|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Mar 12, 2006, 6:28 PM
Post #601 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Hi, pipsqueekspire, et al:
I'm signing off on this and other threads per anchor rigging because we seem to be circling the wagons. But let me say this one last time--it seems to be a point that some people just aren't getting.
You apparently have an idea fixe with the cordelette. At a given belay anchor, just because you use a cordelette doesn't mean the cordelette was actually tested, or that it saved a person's life. A climber's life has to be threatened for a system to actually "save" said life. And simply hanging off a cordelette should not be life threatening.
Imagine if you were to wear a burlap bag as a raincoat, and fifty days later if you were still dry, you went on to insist that the burlap bag was a very fine raincoat and that there was no need to replace it with a Gortex article. But what if it never actually rained during those fifty days? If so, the burlap "raincoat" never had to actually function as a raincoat, making the appraisal ridiculous.
Professor Richard Goldstone was the first one (to my knowledge) who stated that quite possible the reason why so few rigging systems fail is that so few ever withstand a grim fall. Our tests were to determine what happened when the systems DID sustain a hard fall. Those tests gave us vital information -- use it if you will; ignore it at your own risk.
That much said, I still maintain that the foundation of all good enough anchors is the quality of the primary palcements. The rigging can at best only exploint the holding power of those primary placements.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 12, 2006, 6:45 PM
Post #602 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
About the gordolette and which strands are clove hitched to the biners ...
Can someone confirm for me that this is a wrong way to hitch the biners? Edit: Not explicitly "wrong" but not optimal with respect to avoiding extension.
http://www.cs.unm.edu/...l/rc/gordo_wrong.jpg
... and that this is the "right" way to do it?
http://www.cs.unm.edu/...l/rc/gordo_right.jpg
I think the photos are courtesy of gordo and cracklover but I could be wrong. Edit: Nope, not cracklover's.
The point is that the the inside hitches of the 2 biners go to the 2 inner strands so as to cause those 2 inner strands to cross down by the power point. I find that if I do it the first way (no crossing by the power point) I do get a wide range of equalization but a two piece failure ends in huge extension. Not so with the latter configuration.
I've read through the whole 40 pages at least once but could have missed someone already making this point. Apologies if I'm repeating the point but I'd really like to get the gordolette settled in my mind.
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 12, 2006, 6:49 PM
Post #603 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: If you have good gear, it just doesn't matter how you rig your belay.
In reply to: That much said, I still maintain that the foundation of all good enough anchors is the quality of the primary palcements. The rigging can at best only exploint the holding power of those primary placements.
These statements are in no way equivalent and the testing by John's crew has explicitly shown that. Adopt such a stance at your peril
Pip, yet again, "safety" is a desirable outcome at any given anchor on any given day, it is not a testable method and it will never be. Just the suggestion that it can be tested and "the answer" provided is wholly counterproductive because an infinite number of circumstances can be different every time some one arrives at a belay. It would only serve to fool people into believing their options were limited and that one solution fit all anchors and circumstances. If anything, the value of this discourse has been to show exactly the opposite.
John, thanks for re-opening everyone's mindes to the possibilities...
------------------------------
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.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 12, 2006, 7:02 PM
Post #604 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Pipsqueek, you seem to forget that we were using anchor systems for decades that had a 99.999% success rate. The untested cordelette came along (originally developed for bolted anchors only), was jumped on as the latest trad fad, and the anchor failure rate increased *in the real world* over the course of a decade. Now lab testing has shown why the real world experience shouldn't be surprising. Your argument to keep using a system that is known to fail catastrophically in the real world and in the lab makes no sense.
Afterall, most climbers with over a decade of experience never jumped on the bandwagon. The ones shouting about the superiority of the cordadeath for trad are the newbies who read it in a book or learned it from another newbie.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 12, 2006, 7:39 PM
Post #605 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
I find both sides encouraging: a) a reluctance to willy-nilly change from what has apparently worked in the past and b) a willingness to consider the possibilities - traits apparent in both the old-timers and the newbies.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 12, 2006, 7:51 PM
Post #606 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Here Roy and I agree. The cordalette came along way after many of us started climbing and not many of us adopted it for general use; I never did.
