|
gordo
Mar 5, 2006, 6:05 PM
Post #501 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
In reply to: For fücks sake - won't this thread just GO AWAY??
Note little link on bottom left "stop watching this thread"
BAM...Gone forever :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Mar 5, 2006, 6:53 PM
Post #502 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
In reply to: I'm pretty sure this hasn't been done yet. I'm sorry if it has.
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/58565002-M.jpg
Dag-nabbit Blondegeco. I was combining the Gordolette and Mooselette last night and came up with EXACTLY the same thing. You beat me to the punch . If the cordelette is hanging from th anchors you just clip your locker into the power point, then clove the draws in . Pretty easy.
Pros: Equalizes great, minimal extension, and if a cord is severed the strands are isolated, so you don't get total failure. It also has less hang-up at the power-point than the Mooselette variation (I'll describe it in a second.) Much less fussy to tie than a Gordolette.
Cons: If you blow an outer leg, most of the weight seems to transfer to the middle cord, so that placement better be bomber. Blow 2 pieces (1 outer and 1 inner) you get lots of extension. Hard to set up in a vertical.
A set of cloved draws can be used on a Mooselette to reduce extension and add safety by eliminating the total failure possibility. You need only clove hitch the outer biner. The inside biners just sit on the knot (no clove). This set up has the exact same pros and cons as Blondegeco's.
In a vertical crack the cloved-mooselette (with 2 knots in the central line) works fantastic. Use 2 biners instead of the draws, and you only need 2 clove hitches in the outer-most strands. It actually seems to have less cons in the vertical than in the horizontal for some reason.
I know it's hard to visualize. I'll try to get you guys a picture. Its pretty cool. I need to make amends to poor Moose for accidentally posting mis-information about his/her anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Mar 5, 2006, 7:07 PM
Post #503 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
:roll:
I knew there was a reason I hadn't clicked on this topic yet.
eventually, someone will condense the thing down to the two pertinent posts made on the whole 33 pages (so far) and post it under a new topic. I guess I'll wait till then.
.02
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 5, 2006, 7:12 PM
Post #504 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
I'm not sure we haven't beaten the "biner-constrained" AE rig concept near to death at this point given essentially the same rigs are coming around again. Got anything new or are we about done. I don't believe we've seen a photo of the "quad" or gone down that road yet...
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Mar 5, 2006, 7:19 PM
Post #505 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
In reply to: Am I the only one who got up at 7 this morning?
http://i2.tinypic.com/qqy549.jpg
Weren't you a busy bee this morning?
I mentioned the two-armed gordolette a few pages back, and you've now posted a picture of one. (See above^).
In my worthless opinion this is hands down the best way to equalize 2 points. I agree with everything you said in favor of this set up.
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Mar 5, 2006, 7:49 PM
Post #506 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
In reply to: I'm not sure we haven't beaten the "biner-constrained" AE rig concept near to death at this point given essentially the same rigs are coming around again. Got anything new or are we about done. I don't believe we've seen a photo of the "quad" or gone down that road yet...
I actually agree. I think the AE rigs should be shuttled off to a separate thread to clean this up.
I put away my biners and cordalette this morning and vowed to stop messing around with all these stupid anchors. I promise you won't hear from me again.
I'm going back to Community where I belong.
|
|
|
|
|
_clarity
Mar 5, 2006, 9:47 PM
Post #507 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 65
|
In reply to: In reply to: Am I the only one who got up at 7 this morning? Weren't you a busy bee this morning? I mentioned the two-armed gordolette a few pages back, and you've now posted a picture of one. (See above^). In my worthless opinion this is hands down the best way to equalize 2 points. I agree with everything you said in favor of this set up.
First of all, I totally missed the gordellette thing, I promise I won't call it a...clarinette? This is actually a 3 arm anchor. So it accomplishes the same thing as the gordellette, but you have the option of using limiter knots when they are perfectly in line, since they don't limit motion on simple x's.
|
|
|
|
|
atropine
Mar 5, 2006, 10:43 PM
Post #508 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2004
Posts: 46
|
And people complain about RC.com loading too slow - see the preceeding 34 pages of done to death random shite for details...
