|
charlesjmm
Mar 8, 2006, 2:04 PM
Post #526 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 75
|
A variation of the Chopolette :
http://i49.photobucket.com/...m/ChopoletteUpdt.jpg
No clove hitches; I tried the overhand and butterfly knots at the equalizer, but found the in-line figure 8 more convenient to calibrate and to undo the equalizer for next pitch.
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Mar 8, 2006, 6:08 PM
Post #527 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
In reply to: 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.
This is IMHO incorrect. Ratings are for single strands between clamps.
The tension between two adjacent points of the rope at the pulley is equal to the tension between two any other points of the rope.
Doubled strand break at junction knot at double the strenght rating minus the knot efficiency.
Ropes and cordelettes break at biner because radius of turn (diameter of biner) is too small.
One strand would be the weakest link in your safety chain:
(although one person in rockclimbing forums has questionned disputing Tom's Meyer results relevance, I suggest you reflect on the relative strength of one strand vs two strand results of the webolette in http://www.amga.com/...tiveStrengthTest.pdf
My Millet 6.9 mm is rateds for 1070 DaN
Beal 7 mm is rated for 1050 kg
Beal Dynema 5.5 is rated for 1800 kg
http://www.bealplanet.com/...nglais/produit6.html
PERFORMANCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULTI-USE Accessory cords ARAMIDE DYNEEMA
DIAMETER 2 mm 3 mm 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 7 mm 8 mm 5,5 mm 5,5 mm
WEIGHT PER METRE 2,4 g 6,5 g 11 g 19,5 g 23 g 31 g 40 g 23 g 20 g
MINIMUM
BREAKING LOAD 70 kg 180 kg 330 kg 580 kg 750 kg 1050 kg 1400 kg 1800 kg 1800 kg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Mar 8, 2006, 7:04 PM
Post #529 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: The basic design is precisely illustrated in charlesjmm's photo #2 on page 28 of this thread. ... 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 basic design's ability to automatically equalize depends on the cord slipping around the biners in the outer legs,
But, as I've pointed out previously, the more pulley parts that are involved,
the more friction the system generates, and this defeats dynamic equalization
(i.e., should the axis of loading shift from the initial set).
In reply to: The remaining issue is that the basic design doesn't provide for limiting extension of the master point should a placement fail. ... so tying limiter knots in them is problematic...well, worse.
(index value "...=405" to spare page-by-paging!), there is another problem:
the system does NOT equalize on off-angle loading--one or another connection
goes slack!
I just tried the following arrangement of 3 placements on a 2x4.
'biners (points measured at the cord--not at the 2x4) spread along the 2x4
@ 0.x" (1cm) / 27" (68cm) / 35" (88cm)
load centered against middle placed (27"/68cm) with this leg 20"(50cm) long.
Shifting the load towards the near end place (35"/88cm) slackens the center-leg's strand,
putting load on the wide anchors;
shifting the load in the opposite direction, towards the wide leg, slackens the
"X"'d strand which connects outer legs, theorectically doubling load at the center.
And one doesn't have to shift the angle all that much to see this slackening.
On my own suggestion for a 4-point anchor, the compound Extension-Limiting
Equalization Triangles, what I've pictured was a structure tied in a single strand of cord,
which might imply 8-9mm dynamic stuff.
A like system in 6-7mm twin cord is much easier to effect:
use the 6?/8mm HMPE "dental floss" 60cm slings as purely the loaded sides of
the ETriangle (hence, the sling is doubled/twin for the slide of the 'biner on any
equalizing adjustment & loading), and tie off the sling end bights with the twin 6-7mm
cord with a Sheet Bend-like knot, which is very quick to do & adjust. The bight end
of the cord could be simply clipped in (though there will be no pulley-ing), and the
free-ends end tied off in any of various ways.
And I now realize that my claim that extension equals half the length of the "span"
strand of the ELET (i.e., the unclipped connection) only applies where the limiter
knots area equidistant from the loaded 'biner; it is greater where the knot of the
failing anchor is farther away.
