Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008 - 12:40am PT
|
Will the green n00b suffer bewilderment from such an anchor book?
There are so many different dynamic methods that work for different situations but the n00bs tend to do the same anchor setups for every different type of scenario.
I remember once on a new route with mixed rock and ice Walt belayed me up with no anchor, there was none. The ice broke on me following his lead. He had a lot of slack when I fell. He was sliding to the edge as he held me.
What saved us?
Maybe I've been doing this sh'it too long.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008 - 02:49am PT
|
Largo, I like the equalette, and I favor it's continuing inclusion. What I think is essential in a book for newbies, is something that gets them THINKING about the principles of anchoring systems. You can throw up a hundred pictures, but you will never capture every scenario, as you know. I think it is most desirable for folks to seen alternatives, have some understanding of what they are about, and then play around to figure out what works well for them, for what they are doing.
We've all seen astonishingly bad things done on the rocks. In the "good old days" there were no clear and comprehensive guidebooks, vetted by many many experts interacting in this medium, then having the ability to field test the resulting techniques. Now, someone comes up with something, and it is world-wide in a week, and thousands of people can comment effectively. And the effort you've put into your books have really paid off, I think, and changed the thinking of many, many people in the direction of safer climbing.
Thanks!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008 - 03:14am PT
|
John, I use an equalette whenever I carry a seperate piece cord - it's just that in itself is an pretty infrequent occurence - most of the time I just use the rope and slings.
DR: "As a guide, the single biggest boost of the last 20 years was a simple device called a Gigi. It's a self-locking belay plate for belaying up the second, and it hangs right on the anchor. Hands-free belaying so I can eat, drink, take off a layer, re-sunscreen and be ready to power onward."
Not sure if this says more about guiding or this class of devices as a whole...
|
|
Bertrand
Trad climber
SF
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008 - 03:35am PT
|
I used to love the equalized cord, but now I only use it to sling something big (boulder, tree) or if for some reason I'm leading consecutive pitches. In replacement, I just use my end of the rope and equalize... you always have the perfect amount of line. when my partner finishes his next lead I can quickly break down two of the three points of the anchor and still be tied in to the third while waiting to climb.
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008 - 07:23am PT
|
I use web-o lets but and love them for situations when you are passing off that end of the lead line or really need to equalize a questionable anchor but to untie the figure 8 after jumar loads is both cumbersome time consuming. Much prefer a series of clove-hitches...always have.
PS Largo... if you do end up using (re-using?)the most "poached" anchor picture of all times, my shot of Dale on the Rurp belay, would you at least give me credit for it? (payments and back-payments are also acceptable!)
(-; Dave
|
|
Nick
climber
portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008 - 11:50am PT
|
I tried the cordellete when I got back into climbing, deemed it to much fiddling. Didn't like having to drag around a special piece of gear for anchors only. Last winter my daughter brought home the book with the "equalette" in it and I thought I would give it a try. Once again to big and specialized for me. But it got me to thinking. How about taking a double runner and tying a couple of overhands 9" apart to form an equalette, but modify it by taking a spare piece of webbing and running it trough the knots so that three strands make the loop at the bottom. This way you can clip in to two of the strands with a single locker and have room for someone else to clip in as well. It racks like a normal runner on your harness and can be used like a runner if necessary. To add more than two anchor points I use runners or draws to the anchor legs of the equalette. I used it all of this last season. Everyone I climbed with thought it worked pretty well and was easy to use. Just a thought.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008 - 12:55pm PT
|
John, I think the equalette or even one of the stranger variations (I think something called the ELETE) that showed up on the RC.com thread are things a climber ought to know about and be able to use when equalizing two pieces might be critical. But equalizing two modern bolts is not critical, and this seems to be the main application for the equalette.
Here's the real rub (forgive the shouting): NO ONE HAS FOUND A GOOD WAY TO EQUALIZE THREE-PIECE ANCHORS, which seem to be the de-facto standard for trad anchoring. Sliding systems, including the one I devised (the Geekqualizer) and Mal Daly was indulgent enough to make up for me, are in principle effective but in practice are defeated by internal friction. Systems incorporating an equalette or similar two-anchor equalizing device almost always distribute half the load to one of the anchors, and so do no better than tied cordalettes, according to the test data I've seen.
