|
dominic7
Mar 10, 2006, 5:10 PM
Post #576 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 18646
|
Why not just tie the rope into a couple of the pieces of the AE if you are worried about extension?
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Mar 10, 2006, 5:29 PM
Post #577 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: I am having fun listening to you all blast me but I know and several others have figured out that association does not mean correlation. |
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 10, 2006, 5:36 PM
Post #578 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
You are all thinking on the level that bigger is better, SUVs are safer than civics and you are all WRONG.
The SUV example is perfect.... the bigger the car the safer in an accident with another vehicle, that is 100% provable and true but when you look at the TOTAL number of deaths due to SUVs it turns out they are as bad or worse than a Honda Civic? Why?
Because the big safe SUV is prone to roll overs all by itself. Oops... driver error is more likely in the big car.
So you are all assuming that when YOU drive the SUV you won't rollover so of course it is safer for you right? WRONG- the numbers dont lie- the average american is just as likely to kill themselves in the SUV and like it or not, you are probably just average in your driving skills.
So now are we introducing the SUV of anchors or are we actually improving climber safety? NOT ONE OF YOU has offered to even think about this subject much less agree that some reseach should be done.
So now you want to by a car for your 16 year old? Do you get the car with the improved crash record? Or do you look at the real data that says deaths rise in an SUV because of solo rollovers? If you are the average american idiot you say, well it has a 5 star crash rating...so I'll get the SUV. If you took even 1 course in stats in college you'll buy the one with the fewer deaths overall for your 16 year old daughter becuase you love her and want her to live.
So which anchor do you suggest to a 16 year old noob climber?
I hear you all yelling but no one can say that they KNOW these anchors are safer or not. I am not claiming anything other than open your eyes and really look into it before we make recommendation.
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
dominic7
Mar 10, 2006, 5:45 PM
Post #579 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 18646
|
In reply to: I hear you all yelling but no one can say that they KNOW these anchors are safer or not. I am not claiming anything other than open your eyes and really look into it before we make recommendation. -pip
Dude, you are wound up tighter than a seven-day clock. I think everyone would be all for statistical support - but there are too many variables to design such an experiment that would provide meaningful results, never mind the resources to execute it.
Knowing me, if I participated in an anchor study I'd get the sugar pill anchor. "We want you to go up there and rig yourself in with these six clothespins and this three-foot length of bailing twine". :)
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Mar 10, 2006, 5:47 PM
Post #580 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: ...and you are all WRONG.
That's right, the whole world's conspiring against you. We're all just fools.
Funny- statements like that, from patients, aid american mental health professionals daily in their diagnosis of phsychological illnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 10, 2006, 6:17 PM
Post #581 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
"This is too hard..." I think I hear the WAAAmbulance coming to pick you all up.
Back to drugs-
There are drugs on the market that are designed to help people with RARE diseases, we are talking about diseases that approach 0.00001% of the population, lets say 100 patients in the USA. Yet those drugs that might help or might hurt so few people go through the same testing as lipitor, the biggest drug on the market right now. Mind you that the small drugs and lipitor are still being tested for side effects in case there are un-forseen effects of the drug. Populations of 1000's are being followed for generations to get the best data possible. Sure people drop out, people quit climbing, but in the end you have a data set with some real power and it provides real answers, not just lab results.
So we are talking about making a reccomendation to 100's of thousands of climbers and are we so lazy that we can't design a study to test these new ideas that could impact the lives of these climbers? Do we plan to follow up with a study that looks at improved rates of anchor failure or are we going to kick back and say, eh looks good to me. Wow - you are some lazy people that just seem to want "facts" spoon fed to you then blast me for questioning your "facts".
I want to know which anchor to teach to clients, not which anchor is safer in the lab. Why does this seem to enrage so many people? Why do my questions enlist the reaction "If you're not with us you must be an uptight anal guy totally against us!" I am with you all 100%. I like innovation. I like safety. But before I jump on any band wagon I want some real insight as to what type of anchor improves climber safety. That's it, it is really that simple.
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Mar 10, 2006, 6:33 PM
Post #582 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: "So we are talking about making a reccomendation to 100's of thousands of climbers and are we so lazy that we can't design a study to test these new ideas that could impact the lives of these climbers?
Hey Pip, go for it. Let us know how your study goes.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to???
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 10, 2006, 6:48 PM
Post #583 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
"WE"
Apparently I am talking about me, myself and I because no one seems to care about the end point of improved climber safety. But I am trying to refer to the climbing community as a whole... "we" need to be responsible for what "we" recommend to new climbers.
I know there must be some engineers, some bio stats people, somebody out there who realizes that what I am talking about is real and possible to study. Even if JL makes sweeping statements in a new book someone should follow the stats to see what types of anchors were invovled in fatal falls just so we know in the long run.
