the US, with the results worked up by two PhD. statisticians/climbers) says you are potentially at risk.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 4, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #484 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: In reply to: Only thing wrong is that (and these are rather WIDE angles!) the unclipped "spanner" strand is way slack, and the knots in the blue sling aren't well balanced for their masterpoint. Esp. for narrower angles, the "SPANNER" strand will be shorter, almost taut, and determines extension: HALF its length! The righthand tape, purple, more nearly shows what it should be. This comment is indicative of a potential problem with some of the proposed systems: they may be too dependent on subtle adjustments. If you have a system that won't work properly if a few knots are out of place or some strands are not appropriately tensioned, you might as well stick with the cordelette.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
_clarity
Mar 4, 2006, 6:57 PM
Post #485 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 65
|
John,
I'd have to say that I'm with the majority who will continue to use both with a better understanding of the physics involved, in fact I've already decided that I'll try some MX trick on the last belay of Recompence on Cathedrel......
But I think Wink has a point, WOULD a near lack of stretch help with the issue at hand, assuming you equalized them pretty well?
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Mar 4, 2006, 7:54 PM
Post #486 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: your right about the fact that everything is elastic, but stretch IS the reason there is the issue with the cordellette. So if something is less elastic(and dyneema and kevlar are much less elastic than nylon) than the issue is reduced
Since this has been brought up by a subsequent poster too, let me try to explain again. Stretch isn't "the reason there is the issue with the cordellete." All materials stretch to some extent, and in most (from rope to steel beams) Hooke's law gives a first-order approximation to the tension developed. Thus, to a good degree of accuracy, the tension in the material is proportional to its percentage elongation. What matters in the present discussion is not the percentage elongation, it is the fact of proportionality. A technora cordelette will distribute the load to anchor pieces in almost the same proportions as 7 mm perlon. Distribution problems arising from unequal arm lengths can't be reduced by using stiffer cord.
(I said "almost the same" not only because of possible deviations from Hooke's Law, but also because the stretchier material results in slightly smaller angles at the power point and so slightly lower tensions.)
Furthermore, although this was not the issue under discussion, the stretchier material offers more "forgiveness" for the inevitable inaccuracies in tying up the cordelette. An arm that is marginally too long will still have the opportunity to bear some of the load if the other arms have more stretch.
Add to this the fact that the fancy cords lose their strength advantage over nylon after many bending cycles. There doesn't seem to be any reason to prefer them other than their reduced weight and bulk.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Mar 4, 2006, 9:36 PM
Post #487 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Richard G. wrote: "A technora cordelette will distribute the load to anchor pieces in almost the same proportions as 7 mm perlon."
Virtually the SAME proportions in our testing, which used 5.5mm tech cord, and 6 and 7mm perlon (nylon) cord--and even various webbing configurations (Dyneema and nylon) during the initial tests.
I'm looking beyond all of this stuff (which has been relentlessly explained by many folk) to the reflex for some to keep trying to cook up reasons to continue using what is clearly an inferior rigging strategy. It sort of amazes me.
You can lead a horse to water, cha cha cha . . .
JL
|
|
|
|
|
charlesjmm
Mar 4, 2006, 10:05 PM
Post #488 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 75
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Mar 4, 2006, 10:12 PM
Post #489 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: There is at least one other possibility that is not equipment intensive and at least does not have a load-bearing strand lying on top of several other load-bearing strands...
"A" to clip into the two anchored "A"s), beyond those needed at the junction
of anchor to rock & belayer.
In reply to: Q: "What is particularly problematic with the vertical crack? " ... A: The vertical crack has guaranteed unequal arm lengths, and some arm lengths can easily be multiples of other arm lengths. In the vertical alignment, the tension in the arms will be inversely proportional to arm length. Only a pulley system (that actually works) can mitigate this inequality of load distribution if there are more than two arms.
exactly what sort of equalization you wish. As for long reaches, one can
complement the elastic 7mm cord with static slings for the long span, adding
thus only minimal stretch (but in either case, tension should be equalized by the
sliding 'biners).
In reply to: This comment is indicative of a potential problem with some of the proposed systems: they may be too dependent on subtle adjustments. If you have a system that won't work properly if a few knots are out of place or some strands are not appropriately tensioned, you might as well stick with the cordelette. And the time consumed in fussing with everything to get it right is another obstacle to adoption.
to minimize potential extension--conceivably, e.g., one could leave the powerpoint
Eq.Triangle (60cm/24" HMPE thin tape) tied in near equilateral form; its span is about
a foot, which equals a half-foot extension of one side's two anchor's fail
--retying on a narrower angle, to say 7 inches, would chop extension to only
3.5", hardly much savings! The adjustment of the cordelette part is pretty
simple & quick, esp. balancing the limiter knots. Here, again, *perfecting* the
length of the spanner cord between them is not hugely significant.