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Mar 12, 2006, 8:27 PM
Post #607 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
I admit that although there was a bit of a low spell in terms of content a few pages back, i believe that pip has a good point. in fact, i believe that pip is really reiterating a point many respected others in this thread have made, but perhaps with more closely related analogies.
In reply to: Imagine if you were to wear a burlap bag as a raincoat, and fifty days later if you were still dry, you went on to insist that the burlap bag was a very fine raincoat and that there was no need to replace it with a Gortex article. But what if it never actually rained during those fifty days? If so, the burlap "raincoat" never had to actually function as a raincoat, making the appraisal ridiculous.
this is true of course. VL, and others, are well to note that it is vitally important to keep an eye on the practical/true capabilities of a system. ie: how it actually tests out when subjected to the circumstances it was designed for.
however, i could add to VL's analogy. let's say you wear that burlap raincoat in saharan africa for a few months. you figure your raincoat works fine (an incorrect assumption). meanwhile, avid adventure traveler newbies flock to the desert wearing goretex shells, and several suffer from heat related injuries.
Pip is also looking at the practical side of things, but on a higher level. he is not, in my humble opinion, pointing fingers or making unfair or irrational claims. he is just saying that there is another level of practical testing above and beyond the drop testing. i think his drug analogy works quite well here, and encourage skeptical readers to revisit it with an open mind if they are upset with him.
In reply to: Pipsqueek, you seem to forget that we were using anchor systems for decades that had a 99.999% success rate. The untested cordelette came along (originally developed for bolted anchors only), was jumped on as the latest trad fad, and the anchor failure rate increased *in the real world* over the course of a decade.
now, this is news to me. i dont get out much, but i did not realize we had any sort of stats already compiled. i thoguht that was just what pip was calling for. if we know that cordalette-based anchors have a higher real world failure rate (meta-practical testing, if you will, as compared to practical testing like drop tests), then the study that pip is calling for is effectively done.
regards,
anthony
|
|
|
|
|
bhilden
Mar 12, 2006, 8:33 PM
Post #608 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: In reply to: If you have good gear, it just doesn't matter how you rig your belay. In reply to: That much said, I still maintain that the foundation of all good enough anchors is the quality of the primary palcements. The rigging can at best only exploint the holding power of those primary placements. These statements are in no way equivalent and the testing by John's crew has explicitly shown that. Adopt such a stance at your peril Pip, yet again, "safety" is a desirable outcome at any given anchor on any given day, it is not a testable method and it will never be. Just the suggestion that it can be tested and "the answer" provided is wholly counterproductive because an infinite number of circumstances can be different every time some one arrives at a belay. It would only serve to fool people into believing their options were limited and that one solution fit all anchors and circumstances. If anything, the value of this discourse has been to show exactly the opposite. John, thanks for re-opening everyone's mindes to the possibilities... ------------------------------ 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.
You can pontificate about what you all feel is a good anchor setup (some of the suggestions are so complex it is almost laughable) but, it still boils down to getting good gear. If you all are so concerned about equalizing the load on gear how about when you are on lead and only place one piece. Certainly you are trusting that piece to hold in case of a fall. Should we all debate about how to correctly setup an equalized anchor at the crux of a climb so it won't fail!?!?
Climbing gear is designed to hold a lot of weight. If not, what the heck are we doing using it?
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 12, 2006, 8:53 PM
Post #609 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Bruce,
We agree that good placements are requisite for a good anchor. But it's a matter of getting the best possible utilization out of your placements whether they are good or marginal. Every anchor should be rigged for the worst case scenario and while you can get away with not doing so you have to just hope you're never going to be that unlucky bastard that doesn't. Claiming that what is rigged on those placements doesn't really matter is what John's testing just put to rest.
