Charles, there's one attribute of your latest design that I think hasn't yet been brought out fully. It could be said that it doesn't effectively manage extension, or that it fails in half.

For example, consider the structure on one side of the main master point. Say that pro placement options mean that one leg of the pair on that side ends up being 1 foot long and the other leg is 4 feet long. If the short leg's placement fails, that side will drop about 1 foot; if the long leg's placement fails it will drop 4 feet . . . but only if there is enough length between the limiter knots at the power point to allow it. If the power point carabiners come against a limiter knot, the side of the anchor with the failure might not be loaded and the 2 placements on the other side might take all the load, depending on the specifics of the anchor layout (a vertical crack being an obvious challenge).

This issue concerns the length of the 4 legs (to limit extension), constrains the location of the limiter knots, and potentially limits the universal applicability of the design. It also adds a bit of subtlety to the construction of any given anchor. Many of the proposals I've seen recently could allow substabntial extension that would impact the power point, 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.

...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.

Craig, by that do you literally mean three different overlapping equalettes to a shared/common master point?

...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.

Craig, by that do you literally mean three different overlapping equalettes to a shared/common master point?

...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.

Craig, by that do you literally mean three different overlapping equalettes to a shared/common master point?

Glowering- good try but I'm finding the limiter knots are messing up the works especially if you have erratic placements. I still prefer mhabicht's. (Equalizes better/ more redundant).

Charlesjmm:

http://i49.photobucket.com/...losjmm/MHExplExt.jpg

Lastly, I would consider this design a reliable and convenient alternative when the rock allows for compact grouping of placements : gear requirements are basic; rigging is simple; provides equalization and limited extension.

... I was wondering why no one else is clipping the "butt" of the fig 8 as seen in my profile. I think this is less stressful than clipping the inner shelf. Try it...you'll like it. I have been clipping the "butt" of figure 8s for a long time and I have not developed cancer or anything, is there something I am missing safety-wise about clipping the knot like that?

- if you rig the mhabichtlette quickly WITHOUT the cloves then add the cloves once you establish the direction of pull you must "steal" the extra slack for the clove on the load bearing side which will appropriately shorten the sliding side and leave the extension side a little limp.

-michael

The Quad

This TOTALLY SIMPLE rig is mean to stay pre-tied on a length of 5.5 tech cord and is a speciality item for two side by side bolts as commonly found atop sport climbs and top rope situations. It is almost instantaneous to rig, allows some off axis loading, is elephant strong and almost perfectly equalizes two placements (had the best test results of them all per equalizing two points).

Field testers (especially guides) have found it not only bomber but very handy and, as said, lightning fast to rig.

Since two side by side anchor points are so common, it's a very useful rig to have if you commonly encounter those set ups.

JL

glowering -
I like that rig above but I think if an inner leg blows then you end up with enough extension so that much of the load comes onto the figure eight knot and thus the only two legs feel load rather than remaining fairly eqaulized among the 3 other pieces left. I could be splitting hairs- I have to play with it.

i am lovin this thread - it has changed me. i will simply add at this point something i've read before and i'll use tradclimbingfool's quote: "I consider the risk from rockfall and/or random acts of gear failure to be about equal to the possibility of actually placing factor 2 type forces on the belay anchor. Both are extremely rare, but possible. "

ummmm, all you need to do for a factor two on the belay is climb 3' or any distance with out clipping any gear above the belay device and fall! i would put this in the "could easily happen" catogory.

also this from same poster: "My biggest concern is the reliance on single strands of cord going to each piece. "

that's all you have anyway! ie; cordelette rigged ( the old JL way) to three pieces and an 8 to finish at the power point you end up with three loops going to the gear but each loop is one pass over the biner (same as one strand)