In reply to: A problem with the cascading two-anchor equalizers is that they don't seem to apply to the most common three-piece anchor and they use up a certain amount of vertical height, which might in some cases place the power point too low.
I could see that one might decide to, for 3-point anchors, use a equalized pair,
plus the 3rd as a back-up (i.e., give up on equalizing the trio).
In reply to: The chopolette offers a single system, easy and quick to inspect and adjust, that is used the same way for all configurations and anchor styles (and is no more droppable than a cordelette). But I agree with Knude that it's no good without a decent equalizer.
rather limited swing (range of movement) to it. The Compound Sliding-A
can take on a pretty good swing, and some experience with it I think will guide
one to good anticipation of this via sizing the spanners.
(It's not like all of these just thought-up systems have the benefit of lots of
usage, yet!)
*kN*
|
|
|
|
|
winkwinklambonini
Mar 4, 2006, 11:12 PM
Post #490 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 1579
|
In reply to: Were both static and dynamic cordellettes tested in identical situations, and if so, was there a difference? In reply to: Richard G. wrote: "A technora cordelette will distribute the load to anchor pieces in almost the same proportions as 7 mm perlon." Virtually the SAME proportions in our testing, which used 5.5mm tech cord, and 6 and 7mm perlon (nylon) cord--and even various webbing configurations (Dyneema and nylon) during the initial tests. I'm looking beyond all of this stuff (which has been relentlessly explained by many folk) to the reflex for some to keep trying to cook up reasons to continue using what is clearly an inferior rigging strategy. It sort of amazes me. You can lead a horse to water, cha cha cha . . . JL
So that's a yes, and a NO? Was just wondering.........
The proportionality thing was helpful. If it was indeed previously mentioned it must have been between pages 15 and 30.
BTW, the book may include CLEAR evidence that cordellettes are inferior, but until I see numbers that prove it, I'm going to have questions. And anyone who doesn't shouldn't climb, or vote for that matter.
"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement"
-Karl R. Popper, philosopher of science
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 4, 2006, 11:52 PM
Post #491 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
wink..
he says they stretch proportionally the same.. meaning 5.5mm isnt giong to stretch the same as 7mm cord but if 5.5 stretches 1" in one leg and .5" in another.. the 7mm would stretch 2" in one and 1" in the other. proportional but not equal due to the different material. (correct me if i'm wrong but that's how i read it)
i'm not sure why you need to wait for numbers but for me i'll take john's word for it. he's throwing away a system that he created.. why would he do that if there wasn't evidence behind it?
knude you're arguing for your sliding a thing but no one has seen it.. i'm sure that may be why people are having such a hard time grasping what you're trying to say. picture.. MS paint mock up..
damn i thought i quit this thread lol dohh
|
|
|
|
|
woodcraft
Mar 5, 2006, 1:12 AM
Post #492 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: 20
|
I have a suggestion to steamline the gordolette.
Instead of the biner/clove hitches to connect two strands, try this...
1. Pull cordelette loops equal, insert locker at masterpoint. Hold tension.
2. Clip two strands with biner, twist three times, clip biner onto standing double strands.
3. Repeat with 2nd biner
Advantage:
- not complex, about the same motions as cordelette, one hand needed.
- eqalizes well
- no extension if middle piece blows
- not critical where the biner/knots go
disadvantage:
- middle piece loaded more than side pieces
- if side piece blows, remaining two not eqalized
- doesn't work well in vertical crack
Comment on cut up cordelette system: I would not trust clove hitches at the end of the cord.
Question to JL: Given the emphasis on slippage through the belay reducing forces, how can belay technique be optimized? Brake hand away from device? Looser grip ala dynamic belay? Gloves?
My take so far:
- I'll keep my cordelettes- useful for so much more than just connecting anchor components.
- Bomber (& multi-directional) first piece of pro at least as important as anchor eqalization. I see this missed a lot.
- Bravo to the analysts and the experimenters.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Mar 5, 2006, 1:15 AM
Post #493 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
I'm pretty sure this hasn't been done yet. I'm sorry if it has.
