I've been away from this thread for 20 or more pages, but omg! A glance at a few of the photos left me shaking my head. Surely you good folks see that adding in this sort of complexity dramatically increases the opportunity for error, perhaps catastrophic error?

Dingus, perhaps all these ideas are best left for experienced climbers.

Simpler options such as a combination of slings would probably be best for them (two pieces equalized with 3rd piece as back up is sufficient for most climbs they'll be on).

It's like when the old figure8 vs. double bowline or other tie in knot discussion comes up (again and again :wink: ).

But also multipitch trad lead climbing is not KISS.

If someone can learn all that's involved in safely leading trad, they should be able to learn to rig an anchor correctly in a variety of ways.

I highly value your opinion so please take a look at this one (instructions on page 50). Try it in a variety of placements.

http://img206.imageshack.us/...6/9585/3piece4mi.jpg

Man, I don't agree with that sentiment at all.

You just led p12, set your belay and brought your partner up. She leads on through, but its clear she's fried. Its getting late and in fact gets dark as she finishes her lead, the last of the climb. She's really tired, told you numerous times. Now she's up there rigging a belay in the dark.

In that situation do you believe your safety will be better served by a perfectly equalized, non-extending anchor system or by a KISS anchor?

I think you've forgotten what it's like to learn. Placing and judging, nuts, cams, hexes, fixed gear, calculating what will happen if you fall. Setting anchors, self-rescue. There's a reason why there are many books, and courses on the subject. And tons of questions posted here all the time.

If she was used to my new anchor I'd prefer it. Once you are used to it, it is probably faster and safer than the alternatives. Then we'd have time for a quicky on the top.

glowering you are correct that I was objecting to your most recently posted photo. I don't understand why you'd post Yet Another Anchor Design That Doesn't Equalize (TM) when your Astro-Glide (a somewhat moving target you must admit) is superior.

After glowering's recent posts suggesting universal limiter knot recipes

(the sides of glowering's Astro-Glide design will stretch much more than the lengths to the center placement, for example). The amount of extension allowed at the master point must be greater than allowed at any placement, lest the load come on a master limiter knot prematurely (in the event of a placement failure) and leave an otherwise good placement unloaded. If it were possible, as you suggest, to pre-tie the master point limiting configuration, why not just use a Spectra/Dyneema runner and be done with it? That was part of rgold's proposals.

Your sloppy sliding-X is no solution at all; IMHO it's dangerous. The master biner mightn't be stopped by a limiter knot. Depending on the amount of slop in the longer strand, the limiter knot could pull through the master biner and drag a carabiner with it. Worse, it might drag part way through. Don't "try it;" you could get unlucky.

This to solve a problem that seems not to exit. You might object that the troublette configuration is "not redundant" and ignore John Long's assurance that strands in anchors never break, but at the same time you don't want to be bothered with redundant master carabiners (or rope?). Seems inconsistent, but anyhow the troublette can be made backed-up by adding a carabiner or runner between the master carabiner and the otherwise unused strand, or even clipping another unloaded carabiner to the rope.

You seem to be the only one who thinks redundancy is not needed in an anchor. Say you drop your gear behind your car after a long day and someone's car had dropped battery acid there, say there's a manufacturing defect or spectra degraded from many bend cycles, say rubbing on a rock edge or something in your gear bag cut or that one-strand you are trusting your life on. The master biner is metal, it's not subject to corrosive agents, cutting, or age related issues like slings.

As far as your anchor proposal goes, there are several objections; here are a few:
1) In the 3-placement version, it's Yet Another Anchor Design That Doesn't Equalize (TM); it's a 25%-50%-25% design if I understand your photo

2) It's limited to certail placement locations because of the way it uses runners.

3) It uses knots in Spectra/Dyneema webbing--that's a no-no.

4) Your master point structure amounts to a cumbersome equalette and suffers the same central problem as a knot-limited equalette (or sliding-X): unequal loading unless the supporting strands are exactly equal.

5) You should be skiing on tele gear, or at least AT.

Here's a diagram of why I think the AstroGlide is 33/33/33.

It's an approximation, it's really 33+1/3%, neglects friction, etc. but it should give the general idea.

http://img70.imageshack.us/...33/3piecediag6xk.jpg

Charles,

So could you talk a bit more on why the four overhands? I guess if I were going the clipped overhand route I'd just go with a single pair of overhands and maybe even just clip through them versus around. I agree the inline-8 is bulky, though I need to try it on 5.5mm., but it probably it the "proper" knot for the job.

As for equalization and extension we've already discussed our differing predilictions there and that I just think mhabicht's top-cloving / bottom equalizing is way superior for the extension control on each individual point it provides. It's also just as fast and the biners don't really need to be lockers.

This is where I'm unfortunately over my head, and now I'm drilled the other way. Are you guys sure it isn't still 25/50/25 - looks that same and I don't get how the knot changes that...

I guess I'll reduce what was in the post to thanks for explaining that the pulley equalizes the three strands within a side.