I think it is conceivable that something along the lines of Trango's Alpine Equalizer could be designed that would eliminate the friction problems, but that doesn't seem imminent; there's really no pressure or interest from the climbing community for such things, and there are more and more trad climbs getting bolted belay anchors, so that trad anchoring itself may be on its way to becoming an arcane art.
Personally, I have always tied in with the rope (with the exception of my experiments with the Geekqualizer) and see very little reason not to continue that practice. My tie-ins are essentially the same configuration as you get with a cordalette; I don't usually clove-hitch in series. If I take out beginners, I use cordalettes, which otherwise stay in my closet at home. I've never done climbs where I've wanted to lead in blocks.
This is not to say that the long-arm low-load problem has gone away. The case of three pieces in a vertical line is still the ultimate test of any anchoring system. And I continue to believe that a significant number of anchors constructed by climbers would not pass the ultimate test, which fortunately is very rarely applied. Most of what we call "experience" in this regard is merely the good luck not to have had your anchor maximally loaded.
I do think that there is something one could call "best practice," which ought to alleviate the worst effects of long arms in the three-anchor set-up without introducing any real complication. There are two ingredients: the first is that either a rope cordalette, or else the climbing rope itself set up cordalette-style, should be used to fabricate the anchor. The second is that low-stretch slings (dyneema, etc) be used, if necessary, on some of the anchor points so that the cordalette/rope anchor has more-or-less equal length arms. This is neither complicated nor time-consuming to arrange. For it to work, the significant elongation differences between anchor rope and low-stretch slings must be implemented, so using a dyneema or even nylon webbing cordalette won't work. I think that this should go a ways to eliminating the load inequities that are an inevitable consequence of very unequal anchor arms, and thereby provide you with the best anchor you can practically expect to get, although of course I have no test data to confirm or deny it.
John, one thing that worries me, and I have to apologize profusely for not catching it early on, is that Jim's tests on the effect of elongation in the anchor, the ones that lead to the conclusion that elongation doesn't matter, do not seem to me to be properly configured to test the real situation. There was too much energy-absorbing rope in the system, relative to the amount of elongation, leading to insignifcant changes in fall-factor and so a conclusion that might not be appropriate for real anchoring situations. In a real situation, it is the belayer's anchor strand that will have to absorb the belayer's fall (plus whatever load the belayer is holding at that instant). Minimally, the anchor strand will have to absorb a fall by the combined weights of leader and belayer. If that anchor strand is short, say a foot and a half, and if the elongation in the anchor is, say, six inches, then you still have a fall factor of 1/3 with something like 350 pounds, and there is no way this isn't going to load the anchor significantly. This means that the intelligent use of sliding systems ought to involve tying into them as long as possible, given the nature of the stance.
While we're talking about anchors, there are two other common issues I think are worth attention.
The first is the increasing tendency of people to use low-stretch sling material to attach themselves to their anchors. For a climber who is belaying the leader, this is a practice that cuts into the ultimate margin of safety, and so makes no sense because it is so easy to avoid by using the climbing rope.
The second is the question of whether or not the leader should clip one or more anchor pieces, at least until they get in a piece that protects the belay. When it comes to clipping the anchor, there is a "break-even" point after which the anchor will get a higher load (because of the pulley effect) than it would have if there was just a factor 2 fall onto the belayer. Few people seem to realize how close this break-even point is to the anchor. I think by the time the anchor is at the leader's foot level, in fact somewhat before that, you are risking higher anchor loads than if you factor two'd onto the belayer.
The anchor-clipping advocates (including the Petzl Cartoons) believe that belayers are highly unlikely to be able to hold factor two falls. I think this is nonsense. If the belayer properly sets up their anchor so the load is transferred to the anchor without the intervention of the harness, and if the belayer is wearing gloves, a factor two catch is a reasonable expectation, especially now that belay device manufacturers have wised up and incorporated higher friction into their gadgets. But the gloves are an issue. How do you get people to wear them?
|
|
kingpin
climber
methdeathsto ca
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008 - 01:04pm PT
|
Equaltettes rock!! No tech, no extra gear, easy to rig and far more equalized than a cordalette. I say keep them in the books!
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008 - 05:13pm PT
|
If the lead change is unexpected, then yes, swap ends. If non-alternating leads are planned, then bring cordalettes.
My tongue hurts.
|
|
tito
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 01:53am PT
|
>IMHO the defect with the equalette is that there is limited redundency
>at the power point.