------
CharlesJMM, those "inline fig.8" knots are a bit less inline than they should be
(for the name, at least)--the eye-side end should emerge beside the eye legs, not jut
outwards before that.
(Btw, an Inline Fig.10 is better, w/little extra bother.)
In reply to: all cordelettes depend on strength of single strand
pin/'biner used to apply the load; in theory, the sling should support double it
single-strand capability, but in practice either the knot or the bend at the pin
(or the movement at the pin bend from material feed from the knot compressing)
will reduce this.
Beware: quoting tensile figures for hi-mod cord is misleading, as one canNOT use the
usual "about 66%" breaking strength ratings given to common knots
--hi-mod stuff fares worse, sometimes much worse, knotted. Look for ratings
of the structure you'll use (e.g., cord tied with XYZ knot pulled between 'biners).
Funny, that can be hard to find. Tom Moyer's "Comparative Testing ..." paper
showed e.g. that Sterling's 7mm nylon w/Grapevine tested at over 5,000#,
while their 5mm Vectran cored cord was about half that (well below advertised
sling strength, btw), and other, aramid & HMPE cord was worse to about equal
to the nylon. That was then, and one can expect newer materials to show some
better results, but ... .
*knudeNoggin*
|
|
|
|
|
charlesjmm
Mar 8, 2006, 8:42 PM
Post #530 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 75
|
In reply to: CharlesJMM, those "inline fig.8" knots are a bit less inline than they should be (for the name, at least)--the eye-side end should emerge beside the eye legs, not jut outwards before that. (Btw, an Inline Fig.10 is better, w/little extra bother.)
Thank you Knudenoggin, picture has been edited to reflect this.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Mar 9, 2006, 12:25 AM
Post #531 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
My question, what earthly good is the chopolette. My reasoning behind this statement is that no one in their right mind would consider bringing all that loose short strands of rope up with them, it simply is not practical.
That said the same exact scenario can be set up by simply using the rope.
The more I climb the more I am trying to get down to the basics, yes I am a gear freak and I have everything that opens and shuts that money can buy but more and more I am finding that I am leaving all the doo dahs at home and just going out with my rack and the rope. I'll solve most problems by simply using the rope. I incorporate the rope as much as possible in all my anchor setups. I've got webolettes and cordalettes but I just do not use them anymore in my search for the basic and simple system.
This whole thread is more than confirmation to me that systems need to be simple. The KISS principle is alive and kicking.
Edit to say that I do not intend to be pouring cold water on this most excellent and heinous thread. I think that this thread is one of THE most important threads to have ever come out of internet land as far as climbers goes. There are some fantastic ideas in here and the debate is far from finished, keep up the work people, we are not done yet. This was my attempt at injecting some practical simple sense into the thinking mix.
Now get to work and keep those ideas coming.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 9, 2006, 12:38 AM
Post #532 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
phil you wanna send me one of those webolettes ;)
Rich showed that you could tie the short cords up together the same way as a cord and be no more bulky or flying around than usual. I don't think dropping them would be an issue as most climbers are pretty anal about attaching things that they dont want to take the short way down. And if you drop one then you still have 3.. drop a whole cord then you gotta improvise a bit more.
i like simple to though and for me the trango AE and the bunny ear'd knot version are what look the most promising for my tastes.
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Mar 9, 2006, 1:06 AM
Post #533 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
In reply to: One strand would be the weakest link in your safety chain: (although one person in rockclimbing forums has questionned disputing Tom's Meyer results relevance, I suggest you reflect on the relative strength of one strand vs two strand results of the webolette in http://www.amga.com/...tiveStrengthTest.pdf
From the article you linked, page 6:
-------------------------
For the cordelette strength, both the strength of the weak arm (knotted or single-strand sewn) and the strength of the stronger arms are plotted. For most of the materials there is no difference. For the webolette, the weak arm is a single strand, so the double-strand leg is considerably stronger.