------------------------------
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.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 12, 2006, 8:59 PM
Post #610 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: About the gordolette and which strands are clove hitched to the biners ...
Bill,
Neither of these are my photos, but I do have a comment: I think the way the biners are attached in the *second* pic is incorrect. Unless I'm missing something, this setup fixes, through the carabiners, the strands that are trying to move in opposite directions from each other. Because they're fixed to each other, this configuration allows very little self-equalization.
Yes, I see what you mean about it giving less extension when two pieces blow, but I'd rather have the better equalization.
To be perfectly frank, though, I don't think I'll use the gordolette. Nothing wrong with it, per se. But I'm happy to start playing with the modulette, the equalette, the limited crossed slings, and the mooselette, for my uses. I think the gordolette is a nice inventive solution, but, along with a few of the other solutions in this thread, I doubt I'll use it. Just personal preference - everyone should decide what works best for them.
I think it's kind of cool to be in the middle of this rennaissance of anchor-building, and I hope it'll continue past this thread. With luck, over the next few years, people will be playing with these ideas, trading them with their partners on the rock, improvising on the themes and coming up with new ones. Hopefully in a few years, these half a dozen new anchor systems will have grown to several dozen, and then in the following twenty years the best few of that bunch will be adopted by most climbers and guides.
Like I said - cool times. I look forward to watching them unfold.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
bhilden
Mar 12, 2006, 9:22 PM
Post #611 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: In reply to: If you have good gear, it just doesn't matter how you rig your belay. In reply to: That much said, I still maintain that the foundation of all good enough anchors is the quality of the primary palcements. The rigging can at best only exploint the holding power of those primary placements. These statements are in no way equivalent and the testing by John's crew has explicitly shown that. Adopt such a stance at your peril Pip, yet again, "safety" is a desirable outcome at any given anchor on any given day, it is not a testable method and it will never be. Just the suggestion that it can be tested and "the answer" provided is wholly counterproductive because an infinite number of circumstances can be different every time some one arrives at a belay. It would only serve to fool people into believing their options were limited and that one solution fit all anchors and circumstances. If anything, the value of this discourse has been to show exactly the opposite. John, thanks for re-opening everyone's mindes to the possibilities... ------------------------------ 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.
You can pontificate all you want but, it still boils down to getting good gear. I use slings or a cordellete at a belay for redundancy not for equalization. Climbing gear is designed to hold the loads generated in climbing. How about when you are lead climbing and you have one piece in at the crux. Are we going to have to suffer through 40+ pages on how to set up equalized gear at the crux of a climb!?!?
In some respects I think this thread has some very negative side effects. I would hate to see people needlessly building complex climbing anchors because of the fear generated by this thread, especially if I am climbing behind them! You gotta know what you are doing. Rigging something with 200 feet of webbing and 20 locking carabiners is no substitute for placing good gear.
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
bhilden
Mar 12, 2006, 9:34 PM
Post #612 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: Bruce, We agree that good placements are requisite for a good anchor. But it's a matter of getting the best possible utilization out of your placements whether they are good or marginal. Every anchor should be rigged for the worst case scenario and while you can get away with not doing so you have to just hope you're never going to be that unlucky bastard that doesn't. Claiming that what is rigged on those placements doesn't really matter is what John's testing just put to rest. ------------------------------ 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.
I was being a bit flippant when I said it didn't matter about how it was rigged. What I meant to say it that whether you "properly" use a cordellete or try to equalize every placement it really doesn't matter. Climbing gear is designed, if properly placed, to hold the falls generated in climbing. One. well-placed piece should be sufficient for any anchor. I use multiple pieces in an anchor for redundancy, not for equalization.
I think this is one reason that the coredlette has been sufficient (not necessarily ideal) over the years. If all the weight of a fall comes on one piece and it is good, then there is no problem.
I think there is a negative aspect to this thread. Yes, there are situations when you cannot get good gear but, for the overwhelming majority of climbers, those situations are very, very rare. I don't want people to be overly concerned and end up spending needless time constructing an unnecessarily complex anchor. This is especially important if I am climbing behind them.