Examine these two risks:
1) Anchor cord(sliding x, whatever) is cut causing catastrophic anchor failure
2) Cascading anchor failure, i.e. all the load goes onto one piece, which fails, causing all the load to go onto another piece, which fails, etc.
As far as I know, there have been no reported cases where anchor failure occurred because of a cut cord/sling. There have been 2 or 3 catastrophic anchor failures, which are thought to have been caused by a cascade failure.
When you choose to use the equalette, you believe that the risk of 1) is less than the risk of 2). Otherwise, just use a standard cordalette setup. Also remember that for your worries to manifest themselves, the equalette has to be cut in the specific 10 inch area of the master point.
John Long says in his latest anchor book(p. 170) that if you use only one biner at the equalette's master point, then you should clip the two strands sliding x style. That is not how the equalette was envisioned to work. The equalette's power point was designed to allow the biner(s) to slide with a minimum of friction. Clipping the two strands sliding x style defeats that purpose. I believe it was a mistake for JL to write that--although arguments to the contrary are welcome.
You can always clip one end of a sling to one of the anchor points and clip the other end to the master point biner(s) as a loose back up(in case the cord is severed near the master point).
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 12:34pm PT
|
Late (again) to this party, but here's my $.02
Simple is better, unless a clear problem has presented itself that dictates something more complex. Point being, the cordelette may not equalize perfectly, but there has not been (to my knowledge) a clear, demonstrated pattern of belay anchor failure that was directly attributed to a poorly equalized cordelette anchor. So why add the complexity if there isn't a demonstrated need? Don't create a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
As others have commented, KISS.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 12:43pm PT
|
I think about it this way:
A sliding X on two pieces of pro equalizes pretty well and cuts down the force on each piece to 50% of the load (neglecting friction).
If you could equalize well on 3 pieces of pro you are cutting down the force on each piece to 33% of the load (neglecting even more friction). There are diminshing returns the more pieces you try to equalize (you are only reducing the load by an additional 17% with 3 compared to equalizing 2 pieces of pro), I don't think that's a good trade off for having to deal with much greater complexity, gear, time, etc.
I use a sliding X even on what appears to be two bomber bolts, cams, or nuts. If they were any unknown issues (bolts ready to shear, defective gear, etc.) I'm not depending on one piece of gear to hold everything.
I usually don't put a third piece of pro into my anchor. I'd rather put a piece of pro right next to the anchor for the leader to clip into as the first piece, then have the leader place another piece as high as they can reach, if the climbing was difficult right after the belay.
I don't like using the rope for the anchor. In a self rescue I want to be able to escape the belay as fast as possible and know there is a bomber anchor ready to lower off of.
The equalette's power point was designed to allow the biner(s) to slide with a minimum of friction. Clipping the two strands sliding x style defeats that purpose. I believe it was a mistake for JL to write that--although arguments to the contrary are welcome.
The friction in a sliding X is mainly due to binding of the webbing on itself. If you have a sliding X with limiters knots you can make one of the strands of the X a little longer (the one that has a twist in it). Then there is no binding. That may be too complicated for a lot of people though, but I'd rather do that than have to bring an extra locking biner for each anchor.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 01:04pm PT
|
Rgold: "While we're talking about anchors, there are two other common issues I think are worth attention.
The first is the increasing tendency of people to use low-stretch sling material to attach themselves to their anchors. For a climber who is belaying the leader, this is a practice that cuts into the ultimate margin of safety, and so makes no sense because it is so easy to avoid by using the climbing rope."
This is worth highlighting, especially as chains join bolts as common items on popular trad routes and as dyneema becomes the webbing of choice.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 01:22pm PT
|
Dingus, I don't frequent rc.com - what's the link for the parallel thread there?
Something that has been mentioned by one or two upthread is that some climbers will construct an elaborate equalized belay, or indeed any belay at all. Then they clip into the belay, at the so-called "power point", with a single carabiner. Maybe a locking carabiner, but just one. Sometimes for toproping, sometimes to anchor the belayer. What's the point of that? No redundancy. Hard to avoid when it comes to ropes and harnesses, but easy when it comes to carabiners.
I could also go on about misuse of clove hitches.
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 01:35pm PT
|
I agree, rgold has made a really good point.
When I use a cordelette as just a big, sliding-X runner -- which is most of the time -- I feel like I'm gaining some really valuable shock-absorbtion from the stretch of the 6 mm or 7 mm cord. Especially when I belay straight off the anchor with a GiGi or one of the new belay devices.