-------------------------
We were talking about a chopped up cordalette, not about a webolette. It would appear that the webolette fails at the sewn eye, but the article doesn't say.
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Mar 9, 2006, 4:22 AM
Post #534 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
In reply to: In reply to: One strand would be the weakest link in your safety chain: (although one person in rockclimbing forums has questionned disputing Tom's Meyer results relevance, I suggest you reflect on the relative strength of one strand vs two strand results of the webolette in http://www.amga.com/...tiveStrengthTest.pdf From the article you linked, page 6: ------------------------- For the cordelette strength, both the strength of the weak arm (knotted or single-strand sewn) and the strength of the stronger arms are plotted. For most of the materials there is no difference. For the webolette, the weak arm is a single strand, so the double-strand leg is considerably stronger. ------------------------- We were talking about a chopped up cordalette, not about a webolette. It would appear that the webolette fails at the sewn eye, but the article doesn't say.
Indeed, but in his test, Tom considered that the weak arm of the cordalette was a double strand with a knot vs the strong arm double strand with no knot. Rather unclear, but please read early paragraph in same document. He did not test a a single arm configuratione exept in the webolette.
Please note also that the UIAA drop test rebelayed on a unbalanced cordalette broke within 5 falls on all material but 7mm nylon (and one modern fiber which did not bear well teh flex test).
As the newer tests from John and al. have recorded the impact force on the various arms of a cordalette, I hope he will release the numbers and compare them to the strength of the various material one may consider for a cordalette.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Mar 9, 2006, 9:56 AM
Post #535 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
I have just one more small, possibly quite naive, variation on the constrained AE anchor to add (sorry if I'm :deadhorse: ). It's basically the all-soft, adjustable, permanent version of the Gordolette.
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59173193-M.jpg
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59173195-M.jpg
The quickdraws have been replaced by short lengths of prusik cord, attached with autoblocks at either end to the cordolette. Now, the diameter difference is not what one would consider ideal for a friction knot, but they seem to catch fine as long as they're tied quite tight.
Only problem with this is that these autoblocks are fine in isolation, but may slip if they rub against anything. If this is likely, just tie a limiting knot beside the limiting knot, if you get my drift. :?
Perhaps still not ideal, but quick, light, and uses no extra metal.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 9, 2006, 1:01 PM
Post #536 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: (sorry if I'm :deadhorse: ). |
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 9, 2006, 6:27 PM
Post #537 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
I am having one huge problem with all of this research- what is the END POINT of all this research?
For example in medicine if you pick and end point in your research of "lower blood pressure" you end up with say 10 drugs that lower the blood pressure. Looks great and we give it to patients. 20 years later we do a retrospective study and look at the end point of DEATH or INJURY to the patient and compare the 10 drugs to patients on a placebo or those never on the drug. All of the sudden it seems that 9 of those 10 drugs actually SHORTENED the life of the patient. So only ONE improved the life of the patient but all 10 drugs lowered blood pressure. It does not matter if the drug was at fault or if the patient took too big a dose or too small a dose or if the doctor did not prescribe it correctly, the end result is DEATH. Some of those drugs may be perfect in every way but if you forget to take one every 36 minutes for it to work then it is way to complex for a patient to use effectively so it gets pulled from the market.
So my real question is are we trying to solve a problem that will prevent deaths in THEORY or will it prevent death in REALITY. I have seen no data yet that climbers are dying from the classic cordolette total anchor failure nor have I seen data that shows that climbers or guides can rig this or teach these new methods correctly 100% of the time. If this is so complex that people make mistakes then deaths will rise not fall. How do we as a community suggest a "new drug" without proving the real end point of LIVES SAVED instead of the end point that JL is looking at which is better eqalization.
10 years from now we may see an increase or decrease in total anchor failure based on these new anchor concepts but I am guessing we will see an increase in human errors that lead to total anchor failure in the short term. Is this something we want to do?
