competely serene anchor

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 95 of total 95 in this topic

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Original Post - Nov 28, 2009 - 09:41pm PT

Hello everyone, I just thought up an anchor and would like some feedback if would be so kind :)

As far as I can tell it is completely redundant for all components (protection, cord, crabs). Also I think it adheres to SERENE without sacrificing dynamic equalization for no extension (of course adherence with SERENE only applies to protection failure, not cord failure etc). Even better than that, it uses minimal gear, or as minimal as it could with the above properties.

There is a slight bit of extension. It is equal to half the distance between the failing protection and the protection attached to the failing protection with the extension limiter strand. But this is half or less (depending on how close the protection is) of what other designs yield.

It is fast to setup because the knots that are not clove hitches can be tied before a climb, and it takes minimal cord. Basically to setup it requires 3 clove hitch adjustments, not long.

The clove hitches are there only to adjust length if you have no runners. Once can forgo the clove hitches to adjust and just extend which ever of the three ends you need to to be faster, since it all equalizes out.

The two and three protection versions are below (3 protection version only needs an additional 2 crabs and 1 small sling) as well as a very bad wrong version. Can anybody spot the deficiency in the wrong version? :D

adam d

climber

closer to waves than rock

Nov 28, 2009 - 09:44pm PT

First Taco post? Really? No really?

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 28, 2009 - 09:44pm PT

What's a taco post?

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Nov 28, 2009 - 09:46pm PT

Looks like macrame to me.

Not to disparage thinking about these things, but how long will that take?

Chinchen

climber

Anacortes, wa

Nov 28, 2009 - 09:47pm PT

Crabs?

jstan

climber

Nov 28, 2009 - 09:49pm PT

That's right. Crabs. Helps to have a wide group of friends.

Gaillard:
This subject has had more debate on ST than even the subject of motherhood. As you might suppose---that's a lot.

A search on "equalized" should get you way more than you need - or want. Holler if that does not work and one of us will do some work, for a couple of minutes, and pull some links for you.

See what I mean? Here comes some more motherhood. Oiy veh.

jewedlaw

Trad climber

San Francisco, CA

Nov 28, 2009 - 09:50pm PT

Ricardo Cabeza

Trad climber

Warner, NH

Nov 28, 2009 - 09:51pm PT

OK, I see a lizard, and two mtn goats.

Chinchen

climber

Anacortes, wa

Nov 28, 2009 - 09:53pm PT

All hail the flying spaghetti monster.

couchmaster

climber

pdx

Nov 28, 2009 - 09:54pm PT

Serene Crab

ps, so is that diagramme up there what is termed a Cluster-f*#k-o-lette? (stole that term from Dingus)

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Nov 28, 2009 - 09:54pm PT

What's wrong with a good spotter?

adam d

climber

closer to waves than rock

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:01pm PT

I'd rather tie one on with this anchor...

Chinchen

climber

Anacortes, wa

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:02pm PT

It takes at least three of those to be redundant.

adam d

climber

closer to waves than rock

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:02pm PT

If you're not sure just plug another one in!

Salamanizer

Trad climber

The land of Fruits & Nuts!

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:07pm PT

What a cluster fukk.

Build anchor with rope, one locker (3 if ya got bolts), boom done.

[total elapsed time, 15sec.]

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:11pm PT

Why is it that the only time I've ever run anchors (lack of anchors) so sketch that dynamic equalization was desirable they never lined up in neat rows like that?

Does that only happen to me?

Batrock

Trad climber

Burbank

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:16pm PT

My head just exploded trying to comprehend that diagram.

Chinchen

climber

Anacortes, wa

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:19pm PT

At least hes working on paper first eh?
Im feeling kinda itchy too.Ick.

WBraun

climber

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:31pm PT

Even better than that, it uses minimal gear, or as minimal as it could with the above properties.

Are you sure?

Looks like a nightmare ....

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 28, 2009 - 10:33pm PT

Couple edits about speed

WBraun

climber

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:40pm PT

Speed?

wildone

climber

GHOST TOWN

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:42pm PT

Gaylord, my man, unless you're an engineer....

.....ahhhhhh, (what's the point?)

Ghost

climber

A long way from where I started

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:44pm PT

Speed?

No, I think it's Mescaline.

Edit: More seriously, the top (2-piece) anchor setup looks like it would work as advertised. Not a bad idea at all (except for the extra little loop off to the right of the right-hand piece with all the extra knots -- Why not just use a figure-8?)