I would love to start a study, I made a proposal a few pages ago to try to study the human error aspects. It is the best idea I had. Anyone else got an idea?
Stop blasting and start suggesting!
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 10, 2006, 6:53 PM
Post #584 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: Stop blasting and start suggesting!
Try reading the entire thread from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 10, 2006, 7:16 PM
Post #585 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Pip,
You singlehandedly, in about three pages, have managed to thoroughly pollute the thread. You either haven't been following along, haven't read the thread, aren't listening, or simply don't get it. At this point everyone has heard your stats diatribe - take your own advice and either post something useful or quit posting.
|
|
|
|
|
hemp22
Mar 10, 2006, 7:30 PM
Post #586 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 94
|
In reply to: Back to drugs-
Your SUV example is far from perfect. Comparing driver safety in cars vs SUVs would be more like comparing someone who ties a cordalette anchor out of 7mm cord to someone who ties a cordalette anchor out of 12mm static line and gets a false sense of security because of the thicker rope.
The prescription drug testing examples are also not very comparable, for the reasons mentioned before (having an effect internal to the body, compared to an anchor that can be visually inspected?)
I agree with you that overly complex anchor systems could be more difficult to teach or lead to more user error, but I don't think the sort of testing that you want would be able to give any significant information about "climber safety". To test impact on safety of one of these anchor systems vs another, you would have to remove all other variables (quality of placements, gear, rock quality, etc). Sure, you could test 50 people to see which knot they can learn more easily, but tying that knot is such a small impact on overall "climber safety", that whatever signal you get out of that test would probably be lost in the noise.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Mar 10, 2006, 7:52 PM
Post #587 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: Knowing me, if I participated in an anchor study I'd get the sugar pill anchor. "We want you to go up there and rig yourself in with these six clothespins and this three-foot length of bailing twine". :) |
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Mar 10, 2006, 9:11 PM
Post #588 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Please
Make
It
Stop
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Mar 10, 2006, 10:21 PM
Post #589 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: I want to point out that the cordolette, like it or not, is the gold standard right now. We all have used it and most of us have lived. So JL got lucky and made a suggestion a long time ago that turned out to be great without the research to back it up. Well 15 years of solid use has proved that the cordolette works 99.99% of the time if not more. So the cordolette has been tested, much more than the new system by millions of uses.
Actually this is not correct, at least by my way of thinking. The cordelette has worked 99.99999 percent of the time simply because it didn't need to actually work, meaning that 99.99999 percent of climbers never took a factor 2 fall on a belay rigged with a cordelette. And even if they had, given "good enough" primary anchors, the anchor would likely hold no matter how you rigged it.
The point of the testing and of this discussion is to try and discover the limitations of the systems we use and to try and improve on them in managable ways. That much said, the foundation of all belay anchors resides in the primary placements themselves, not so much on how you rig them. With good primary placements and sane rigging you have a chance to survive the worst case scenario fall--one that few cordelettes have ever sustained. The fact that few cordelettes have ever sustained such a fall is not owng to the cordelette, rather to folks who know how to avoid climbing in a way in which a fall directly onto the anchor is ever possible. Prevention always remains the best medicine.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
gordo
Mar 10, 2006, 10:29 PM
Post #590 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
In reply to: Before this thread sinks into the abyss I thought I would post and illustrate the only solution..........
It's interesting to me that there are 2 guys who came very late to this thread, and have this type of attitude. "I am right, you are wrong...have a nice day"
I've been meaning to pick up the Hondbook, but it's "authority" :roll: weighs thin on me at this point since every post from the author is at best self gratifying, if not plain old egotistical.
I have enjoyed this thread, but I think I'll call it done :lol: I've learned a lot playing with systems, talking to John and others, and just plain thinking. But the :roll: factor wins, carry on though, there is a record thread length to break :D
Oh, Good stuff John, looking forward to the new book :righton:
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 10, 2006, 11:18 PM
Post #591 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: I want to know which anchor to teach to clients, not which anchor is safer in the lab.
This is a fine question, pipsqueekspire. The trouble is your contention that we need a study to answer it for us.
I do not have the lab at my disposal to test forces on each arm with drop tests on anchors. That's what JL's testing is good for. To really know what happens in a fall, I need a study to be done by those with the specialized equipment and knowledge to carry it out properly. I do *not* need any specialized equipment, or any knowledge beyond that I already have in as a learner and a teacher to know A - what can I set up, and how easily can I do it, or B - what can I successfully teach to others, and how well will they grasp it. I do not need JL, or you, or anyone else to do a study to determine this.
If you're teaching anchor-building for a living, you can figure out in short order what makes sense to teach to what level of climber. Alternatively, if you're teaching yourself, certainly you can make your own judgements.