Has anyone looked to see if the introduction of the cordolette 15 years ago reduced total anchor failure? Or did it rise? (Controlling for the increase in total anchors built by the increased numbers of climbers.) If research like this shows that anchor failure was REDUCED by JL's first books we may be playing with a problem that "aint broke" so why are we trying to fix it?
This is a serious comment and I hope that some of you will take pause to think about what I am suggesting. Will climbers deaths increase or decrease? Now some of you will say "Well if the noobs do it correctly then it will save lives..." What I am saying is that this stuff is looking so complex that mistakes will be made and our end point should be climber deaths/morbidity, not perfect equalization.
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Mar 9, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #538 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: So my real question is are we trying to solve a problem that will prevent deaths in THEORY or will it prevent death in REALITY. I have seen no data yet that climbers are dying from the classic cordolette total anchor failure nor have I seen data that shows that climbers or guides can rig this or teach these new methods correctly 100% of the time. If this is so complex that people make mistakes then deaths will rise not fall. How do we as a community suggest a "new drug" without proving the real end point of LIVES SAVED instead of the end point that JL is looking at which is better eqalization. 10 years from now we may see an increase or decrease in total anchor failure based on these new anchor concepts but I am guessing we will see an increase in human errors that lead to total anchor failure in the short term. Is this something we want to do? This is a serious comment and I hope that some of you will take pause to think about what I am suggesting. Will climbers deaths increase or decrease? Now some of you will say "Well if the noobs do it correctly then it will save lives..." What I am saying is that this stuff is looking so complex that mistakes will be made and our end point should be climber deaths/morbidity, not perfect equalization. -pip
your point about the complexity of a lot of the systems proposed is a good one. Simplicity in an anchoring system can be analogous to safety, as it allows for quick and effective analasis of the system, and makes mistakes easier to spot.
Although, I will disagree with you on the majority of the remainder of your post.
John Long has stepped largely outside the constraints of pure THEORY analysis in his offerings here. He has shown tests that are as analogous as possible to REAL-WORLD situations.
With the debunking of the cordalette as a truly optimal anchoring method, a large gap is left in the climbers toolbox. This is a void that will inevitably need to be filled with some old tricks and some new innovations. The process that he has catalized on this thread, while yielding many systems that may prove impractical, could likely prove to be the source of some serious anchor building innovation. This anchors in this thread are not out of the pages of Long's next Anchor's bible, but rather the product of some important critical thinking among members of the climbing community.
This is a positive process that only a ludite would condemn.
I understand your hesitancy to write-off the cordalette as the be-all-end-all of anchoring systems, but one of the community's most respected figures has very practically shown otherwise. His claims are not based as you suggest, IN THEORY, but in drop tests accurately representing REAL WORLD application.
Your concerns are valid, but better applied to Long's next book when it is released, and not to an open discussion about new anchoring techniques.
I think safety is a chief concern of everyone on this board.
-bob
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 9, 2006, 6:56 PM
Post #539 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: we may be playing with a problem that "aint broke" so why are we trying to fix it?
No one here is working for "perfect equalization", we are all nosing around the problem of finding sufficient equalization along with acceptable simplicity. That exploration neccessarily has taken us through all possible realms of equalization, extension, and unavoidably complexity. But Johns research and testing has just show the problem is "broke" and needs a new fix.
|
|
|
|
|
gavinshmavin
Mar 9, 2006, 6:56 PM
Post #540 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 19
|
Pipsqueekspire:
I'm with you 100% on this one. In fact, it seems to me that the cordelette itself may have been a solution to a theoretical problem, not a real one (at least for everything but walls, where I'll admit cordelettes are so convenient as to be a real improvement over other solutions).
The solutions proposed so far in this thread strike me as so complicated that their benefits will only accrue a very small percentage of the time, because they will be tied wrong much of the time. And the time spent tying them (even if only a minute or two per belay, which seems very optimistic) is certain to lead to decreased safety.