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Mar 12, 2006, 9:44 PM
Post #613 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
In reply to: I use multiple pieces in an anchor for redundancy, not for equalization. I think this is one reason that the coredlette has been sufficient (not necessarily ideal) over the years. If all the weight of a fall comes on one piece and it is good, then there is no problem.
i agree here, for the most part. assuming good gear, which makes up the large majority of my anchors, i remain happy with the cordallette as a very fast way to make an anchor without building the rope into the system.
however, the demonstrated inferiority of the cordalette at load-sharing/equalization means that it is that much more important that a strong cord is used. i see so many folks with 5 and 6mm nylon these days. hopefully the 7mm i use is strong enoguh..
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Mar 12, 2006, 10:05 PM
Post #614 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
In reply to: 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
the benefits of using 2 biners, each on a single strand in the middle leg between the 2 knots inbstead of a biner in a sliding x configuration are : redundancy and better sliding.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 12, 2006, 10:17 PM
Post #615 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: In reply to: About the gordolette and which strands are clove hitched to the biners ... Bill, Neither of these are my photos,
In reply to: but I do have a comment: I think the way the biners are attached in the *second* pic is incorrect. Unless I'm missing something, this setup fixes, through the carabiners, the strands that are trying to move in opposite directions from each other. Because they're fixed to each other, this configuration allows very little self-equalization.
In reply to: .... To be perfectly frank, though, I don't think I'll use the gordolette. Nothing wrong with it, per se. But I'm happy to start playing with the modulette, the equalette, the limited crossed slings, and the mooselette, for my uses. I think the gordolette is a nice inventive solution, but, along with a few of the other solutions in this thread, I doubt I'll use it. Just personal preference - everyone should decide what works best for them.
In reply to: I think it's kind of cool to be in the middle of this rennaissance of anchor-building, and I hope it'll continue past this thread. With luck, over the next few years, people will be playing with these ideas, trading them with their partners on the rock, improvising on the themes and coming up with new ones. Hopefully in a few years, these half a dozen new anchor systems will have grown to several dozen, and then in the following twenty years the best few of that bunch will be adopted by most climbers and guides.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Mar 12, 2006, 10:37 PM
Post #616 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
Although the new system proposed by J. Long is way superior to the cordalette (which I never adopted), I have not seen adressed the concerns I have expressed earlier:
1. The new system relies on single strand 7mm nylon (breaking strength =~ 1000 kg).
2. it is optimized for 2 or 4 protection, it will result in asymetrical loading for 3 protection (25%, 25%, 50% neglecting angle mutiplication).
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 13, 2006, 12:45 AM
Post #617 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Although the new system proposed by J. Long is way superior to the cordalette (which I never adopted), I have not seen adressed the concerns I have expressed earlier: 1. The new system relies on single strand 7mm nylon (breaking strength =~ 1000 kg). 2. it is optimized for 2 or 4 protection, it will result in asymetrical loading for 3 protection (25%, 25%, 50% neglecting angle mutiplication).
My take would be on a three point anchor to put the double on the best piece and call it good...
|
|
|
|
|
winkwinklambonini
Mar 13, 2006, 12:49 AM
Post #618 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 1579
|
In reply to: Pipsqueek, you seem to forget that we were using anchor systems for decades that had a 99.999% success rate. The untested cordelette came along (originally developed for bolted anchors only), was jumped on as the latest trad fad, and the anchor failure rate increased *in the real world* over the course of a decade. Now lab testing has shown why the real world experience shouldn't be surprising. Your argument to keep using a system that is known to fail catastrophically in the real world and in the lab makes no sense. Afterall, most climbers with over a decade of experience never jumped on the bandwagon. The ones shouting about the superiority of the cordadeath for trad are the newbies who read it in a book or learned it from another newbie.
