Not sure what you're asking here--but testing shows that ANY and all anchoring systems with a fixed masterpoint are not equalized or even redundant (in the strict sense of the term) unless the arms are perfectly equal length--meaning the only way a cordelette is viable is in connecting two side by side placements--like bolts found atop a sport climb. And since the "Quad" tested out much better at this task, that's the way to go.

If you look at the two systems beyond the equalette that show promise -- the Gordolette and the Moosealette -- both have a sliding masterpoint. You have to have that for off axis loading and for the system to dynamically adjust--or so it seems thus far.

The equalette will never perfectly equalize 3 or 4 pieces, but both arms will be almost perfectly equalized in both horizontal and vertical orientations, and the two strands of both arms will share in acceptable load distribution if said strands are connected to primary placements. This system will also adjust (the masterpoint biners will slide) to some off axis loading without the arms/strands going lax--if you have it set up correctly.

As somebody said earlier, no one system is the end all be all for all situations. It just turns out that the cordelette--which I heavily promoted from the outset--did not remotely test out as advertised, and so can no longer be considered a general rigging strategy. In fact for anything but two side by side placements, the term "static equalization" is a meaningless term. And even with two side by side bolts, for instance, a tiny bit of akimbo loading on the fixed masterpoint and you're on one placement.

...

JL

I can't believe that fingertrouble is being made to do so much heavy lifting in the equalette anchor analysis. I'll come out of lurk mode long enough to help the poor guy out, but someone like rgold who has established a rep for knowing physics should really step in...

In my book (sorry to mention it, but...) ...This is what's shown in the first and second parts of the illustration on page 152 of my book... If you believe what I've written in my book... The first time I've seen it published...is in my book... etc...

Hugepedro
Couldn't you use 3 sliding X's in thats place like pictured on page 9?
Looks to be close to the same thing, either way is pretty simple.
The same would go for the 3 sliding X's on a 3 arm anchor, middle leg would get 50%. If one felt the need for 4 pieces I would be inclined to use this if the situation warranted it.

The tests were to determine, once and for all, which system was better at load sharing when sustaining a dynamic fall (Factor 1 for our testing)--the Cordelette, or the Sliding X. Both rigging systems were tested when rigged to vertical and horizontally oriented anchor points. In the vertical configuration--as you find in a crack--the rigging systems have unequal sized legs; in the horizontal configured anchor (as found, for instance, with bolts placed side to side on top of a sport climb), the legs are as close to equal as they could be tied.

Moreover, each set up was tested with several diameters of high tensile strength cord and webbing (Dyneema, Technora, Spectra, et al), as well as with old style nylon cord and webbing.
JL

What I'm saying here is that it was thought by some that the Sliding X (with limiter knots) was a poor choice because if one piece in the system failed the extension in the system would produce a "shock load" on the remaining piece(s). So far, testing says otherwise.

The business of what a true shock load is, and why, is a very long discussion.

JL

An interesting note is that while the sliding x is the clear winner so far as equalization goes, it still had a tendency to be erratic, owing to the x clutching or binding on itself. The solution was simple--use a wide mouthed, anodized biner at the master point, and the loading on 2 points was just about equal (less than 10% difference).

JL

These paragraphs concern the initial testing, done with the cordelette (in both equal and unequal arm length configurations) connecting only two primary anchor points.

How we all hate to change our ways . . . I kinda figured some folks would cling to the old per rigging strategies--but let me admit this much:

A dozen years ago, I promoted the cordelette across the board. Testing found that it didn't work as advertised--or even close to as advertised. Unless a cordelette has perfectly equal length arms, and is attached to TWO side by side placements (like bolts), it does not function remotely as well as other systems. You should not use the cordelette to connect 3 pieces in ANY configuration. In fact, if you are trying to rig up anything but two side by side pieces, there is no such thing as a "well made cordelette."
Can I make it any plainer? I have no vested interest in any rigging system save the one that actually works.

Why have more of these systems not failed in the past. Simple: very few belay anchors ever sustain a factor 2 fall, or anything close to it.

If you insist on using the cordelette (in any configuration beyond the 2 side by side placements)--have at it. No one's stopping you. But do so knowing that testing (by the most experienced drop-tester in the US, with the results worked up by two PhD. statisticians/climbers) says you are potentially at risk.

5. Another note: There is little if any evidence of a strand breaking in a rigging system in any real world fall. Providing your gear is in good condition, the concern that a strand might break is a theoretical, not a real world, concern. Anything can get cut--even the rope--but a strand does not simply break from a fall. Note how many cam tie in loops have actually broken in all the hundreds of thousands of falls on those units. Any? I've never heard of this happending if the cord is in good shape.

6. So far, the equalette and the quad are field testing the best (in both ice and rock climbing situations). Easy, solid, fast to set up and dismantle, no doodads, and no special gear.