So, liking the look of the Gordolette, I decided to see what it looks like when it's not at work. This was the result:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/58565004-M.jpg
I think everyone will agree that that's pretty simple - 3 independent loops, with the middle one slightly asymmetric - shorter on the bottom than on the top. The length of the quickdraws defines the amount of extension. In a more "permanent" solution, the system could be re-made in tape, with the quickdraws replaced by short lengths of tape permanently knotted in place - nice and compact, and with minimal gear.
Now, putting it back together.
Simply clip one strand from each loop through its respective pieces of gear, making sure you clip the long strand of the middle loop:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/58565006-M.jpg
Then, pull the inside strands of the two outer loops in to form the powerpoint:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/58565001-M.jpg
Clip with a biner and pull tight:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/58565002-M.jpg
Length and direction of pull may be changed by adding butterflies to the respective legs. The amount of play in the system means that this isn't a particularly exacting process.
I really like this.
|
|
|
|
|
gordo
Mar 5, 2006, 1:37 AM
Post #494 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
I'm a bit anal about the "looks" of the system, mostly to verify it's integrity. The QDs add to the amount of "dynamic Equalization" so that's good too. I've used varrious components here, even as one said loops via butterfly knots or overhands. BUT, I like the idea of placing the biners every time.
This gives me two things: 1) Cordolette as always makes it useful for so much more, and the biners/QDs can be used for more too. 2) I try to put the biners/QDs even and horizontal, not because they have to be, but because it looks better and is easier to check visually.
I'm not interested in pushing the Gordolette, it's just working for me and meets my requirments. As always, there are dead horse arguments, this one meets all the criteiria though it's all compromised to some point.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 5, 2006, 3:10 AM
Post #495 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: - I'll keep my cordelettes- useful for so much more than just connecting anchor components. - Bomber (& multi-directional) first piece of pro at least as important as anchor eqalization. I see this missed a lot.
On a bomber two-piece anchor I can see doing this, but I can't imagine continuing to use it otherwise if you've actually read all this thread an John's comments about the test results they're seeing. Why, when the equalette is testing out so much better...
|
|
|
|
|
_clarity
Mar 5, 2006, 2:06 PM
Post #496 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 65
|
So gecko, that is very similar to the idea I had when I woke up this morning. I think it can be improved on though. First the double eight on a bight thing w/2beans helps w/ equalization. Second, if you make it without beans first........
http://i2.tinypic.com/qqvfv5.jpg
Then clove both ends of 2 keylock beans WHEREVER THEY FIT NATURALLY IN THE TRIANGLE without pushing or pulling the arms. It matters which strands you connect.
http://i2.tinypic.com/qqvd5e.jpg
As you swing the anchor back and forth, the beans do a little jig, which is fun. But, seriously it doesn't affect the motion like knots. And when a piece fails, it doesn't move much at all.....
http://i2.tinypic.com/qqvjg4.jpg
It doesn't always work perfectly, in which case living with a longer extention or connecting them with draws would work.
|
|
|
|
|
_clarity
Mar 5, 2006, 3:04 PM
Post #497 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 65
|
Ok, I tried it w/ 7mm nylon, and the cloves don't work as well as with mammut dyneema, hence the butterflies on blondie's rig. Another issue is that you have to center the anchor to the expected direction of pull and set the beans perpendicular to that, so the anchor has freedom to move to either side. I would rather have less freedom of movement but less extention, so I think tying the arms short with one bean is ideal, and therefore using cloves is key to fine tune it, which is another reason why I want a full length mammut dyneema cordellette. Maybe a sling cordellette with sections of daisy?
|
|
|
|
|
_clarity
Mar 5, 2006, 4:05 PM
Post #498 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 65
|
Am I the only one who got up at 7 this morning? :?
Anyway, I think thin slings are the best for equalization and tying knots in, so in lieu of a full size cordellette, there is always the 1.8m Mammut sling, or any long sling, combined with any shoulder, using the same bean technique.....
http://i2.tinypic.com/qqy549.jpg
This has much more freedom of motion, slides around really smooth, you can adjust the hieght of the bean simply be sliding the magicX, and it's a very light gettup.
|
|
|
|
|
atropine
Mar 5, 2006, 5:03 PM
Post #499 of 915
(111177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2004
Posts: 46
|
For fücks sake - won't this thread just GO AWAY??
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 5, 2006, 5:07 PM
Post #500 of 915
(111187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: For fücks sake - won't this thread just GO AWAY?? |
|
|
|
|
|