Well, I was taught to use a cordellette from a 56 year old 5.11 climber who climbed w/ Royal Robins back in the day. I suppose he was just one of those newbies (like JL?) who saw a new simple anchor technique and ADAPTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just like you are asking cord. users to do now......This feels like the Carb/Protien battles. Are you being paid by the Sliding X Trade Association?
I learned something from JL's first post on this thread, and some of the ideas for anchors, and I will consider these when building anchors from now on. I will not stick a nut tool in my eye and lose control of my bowels if I get belayed on a Cordellette.
Jesus F Christ
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Mar 13, 2006, 2:34 AM
Post #619 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
I know that this is my third post on the same anchor, but here's a full pictorial of my final, refined version of the gordolette.
As I pointed out earlier, the basis of it is a cordolette that has been split into three independent loops using short sections of cord:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528037-M.jpg
The friction knot I eventually settled on was the classic prusik knot, which when wrapped over full-diameter rope, at least, has a slipping strength of around 2000 lbf, or 9 kN. Without testing, I'm not sure if it would be the same wrapped around tech cord, but it seems to catch with no problems.
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528050-M.jpg
So, turning it into an anchor...
1. Clip each of the three loops
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528040-M.jpg
2. Pull down the inside of each leg above the limiting cord, to form the classic double sliding x.
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528041-M.jpg
3. Clip your main locking biner into place and pull tight. If necessary, move the limiting cords so they're out of the way, and slack at the desired mid-point of the equalisation range.
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528042-M.jpg
Anchor Dynamics
Left extreme:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528043-M.jpg
Right extreme:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528044-M.jpg
Left leg failure:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528045-M.jpg
Middle leg failure:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528046-M.jpg
Right leg failure:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528047-M.jpg
Near-death experience (double failure):
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59528048-M.jpg
Since each piece is clipped inside its own independent loop (see the picture under point 2 to prove this to yourself), failure of any combination of pieces leads to extension only to the limits of the remaining loop(s). Despite what fingertrouble claims, there is no catastrophic extension of the gordolette in the case of a failure of the middle or any (two) pieces.
It's actually pretty difficult to stuff this up. The half-twist in the outer legs as pictured under point 2 is the most natural way to pull it, but it actually doesn't appear to matter whether you put this in or not - you're still clipping into an independent closed loop. If you pull the outer, rather than the inner legs in to the middle, you end up with a static, unidirectional anchor which looks obviously wrong - the limiting cords essentially remain in their position from point 1 and are load-bearing. This configuration behaves more or less like a standard cordolette - poorly equalised, but still fully redundant (no extension on gear failure).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Mar 13, 2006, 12:03 PM
Post #621 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
I have tried to setup the equalizer portion of the setup of Rogold which splits the load-distribution from the "reach" necessary to attach the pro to the anchor. It is in fact a pulley system wich aims to improve the adjustability by diminishing the friction.
Gear needed : 3 rap rings and 1x 120 cm sling
It is best to dedicate a biner to the powerpoint as it makes it less easy to loose the rap rings.
Advantage: can be broken down into its components and used (for retreat for example), does not require dedicatdd gear (although works like the alpine equalizer from trango)works equally well for 2,3 or 4 pro, can be increased by adding a biner to supplement the rap rings
Using a 60 cm sling is possible for 3 legs, but dubiou sfor 4. the rings I used are not real rap rings
http://img227.imageshack.us/...7/638/pulley10pv.jpg
http://img301.imageshack.us/.../7210/pulley23ei.jpg
http://img301.imageshack.us/.../2310/pulley34lp.jpg
http://img301.imageshack.us/.../9939/pulley42zv.jpg
Bad news: it works, sort of.