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 6, 2006, 3:43 AM
Post #509 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
In reply to: And people complain about RC.com loading too slow - see the preceeding 34 pages of done to death random s--- for details...
and your off topic babble shall push us closer to page 35.. not sure what you mean though.. most of the pics are hosted else where so it's not RC's bandwidth we're beating up here
clarity.. for a 2 point anchor wouldnt 2 quickdraws be the best way? and if they are too widely spaced the sliding x with a limiter knot seems the way to go. for 2 points anything with all those knots seems way overkill and time consuming.
|
|
|
|
|
glowering
Mar 6, 2006, 8:40 PM
Post #510 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 386
|
I'm wondering if the clove hitches in the equallette can actually assist equalization if they slip. It seems a clove hitch will slip much easier than any other anchor knot. If you are using a 4 leg equalette and tension is put on one piece in one of the arms it seems the clove hitch would slip a little and perhaps put more tension on the other piece on that arm of the equalette. Largo do your tests demonstrate this at all?
Oh wait a minute. Duh. I just totaly figured this all out. A perfectly equalizing, not extending anchor. It does require one piece of specialized gear though.
http://img412.imageshack.us/...9646/cordblur7dj.jpg
Get it?
Maybe we'll need to zoom in to see the magic of this setup.
http://img113.imageshack.us/...608/cordinset1cw.jpg
And now add a special image filter...
http://img412.imageshack.us/...12/1295/genie9mj.jpg
I don't think it would work without the cigarette though.
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Mar 6, 2006, 8:58 PM
Post #511 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: ... need an image ...
Voila, then, the system shown w/o 'biners & only one structure to anchor to two
points (the other would be a duplicate). The belay clips into the lower ELET made
of 60cm/24" "dental floss" of your flavor (which, if you aren't willing to trust
a single strand of could simply be duplicated or simply backed-up with a 2nd
such sling (i.e., like knotted, or else unknotted and hence more slack).
http://i2.tinypic.com/qwx3ro.jpg
*knudeNoggin*
|
|
|
|
|
winkwinklambonini
Mar 7, 2006, 1:19 AM
Post #512 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 1579
|
In reply to: clarity.. for a 2 point anchor wouldnt 2 quickdraws be the best way? and if they are too widely spaced the sliding x with a limiter knot seems the way to go. for 2 points anything with all those knots seems way overkill and time consuming.
That picture is not two anchors, why does everyone think that? In general, a two point anchor would be bolts so your right it would be overkill.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 7, 2006, 3:13 AM
Post #513 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
pfffft. Everyone knows that you don't actually have to press out the mantle to do that problem. Just face climb it. :wink:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 7, 2006, 4:13 AM
Post #514 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
woops .. sorry wink
what problem is that curt.. for those of us not born in the 1800's ;)
|
|
|
|
|
fingertrouble
Mar 7, 2006, 6:39 AM
Post #515 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 54
|
Geeze, I go to the mountains for a couple of days and when I get back I'm a week behind in this thread. But the driving gave me time to ponder the issues.
All the best solutions (at least those that work) are variations on the same basic simple design, be they charlesjmm's equalette or the alpine equalizer or whatever. The basic design is precisely illustrated in charlesjmm's photo #2 on page 28 of this thread. Additional loops and biners in the various solutions that have been kicked around are just embellishments that don't get to the heart of the matter.
The basic design is a good one, however, as it is a general solution that provides perfect equalization under load and over a wide range of load angles in the three extreme cases (arbitrary locations in a roof, vertical crack, or horizontal crack) and everything in between. The remaining issue is that the basic design doesn't provide for limiting extension of the master point should a placement fail. The basic design's ability to automatically equalize depends on the cord slipping around the biners in the outer legs, so tying limiter knots in them is problematic...well, worse. Tying a knot or knots in the center leg doesn't screw up equalization, but neither does it of itself limit extension, if you allow as how the knot could slip through the master point carabiner.