I can recall maybe a couple reported instances in the last decade where a cordelette's failure to equalize perfectly was even arguably a cause of climber death. The cordelette is a pretty damn good solution, provided it's combined with the ability to place good gear in a variety of situations.
Those older than me could probably say the same about earlier, purely rope-based anchor-building. How many people went to the deck because of the failure of those anchors to equalize perfectly? How many went to the deck because they just didn't place good gear? Which problem should we focus on?
My biggest concern is that we're focusing too narrowly on how to connect anchor points perfectly, and that new climbers are not getting the practical education they need in actually placing good gear in the first place. The latter doesn't lend itself well to discussion on message boards, of course...
peace,
gavin
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 9, 2006, 7:03 PM
Post #541 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
By no means am I suggesting that this is not a GREAT process- it is a lot of fun to read, but I am suggesting that the drop test is NOT reality, reality takes into account human error in rigging, dark stormy nights, rock fall etc etc. I am suggesting that in theory lowering blood pressure in the LAB is the ideal end point but in reality the only thing that matters is death/injury to the patient. So I am suggesting that we refrain from jumping on the band wagon of perfect equalization until 10 years from now when we see a drop or increase in total anchor failures leading to injury or death. Just because you have the ability to rig these anchors as an expert does NOT mean you should be teaching these complex anchors in a book until you can prove that they are teachable, understandable, and reproducable by your average reader or student.
We may be doing research into the perfect system but if it is too complex to teach then we may actually increase climber injury/death no matter how perfect. These complex anchors should be limited until the end result of injury or death can be clearly reduced.
For example JL could suggest that a few professional riggers or rescue institutions use these anchors then have them report back. They may love it but in the end say "It takes too long and we were not seeing failure in the old systems so why bother?" By no means should we confuse great lab numbers with improved real world outcomes. Thanks.
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
dominic7
Mar 9, 2006, 7:21 PM
Post #542 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 18646
|
I think with any paradigm shift, there is a messy transition. For instance, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is some wicked complicated shit that replaced Newtonian physics which does a pretty freaking good job of explaining just about everything. Why bother with all the new complications if Newtonian physics is "good enough"?
It comes down to a question of "quality", a la Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. In this case a "quality" anchor is one that is KISS and SRENE. I don't think anyone has claimed that overly complicated anchors are improving matters.
30 years ago people were sticking pieces of wood and shit into cracks and calling it protection. Changes happened that allowed people to climb more and harder and safer. John Long has stated up front that he pulled the cordolette out of his ass and said "this is pretty cool" and people read his book and started using it. The question of what will anchors look like in another 30 years is open to debate. Maybe in 30 years noobs will be taking 100' factor 2 whippers.
The point being that if Einstein had said "Newton's got things nailed down good enough" where would we be? :roll: Well, maybe that's not a good example.
And, no, I'm not comparing some of these *cough* anchors to high energy physics. :)
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Mar 9, 2006, 7:27 PM
Post #543 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: For example JL could suggest that a few professional riggers or rescue institutions use these anchors then have them report back. They may love it but in the end say "It takes too long and we were not seeing failure in the old systems so why bother?" By no means should we confuse great lab numbers with improved real world outcomes. Thanks. -pip
If I'm not mistaken, he already mentioned his 'duo-glide' method is currently being field tested.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 9, 2006, 7:36 PM
Post #544 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Moderators, lock this thread!
Nothing new has been added in 10 pages. It's too long to read the whole thing so people are now just discussing the same stuff that has already been beaten to death.
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 9, 2006, 7:45 PM
Post #545 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
I understand that the duo-glide is being tested in the field by guides, but the real test in my mind is can you teach this method in a day long class and have those students correctly reproduce it the next weekend when they are out on their own. That is an example of what I mean by "End Point". Who cares if the thing works when professionally rigged, I want to know if these anchors can be safely reproduced in a similar amount of time to a cordolette by a new student to climbing. If these complex anchors CAN be safely reproduced then the lab outcomes matter, if they can't be safely and quickly reproduced then the drop tests dont matter.