Huh? The reason we are pushing the equalette is not because it is something we are hung up on but because in the actual drops tests it equalized remarkably well. And since extension of a few inches is not an issue, and because the equalette can sustain off axis loading, it's looking the best of the lot so far in terms of field testing. Believe me, I have no preference as to any rigging system save that it is simple, uses no extra gear and actually works as advertised.

This just in: The field testers just told me that that picture featuring the unweighted arms of the Equalette is not strictly accurate because the master point was not sufficiently weighted, or weighted at all. When the master point is weighted--as with a belayer's body weight--and off axis loading occurs, the master point slips toward the directional of pull and equalization--across all four placements--is maintained. This slipping master point is facilitated by using anodized pear biners, which glide fluidly even under great loading. Of course the master point will only slip so far before running into a limiter knot, but from what I'm being told, for this to realistically happen the rope would have to be clipped through a point of pro (the last piece before the belay) way off the plumb line (left or right), and the second would have to fall on that pro before reaching it. And that's a pretty rare scenario in which the loading would rarely if ever get very high as it's a second falling on a top rope, as opposed to a leader falling directly onto the belay--which is a super rare thing, thank God.

Thanks to Tom Cecil, Bob Gaines, Gordo and others who have put in the hours to field test this stuff. I think we're getting closer to a few basic systems (Sliding X with limiter knots and anodized biners; equalette, Gordoette; and the Quad for top roping and sport/bolt anchors) that will cover just about anythng the rock can throw at us. I also want to stress that the cordelette, when rigged with perfectly equal arms and lashed to two bomber placements, is still a viable rigging tool, even though it doesn't test out as well as the other systems. The cordelette is only clearly less effective when combining more than two placements and when the arms are of unequal lengths. That much said, I wouldn't expect every climber to give up the cordelette anytime soon. Many will continue with their same ways, not understanding that the cordelette was never actually proven to be effective in equalizing in the first place.

Your math is wrong. If each of the four segments uses 9" of cord, and one blows on each side, the master point will extend 4.5", not 18".

mhabicht,

Just wanted to say that the more I play with your rig (michalette?) the more I like it. I don't necessarily like the interplay of knot and biner but my cord is too short to tie an "in-line figure-8" which is what should be used. Good on you for thinking it up - this is one I might actually use if I wanted more active equalization than a straight equalette. Here is my shot of it:


papounet,

The principal problem I have with your variant of this design is you've removed the cloves which I think are actually the key element of mhabicht's design and one it shares with the equalette. It equalizes more than adequately with the cloves and suffers far less extension with them than without them. I think your use of rings is fine, but I think you downgrade the one of the best aspects of the design removing the cloves.

Wow. Both of these seem like elegant solutions.

http://i49.photobucket.com/...nalysisEQ-NECorr.jpg

I like the 2-loop figure eight of the bottom photo, but like the cloves of the top photo.

Isn't the point of placing gear in relation to anchors to ensure that they are BOMBER?? Sure, redundancy while being able to be multi-directional are great, but if you are building an anchor, assuming that you'd be belaying a second in a multi-pitch situation, wouldn't you build it to sustain a pull in the direction of your last placed piece of pro????!!!! Call me an idiot, but unless this is to be set up for toproping, I really don't see the signifigance of having a directionally equalizing anchor unless top roping.

I use cordeletts as well as weboletts, and I have nor do/will/forsee me having any issues with the current set ups. If I need to provide directional equalization while climbing, it's usually off of two pieces that are attached using an improved sliding X and I continue climbing. My anchors are ALWAYS built to hold irregardless of what way they are being pulled. Even thoug they are "static" and do not self equalize. I try to anticipate the direction of pull and set them up approperately.

http://i49.photobucket.com/...nalysisEQ-NECorr.jpg

Healyje,

I have amended my post to reflect your observation, thank you.

In terms of functionality what I have found is that, although Equalization and Extension components are isolated in mhabichts design, as you spread apart the pieces the amount of slack cord (which controls equalization & extension) is unavoidably reduced to accommodate the greater distance amongst pieces and therefore equalization is sacrificed. In this case, I believe the isolation of functions provides no substantial practical advantage to improve Equalization, knowing now that we can "relax a bit" regarding extension.

CharlesJMM

1. What is the distance between the 2 knots on the bottom?

2. Does that distance need to change each anchor or can it be set in advance and the adjustments be made with the clove hitches and slack?

3. Do you need to have the upper biners tied into the knots or can they be clipped below the knot and then into the slack?

Here's the quad bill7 asked for:

3. Do you need to have the upper biners tied into the knots or can they be clipped below the knot and then into the slack?

Overall I think this is an exceptionally insightful evolutionary leap on mhabicht's part in realizing nothing should be wasted...

...so this concern applies to some other 4-placement designs, too, but not to the most obvious one: a 4-placement anchor made with 3 2-placement equalettes.