I think the reason some folks are reacting a bit strongly against you is because you're giving the impression that trad climbers need to be protected from themselves - that we need a study to show what we're capable of, and we shouldn't teach ourselves something "too hard". You couldn't pick a worse group of people to make this argument to!
Later,
GO
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 11, 2006, 3:43 AM
Post #592 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: Before this thread sinks into the abyss I thought I would post and illustrate the only solution that meets John Long's criteria of providing equalization along with a heavy dose of KISS principal. The instructions are simple (KISS, remember): http://i2.tinypic.com/r26vt5.jpg Craig Connally
:righton: :righton: :righton: :righton:
Honestly I think this is the best post in this thread. Personally I haven't been worried about the non perfect equalisation. However if you are concerned then I think that this does seem the simplest and most effective solution.
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Mar 11, 2006, 6:24 AM
Post #593 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
It seems like some of the suggestions here are ignoring required redundancy. For instance, using a cord... chopolette, which is really just three separate slings in my book, and having the final master point attach to a 3-way sliding-X using another sling, has no redundancy. If the master point is attached to a single sliding-X then that point is not redundant.
Was this mentioned before and is it now acceptable to use a single sling or single carabiner for the master point on an anchor that might need to hold a factor-2 fall? I've tried to read 20-30 of the pages here but it's daunting to try to find if the redundant parts are just left out to make pictures and diagrams more clear.
Thanks.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 11, 2006, 10:59 AM
Post #594 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Patto - at least that's a conclusion from someone that's been following along from the beginning. Though I'm a bit surprised to hear it. I find this to be one of the least elegant solutions that is not particularly KISS at all given it overlays two complete rigs. It doesn't achieve anything that a limiter knotted or biner constrained AE rig does.
------------------------------
The sliding X page where Jake gathered all the photos - A good link to use as a signature in all posts in either thread of these threads.
|
|
|
|
|
dominic7
Mar 11, 2006, 6:45 PM
Post #595 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 18646
|
Here's the Equalette from the excellent picture recap:
So the original diagram of the Equalette above posted by healyjm and given the nod by JL seems to be this (with one biner):
http://rugby.net/images/eq2.jpg
flyinglow's picture above seems to be this:
http://rugby.net/images/eq1.jpg
which is not so good because if both pieces on one side fail the whole thing can fall apart.
Wouldn't it be better, if you were using one biner instead of two opposite-and-opposed, to reintroduce the sliding x between the limiter knots?:
http://rugby.net/images/eq3.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 11, 2006, 7:19 PM
Post #596 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Just a note, those photos show the right cord and knot configuration but are not finished correctly relative to the powerpoint biner(s). The correct final configuration would be with a locker on each of the two isolated strands between the limiter knots (as shown in the diagram above).
------------------------------
The sliding X page where Jake gathered all the photos - A good link to use as a signature in all posts in either thread of these threads.
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Mar 12, 2006, 12:26 AM
Post #597 of 915
(112918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
rest day, and i just read 40 pages. a few questions and comments if anyone is hanging around:
1) it seems there is consistent confusion based on 'equalization' terminology. it would seem to me that when many people say they want an 'equalized anchor' they actually want a 'load-sharing' anchor, and are comfortable with the possibility that an anchor may not evenly distribute loads to all protection points.
various anchor systems are criticized for not being true 'equalizating' systems. but i would like to note that in fact, the 'load sharing' anchor designs are often simple solutions, and the fact that they distribute load unequally could actually be thought of as an advantage as long as the loads are distributed according to quality of each protection point. of course they won't work in all situations, but neither will anything else, right?
2)rgold, and others with similar equalization systems: i am uncomfortable with a single sling being the sole connection point at the bottom of your anchors. no redundancy, either for chopping or just (ultra rare) equipment failure?
is this choice based on something i don't know?
seeing complex multi-wrap load-sharing/equalization methods using short slings brings up another safety related question that i have never seen addressed: what happens when you load a sewn sling over the bartacks? this is an easy thing to happen with the multi-wrap systems like the bottom section of rgold's chopolette (and rarer but frequent enough to think about in other non anchor-related situations when you don't keep an eye on things).
3)regarding the excellent and repeated point that simplicity is a desirable trait in a system, and the worry that inexperiened or infrequent climbers would forget a complex system that otherwise was safer:
I would like to know the 'safest' option too. I climb every day and forgetting an intricate but otherwise excellent system is not as much a problem for me as it might be for some fellow who takes a climbing class and only hits the rock a few weeks later.
i appreciate the KISS logic, and probably would use a simple system if confronted with the classic cited darkness/weather epic. however, i dont think 'intricate' and 'complex' should exclude a system from the discussion.