To address the extension problem, numerous solutions have been proposed which are variations on two themes: connecting the center leg to one cord in each of the outer legs (typically with runners and/or clove hitched carabiners) or achieving the equalization with a small version of the basic design (to limit extension, hopefully) and then reaching to the three placements with additional cord or slings using three additional carabiners and some knotwork. These approaches demand extra time and complexity, neither of which is welcome. Some such solutions restrict the range of load angle adaptation and/or change the angle of pull on the placements. Most appear to be somewhat tweaky. (Many of the proposals on this thread don't actually result in equalization, as rgold has explained many, many, many times to those with a slippery grip on physics.)
Let me propose a simple alternative:
First, construct the anchor according to the basic design as shown in charlesjmm's photo #2, page 28. Second, clip a loose sling/runner in parallel with each leg to limit extension. You'll have to admit that this is simple (so simple it requires no instructions or illustration) and effective. For a more elegant solution, carry two cordelettes, one of which is a bit longer. Construct the basic self-equalizing anchor with the short cordelette and then use the longer one tied with an overhand knot in the conventional way to make a sloppy overlay that will limit extension in every setup; it's out of the system unless a placement fails. You can shorten the long cordelette with an overhand-on-a-bight (or use clove hitches) to adjust the amount of extension you must tolerate to achieve the required range of equalization. As you can appreciate, setting up the basic rig is simple and very fast. Setting up the extension limiting rig is a separate and independent process, but also quick and simple, easy to remember, requires only a single overhand knot, and doesn't demand precision tuning.
In sum: for the cost of an additional cordelette (but no additional carabiners) you have a universal anchor system that is quick, simple, and fast to set up, provides perfect equalization under load, limits extension, is easy to remember, and is the lightest self-equalizing, extension-limiting rig proposal so far.
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Mar 7, 2006, 2:53 PM
Post #516 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
fingertrouble, I agree with your solution but it reminds me of another question. everyone is working so hard to limit or eliminate extension while maintaining full perfect equalization but wasn't it stated a while back that "shock Loading" during extension was really not a factor? (I tried looking back but the 30+ pages combined with SLOW page loads... I gave up) I thought I remembered reading that as long as you tied into your Power Point with a dynamic rope that additional forces on the remaining pieces of an anchor with a blown leg were faily negligible? Am I just imagining that? Because if not then any one of the rigs with limiter knots that reduce that extension to less than a foot (Pretty easy with most of them that I've tried.) would be fine. Are all these extra steps really that critical?
Also, something I don't remember seeing, in rigs like Charlesjmm's modulete or the gordolette or any of the others with a sliding power point, is cord rubbing at the power point biner a concern? Again, if this was already discussed then someone just toss me a rough idea of pagenumber and I'll go look again.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 7, 2006, 3:47 PM
Post #517 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
fingertrouble - or just use an equalette on one cord.
wideguy - as far as rubbing at the powerpoint is concerned I believe John was saying use a wide anodized biner.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 7, 2006, 4:38 PM
Post #519 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
fingertrouble wrote:
In reply to: All the best solutions (at least those that work) are variations on the same basic simple design, be they charlesjmm's equalette or the alpine equalizer or whatever. The basic design is precisely illustrated in charlesjmm's photo #2 on page 28 of this thread. Additional loops and biners in the various solutions that have been kicked around are just embellishments that don't get to the heart of the matter.
more:
In reply to: First, construct the anchor according to the basic design as shown in charlesjmm's photo #2, page 28. Second, clip a loose sling/runner in parallel with each leg to limit extension. You'll have to admit that this is simple (so simple it requires no instructions or illustration) and effective. For a more elegant solution, carry two cordelettes, one of which is a bit longer. Construct the basic self-equalizing anchor with the short cordelette and then use the longer one tied with an overhand knot in the conventional way to make a sloppy overlay that will limit extension in every setup; it's out of the system unless a placement fails. You can shorten the long cordelette with an overhand-on-a-bight (or use clove hitches) to adjust the amount of extension you must tolerate to achieve the required range of equalization.