But it could be better. Yo, rope makers: how about spinning us some dymanic cordelettes? We pay as much per foot for Dyneema runners as for lead rope itself. Sure, they're light, but they stretch like steel cable. I'd gladly pay the same for truly dynamic Cordelette stock.
The point about tieing to the anchor pieces with climbing rope is well taken, but if we had dynamic cordelettes we could gain all that shock absorbtion and have an easier time escaping the belay or leading in blocks.
If we had truly dynamic cord like that, I would tie most of my runners from it. Every lead fall puts about 1.7 times the force on the top piece of pro as it does on either the falling leader or the belayer. That means the top pro gets the biggest jolt in the whole system. A runner of dynamic cord would soften that. Seems like a good deal to me.
Blue Water? Sterling? Your market is calling...
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 02:20pm PT
|
...and both feet too.
I carry a couple of screamer draws, and one often goes to clip that top piece of the anchor to start the next pitch.
|
|
Thom
Trad climber
South Orange County, CA
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 03:32pm PT
|
Late to the party as well, but had some thoughts...
While the cordelette has been shown through extensive testing to be inferior to the equalette in achieving equalization between two anchor points, it should be noted that the cordelette never broke during these tests and that traditional belay anchors should consist of at least three anchor points — an anchor set-up that was not tested using these two systems. The equalette will only equalize two points, regardless of how many additional points are introduced into the system. For anchors consisting of 3 or more pieces, the cordelette may still be the best choice for load distribution as the equalette will distribute (equally) the load between 2 pieces only regardless of the number of pieces in the system.
I was taught that belay anchors should consist of a minimum of 3 pieces. To quote from the first Climbing Anchors book, regarding 3-piece belay anchors,
"Sometimes, three are enough, and sometimes that's all you'll get. ANYTHING LESS IS A CRAP SHOOT."
The implication from the first book is that you should not set up an anchor consisting of only two pieces of protection, yet the testing for the latest book was done using 2-point anchors.
People are now setting up 3 and 4-piece anchors (as they should), but setting them up with an equalette (per the pictures in the new book) believing (based on the 2-point test data) that they have a perfectly equalized system; not only is this incorrect but, TESTING WAS NOT DONE USING THESE SYSTEMS. This was lost on many readers of the new book who simply weren't paying attention to what they were reading when you wrote, "While the two arms of the equalette achieve a remarkable degree of equalization, the equalization between the individual strands is less...when the system is rigged to three or four placements." Sounds somewhat like a cordelette to me.
Lastly, and important to note, is that while testing showed the cordelette to be inferior for equalization, IT NEVER BROKE DURING TESTING despite unequal shock loading. This, too, was not made clear in the latest addition.
To quote from the new book, "When tested, the cordelette proved to equalize less proficiently...which is why the cordelette can no longer be recommended for its equalization properties when the arms are of unequal length." I've met many new climbers who now swear by the equalette and avoid the cordelette like the plague as a result of the new book.
I don't think this is what you intended, but it's happening. People are mis-applying the test data and arriving at conclusions that are perhaps not for the best.
T.
|
|
midarockjock
climber
USA
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 03:50pm PT
|
Beginers are usually always interested in more technical
aspects which may or may not be ok.
In a hanging belay set up with your own pieces(not bolts) does the
leader not account for opposite force possibly inverting or pulling
the pieces out? That first piece above the belay could also be
critical.
|
|
DanaB
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2008 - 04:19pm PT
|
"When it comes to clipping the anchor, there is a "break-even" point after which the anchor will get a higher load (because of the pulley effect) than it would have if there was just a factor 2 fall onto the belayer."
Hi Rich,
Could you expand on this, please?
Dana
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 24, 2008 - 04:55pm PT
|
"For anchors consisting of 3 or more pieces, the cordelette may still be the best choice for load distribution as the equalette will distribute (equally) the load between 2 pieces only regardless of the number of pieces in the system."
Testing showed that with unequal length arms, the codelette put the loading mostly on one arm, the shortest, which has the least stretch. The equalette better distributed the unequal-armed load over two pieces.
However this post as well as what Rich said, underscores the fact that as yet we don't have a KISS (simple) rigging device that achieves good equalization over 3 and 4 pieces. I've seen some rigs that are getting close (the one with the ring, for instance), but they still look tricky to tie and rather ornate.
I don't think that the solution is to bolt trad anchors, however. Who was the wise guy who suggested that, anyhow??
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!