--
many thanks to everyone for the best parts of this thread. i dont do internet climbing regularly, but i am delighted with this thread and the pre-recall alien thread and a few others. thoughtful, informed, amateurs-allowed discussions that develop into new information and real change fill a long-needed internet niche, in my humble opinion.
anthony
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 12, 2006, 3:32 AM
Post #598 of 915
(112950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Anthony,
Good on you for reading it all and good comments! As to this particular comment:
In reply to: I would like to know the 'safest' option too
------------------------------
The sliding X page where Jake gathered all the photos - A good link to use as a signature in all posts in either thread of these threads. PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE THREAD BEFORE POSTING...
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 12, 2006, 7:04 AM
Post #599 of 915
(112950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
JL- please reconsider your train of thought-
In reply to: In reply to: I want to point out that the cordolette, like it or not, is the gold standard right now. We all have used it and most of us have lived. So JL got lucky and made a suggestion a long time ago that turned out to be great without the research to back it up. Well 15 years of solid use has proved that the cordolette works 99.99% of the time if not more. So the cordolette has been tested, much more than the new system by millions of uses. Actually this is not correct, at least by my way of thinking. The cordelette has worked 99.99999 percent of the time simply because it didn't need to actually work, meaning that 99.99999 percent of climbers never took a factor 2 fall on a belay rigged with a cordelette. And even if they had, given "good enough" primary anchors, the anchor would likely hold no matter how you rigged it. The point of the testing and of this discussion is to try and discover the limitations of the systems we use and to try and improve on them in managable ways. That much said, the foundation of all belay anchors resides in the primary placements themselves, not so much on how you rig them. With good primary placements and sane rigging you have a chance to survive the worst case scenario fall--one that few cordelettes have ever sustained. The fact that few cordelettes have ever sustained such a fall is not owng to the cordelette, rather to folks who know how to avoid climbing in a way in which a fall directly onto the anchor is ever possible. Prevention always remains the best medicine. JL
I totally agree with your statements about prevention and climber error but since you are researching anchor methods I will focus on that.
A death prevented is a death prevented no matter if it was a factor 2 fall or just sitting back into the anchor and having it hold. Once you weight the anchor you are using it. Either it fails at first weight or it holds up to its point of destruction, that is true for any anchor. It does not matter if the anchor held a worst case fall... it only matters that the anchor did not fail in any way at all for 99.9999% of people.
We should never fix or replace a system with a 99.999% success rate without looking at why it works so well first. It does not matter if the cordolette might fail in a factor 2 fall, that does not change the 99.999% success rate. What if your new ideas have a 99.995% sucess rate overall? Yes they are not failing in factor 2 falls but the new methods lead to new mistakes you did not predict. No matter how you look at it that makes them worse anchors. Climbers lives are lost but at least the anchor is "stonger"- who cares at that point?!?!
Or I could be totally wrong- Maybe the new ideas will be 1000 times better/easier/faster but WHY would you ASSUME that without looking into it and crunching those numbers just as you did for the drop tests?
I am all for new testing and new methods that look promising. I just want to make sure that if we start this process as a community that we include follow up- if we want to claim that we studied the issue then we REALLY need to study it. An overall safety rating of 99.999% is EXCELLENT and one that you should be proud of for introducing the cordolette. BUT I think we need to pause before you state flat out (in a book that will be regarded by many as FACT) that a new rig is better based mainly on lab results. If the end goal is climber safety you need to look at climber safety not just the strength of the new rig. I applaud you for enlisting guides to try this in the field and doing your best with limited resources to come up with improvements. I am just a lone voice trying to push for some follow through. And I want to help if I can.
At this point all you can claim in your book is that a new rig is proven to be stronger in drop tests, you dont know that it improves climber safety yet. That will take time to prove in the long run.
Since I cannot get anyone on this site to believe me has been very frustrating but I ask that you PLEASE talk to a non climber, unbiased statistician about the end result of climber safety vs anchor strength, it will open your eyes I think. You have a lot of sway in this community and with that comes a ton of responsibility, probably only you can organize this sort of project and you are doing an excellent job of it so far, just take the next step.
I know this is a hard task and one that many would argue is impossible to research but why not try? You are the authority here not us. Thanks for all of your efforts.
-pip
(For those of you that thought all I did was pollute this thread I will bow to you or wait for your apology 10 years from now when someone does the study to find out if anchor failures go up or down over time based on old vs new methods. Until then I am just pointing out how science works in other fields. I am happy we are having this discussion and I hope that we only see safety rise.)
|
|
|
|
|
bhilden
Mar 12, 2006, 7:52 AM
Post #600 of 915
(112968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 50
|
After 40 pages of a lot of seemingly pointless pontification I think John Long gave us the best executive summary when he said the most important aspect of any anchor is getting good gear placements. If you have good gear, it just doesn't matter how you rig your belay.
Thanks John,
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