In reply to: These approaches demand extra time and complexity, neither of which is welcome.
Its pretty common thought that we can't have multi-directional equalization without giving up a little extension, hell, true equalization in a single direction is tuff enough. Compromise is a requirement, we are searching for an acceptable one.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 7, 2006, 8:08 PM
Post #520 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Wideguy - no I don't believe it is of any particular concern.
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Mar 7, 2006, 8:12 PM
Post #521 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
[quote="rgold"]
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.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=70182
In reply to: To chop a cordelette in such a manneer would require that one strand is strong enough, which I am not sure of. The cordelette I have seen used where made with 2 strands of 7mm nylon or 5.5 techstuff. Imagnining you could use the material you selected in single strand, you need to cut it only in two pieces to keep the eyelets on the 4 extremities and the clovehitch on the anchor-side. http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/7295/x104xh.jpg Advantages of 2 strands vs 4 strands chop-olette: the maximum distance between one point and the anchor is no longer the strand length but the sum of the distance between 2 points 2 issues remain: - amount of biner needed - is the pulley with the 4 strands of slings efficient ? If we are using a single strand to connect two points are there setups which we could use. of course, sliding X comes to mind http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/4664/x94ms.th.jpg http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6551/x45eb.th.jpg but the most promising are the one which recreates a triangle such as http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/746/x58fs.th.jpg The difficulty is in choosing the right knot
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Mar 7, 2006, 8:33 PM
Post #522 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
Making sliding x with one-strand is rather cumbersome.
Using a doubled strand cordalette to connect four points using the path described fist by rgold
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/5116/x61pu.th.jpg
This creates a tandem sling X setup
the total length of the usable main anchor system is is the amount of the cordalette used in a standard configuration minus the not-under-tension part between piece 2 and 3.
Advantage: you do not have to tie this monster knot of the typical cordalette
Disadvantage: the equalization is yet to be done by the secondary anchor setup.
And what about the extension ?
Here comes into play the doubled "aspect". : One can tie knots every 20 cm for the whole lenght of the Knotelette (TM), once and for all.
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/5913/x72jm.jpg
It can be used for 3 arms with a 3-way sliding X
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/649/x86as.th.jpg
I was never a fan of the cordalette, prefering tying with the rope or with sling X setup. the only downside of sliding x for me was the having to tie-untie the limiter knot on my slings. I ended up having some "dedicated slings with one knot tied).
This setup requires over the standard cordelette : more cordelette, 1 short sling and 2 biners more.
What's your opinion ?
Edited to show the proper picture
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Mar 7, 2006, 8:53 PM
Post #523 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
In reply to: To chop a cordelette in such a manneer would require that one strand is strong enough, which I am not sure of. The cordelette I have seen used where made with 2 strands of 7mm nylon or 5.5 techstuff.
All the cordalettes rely on the strength of a single strand. Even if you have two strands running up to an anchor point, each sharing 1/2 the force, they eventually join up at the biner and the full force is felt on the cord that crosses the biner. So unless you've got a doubled up knot at the top, the rig still depends on the strength of individual strands of cord.
|
|
|
|
|
jimfix
Mar 7, 2006, 9:09 PM
Post #524 of 915
(114436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 314
|
In reply to: In general, a two point anchor would be bolts so your right it would be overkill.
True enough, and If your using a 2 point natural anchor, both pieces should be bomber, and equalization isn't that necessary. For a two point just use bunnyears figure 8. Quick, easy, uses the rope (therefore dynamic). What more could you want?
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 8, 2006, 1:40 AM
Post #525 of 915
(114430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: ...If your using a 2 point natural anchor, both pieces should be bomber, and equalization isn't that necessary.
For me personally that statement is a bit of a stretch in several dimensions...
|
|
|
|
|
|