Limiter knots do not work !! but a proper length of slings (90cm ??) would do marvels.
but it is possible to add 2 loops on the outer arms to which one can connect a cross linking biner as in a gordolette
The rings I have used are way too small and the friction, although better than using directly the biner, is awful.
this pulley system can be used in conjunctiuon with rgold or dmm setups
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Mar 13, 2006, 12:46 PM
Post #622 of 915
(117011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
I was so sad to see the 4 strands of the chopolette tha I decided to tie them back:
gear needed:1 piece of cord (6 m * 7 mm chopped in 4 pieces), 1piece of cord (50cm *7mm), 2 rap rings,
Using fig-8, I tie 2 strands with a loop which contains a rap ring
tien the 2 others pieces I have now 2* 2 arms with each a sliding rap ring
throuugh which goes another loop of corde and 2 bienrs (to avoid the X of the sliding X)
http://img93.imageshack.us/.../5208/spider48mr.jpg
but of course, there was no need to chop. I could use more additionnal cord (I have the choice tyoi put the rap ring either on the orginal cord or on the short bit, hereI choose the short bit for clarity)
http://img79.imageshack.us/.../7073/spider27dk.jpg
in case of failure
http://img79.imageshack.us/.../7371/spider36pq.jpg
Was it in fact necessary to cut the cordelette at all ???
In fact no !!
this is the simple version of the spider, which combines a normal cordelette, 3 pieces of cord and 2 rap rings using 4 fig-8 and 1 double fisherman
http://img227.imageshack.us/.../9786/spider10ex.jpg
(there is a even more interesting setup where you actually use the additionnal cordelette to connect the adjacent strand instead of the same strand 10 cm further, I am currently exploring its property)
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Mar 13, 2006, 3:26 PM
Post #623 of 915
(117065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
[quote="billl7"]In reply to: In reply to: About the gordollette... In reply to: but I do have a comment: I think the way the biners are attached in the *second* pic is incorrect. Unless I'm missing something, this setup fixes, through the carabiners, the strands that are trying to move in opposite directions from each other. Because they're fixed to each other, this configuration allows very little self-equalization. Right. All you get for equalization is the amount afforded by the teeter-totter of the biners...
Hey Bill and Gabe- Before you write off the gordolette. Try setting the gordolette up with 2 quickdraws instead of two biners. It's remarkably faster and easier, ( not so fussy about biner placement) and allows more movement in the power point even if it's set up wrong. I'm totally digging it for horizontals.
In reply to: ... no doubt, there are add-ons for the mooselette that make this a non-issue.
Yup. In a virtical crack just clove hitch the 2 biners to the outermost strands. It works great! Now it's redundant and limits extension if the long upper strand blows. This doesn't work as well with horizontals- I'd use one of the rigs that has less inward force on the pieces.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Mar 13, 2006, 11:27 PM
Post #624 of 915
(117065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
For those who are jumpy about the equalette with regards to equalisation between four pieces, two extra biners and a sling will get you this:
http://blondgecko.smugmug.com/photos/59773928-M.jpg
Each strand retains the key feature of the equalette - near-perfect equalisation of the pieces on each end, within the range of motion dictated by the keeper loops. In this version, however, Pretty Good (TM) equalisation is achieved between the two strands via the use of the good old sliding X.
Edit: hmmm.... seems this is more or less equivalent to papounet's idea on the previous page.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Mar 14, 2006, 3:51 AM
Post #625 of 915
(117064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: About the gordollette... but I do have a comment: I think the way the biners are attached in the *second* pic is incorrect. Unless I'm missing something, this setup fixes, through the carabiners, the strands that are trying to move in opposite directions from each other. Because they're fixed to each other, this configuration allows very little self-equalization. Right. All you get for equalization is the amount afforded by the teeter-totter of the biners... Hey Bill and Gabe- Before you write off the gordolette. Try setting the gordolette up with 2 quickdraws instead of two biners. It's remarkably faster and easier, ( not so fussy about biner placement) and allows more movement in the power point even if it's set up wrong. I'm totally digging it for horizontals.
In reply to: In reply to: ... no doubt, there are add-ons for the mooselette that make this a non-issue. Yup. In a vertial crack just clove hitch the 2 biners to the outermost strands. It works great! Now it's redundant and limits extension if the long upper strand blows. This doesn't work as well with horizontals- I'd use the quickdraw-gordolette instead (faster/easier/less inward force on pieces)
Bill L.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