Assuming these anchors are really better in the lab, the next step is to teach them to 1000 students and teach the cordolette to a 1000 students and follow them over time to see if any of them have anchor failure related accidents. That is the TRUE test!!
I understand that this is a complex process but if we really want to improve climber safetly I would suggest that we try to conduct a test along these lines before he writes a book proclaiming that these new anchors are better. The FDA requires it, shouldn't we? I am more than happy to try and set this up since I am very interested in wilderness medicine and think it is a great research project and much more valid experiment than drop tests. Who wants to help. Please PM me if you have any interest in a research project along these lines.
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Mar 9, 2006, 9:11 PM
Post #546 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: Assuming these anchors are really better in the lab, the next step is to teach them to 1000 students and teach the cordolette to a 1000 students and follow them over time to see if any of them have anchor failure related accidents. That is the TRUE test!! I understand that this is a complex process but if we really want to improve climber safetly I would suggest that we try to conduct a test along these lines before he writes a book proclaiming that these new anchors are better. The FDA requires it, shouldn't we? I am more than happy to try and set this up since I am very interested in wilderness medicine and think it is a great research project and much more valid experiment than drop tests. Who wants to help. Please PM me if you have any interest in a research project along these lines. -pip
:lol: good luck with that one :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 9, 2006, 9:45 PM
Post #547 of 915
(111439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
OK one last way to look at this problem
Which is a better anchor-
Anchor X is simple but fails at 3000 lbs
9 deaths have occured due to total anchor failure
1 death due to improper rigging
Total- 10 deaths
Anchor Y is complex yet fails at 6000 lbs
1 death reported due to anchor failure
9 deaths due to improper rigging
Total- 10 deaths
Which anchor would you set up at midnight on a rappel during a rain storm?
Which Anchor is truly "safer"
These are the questions we need to ask next.
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Mar 9, 2006, 9:56 PM
Post #548 of 915
(111422 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: Moderators, lock this thread! Nothing new has been added in 10 pages. It's too long to read the whole thing so people are now just discussing the same stuff that has already been beaten to death.
No way will I ever support locking this thread. This thread still has some life in it, take a look at the philosophical turn it has taken on this page, valuable stuff man. I think pipsqueek has brought up an extremely valuable point and it is currently being discussed. I repeat, no way will this thread be shut down.
Carry on all, nothing to see, move along.
|
|
|
|
|
buckyllama
Mar 9, 2006, 10:16 PM
Post #549 of 915
(111422 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 314
|
In reply to: OK one last way to look at this problem Which is a better anchor- --snip-- Which anchor would you set up at midnight on a rappel during a rain storm? Which Anchor is truly "safer" These are the questions we need to ask next. -pip
First of all you are assuming that the rigging systems posed are significantly more complex than a standard cordalette. They aren't. The duo-glide is pretty simple, in my mind compareable with a standard cordalette. The gordolette is only slightly more complicated.
To answer your midnight rappell question, the answer is "whichever makes the most sense". This is not a "take this pill and call me in the morning" approach. If a person cannot comprehend simple rigging (and the most complicated of these is still bog-simple) they shouldn't be responsible for such rigging in the first place. If, due to exhaustion, cold, etc YOU recognize that you are not at your best, then you need to use the system that is most familier, simplest, and easiest to inspect. I'd probably toss the cord altogether and rig it with individual slings.
There is NO one right answer for all situations, but adding something to the standard bag of tricks that has been tested and is structurally safe is a good thing. As is calling out the shortcomings of other techniques.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 9, 2006, 10:29 PM
Post #550 of 915
(111370 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: nothing to see, move along.
On that we agree.
Pip hasn't brought up anything that hasn't already been discussed. But what the hell...it just means another 20 pages of nothingness on a site that can't handle the bandwidth. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