But the drawings... Well yes, there may have been some mescaline involved.

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:47pm PT

Point 1: I, like many on this site, have placed several trillion anchors in my time. I can count on one hand the number of times I REALLY had to worry about making sure everything was PERFECTLY equalized. After too many years you just look at the rack that is left at the end of the pitch, look at the cracks in front of you and place what you can to reach a safety/comfort level. Is it always safe, serene, redundant and able to pass OSHA? Nope, but experience plays a REAL role in the vertical world. This whole topic/nightmare seems very erudite and without much real value once the rock rears up in front of us.

Point 2: gaillard, I give you full credit for your work and thoughts. It is always a bit unnerving to approach this campfire. Don't be too bothered by any negativity; it comes and goes. Overall we are a friendly bunch. Crotchety at times, but more or less harmless.

Point 3: Pate's image makes scrotal shaving all the more necessary!

Shack

Big Wall climber

Reno NV

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:47pm PT

"Can anybody spot the deficiency in the wrong version?"

Ok, I'll give a straight answer....

They are all the wrong version!
Your anchor looks like it came from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Waaaay too complicated and time consuming for little or no benefit.
Go buy John Longs book on Anchors.

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 28, 2009 - 10:55pm PT

Thanks Ihateplastic I will keep that in mind, I was starting to think there wouldn't be a single post of constructive criticism.

On the speed and complexity issue. I wrote that the clove hitches are optional, and only there if you need to adjust length. The other knots can be tied at home and just left there. When one wants to use the anchor all they have to do is clip carabiners, what could be faster???

Take the equalette for example, it does not have the advantages in redundancy, extension, or equalization that this anchor does (I think) and its Slower to put up because you have to tie 3 clove hitches at least and two limiting knots which all depend on the situation.

This also seems to get around the caveats with the ACR anchor I have seen.

Please, some constructive feedback, I expected more from this community.

wee man

Trad climber

truckee ca

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:57pm PT

I want to be positive but it does seem a little excesive, dont over think it keep it simple and safe

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 28, 2009 - 11:06pm PT

The top strand on my anchor does not take weight, thus the caption, except when a protection blows, then it serves to basically take the extension out.

On the two protection version it is much easier to clip this, and adjust the one clove hitch for the top strand than it is to clip a quad (john longs) and tie two specific limiting knots (that might have to be retied). Plus its better performing and uses less cord than the quad.

The real comparison I am wondering is to the equalette for the 3 protection.

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 28, 2009 - 11:09pm PT

Fish I am pretty sure I can buy that webbing for a dollar or less down the street, 9 bucks, really?

cintune

climber

the Moon and Antarctica

Nov 28, 2009 - 11:17pm PT

Um, yeah, bartacks ain't cheap. Anyway, that's all technically interesting, but a couple two or three loops tied in the rope and you don't have to carry those dedicated lengths of cord and extra crabbies, not to mention the diagram, along on every outing. You'll prolly get a lot of response over on RC.com, though; they live for that kind of thing there.

Salamanizer

Trad climber

The land of Fruits & Nuts!

Nov 28, 2009 - 11:24pm PT

I found it, the most SERENE anchor EVER!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Now all we need is to add a "LOCKER" on it.

Salamanizer

Trad climber

The land of Fruits & Nuts!

Nov 28, 2009 - 11:34pm PT

I looked for a real one for ya.

Nada!

Just use your... Imagination!

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Nov 28, 2009 - 11:41pm PT

Gaillard, the kind of responses you're getting can be at least partially explained by the following observations. Although my comments are fundamentally negative, I have tried to give you the attention your efforts merit.

1. Most of the folks around here have been doing things their own way for many years and have seen no evidence that their methods do not work. Since these methods are, in general, simpler and more adaptable than your proposals, they are unlikely to give them serious attention.

2. There has been so much discussion of these issues here and even more on rockclimbing.com, that most of us are weary of folks bursting through doors already open. Anyone with ideas on this subject really should read up on what has already been said (an admittedly substantial task). It does not appear that you have done this essential homework for three reasons:

A. No method that allows for extension can be classified as SRENE---this is false advertising. The NE at the end of SRENE stands for "no extension," not "well, actually, it does extend but hey, not as much as some of the others."

B. You claim that the extension in your method is "half or less (depending on how close the protection is) of what other designs yield." I don't think anyone who has actually read about those other designs would make this claim, since various proposed designs with limiting knots might do as well or considerably better than your method, and a version of your method with considerably less extension was proposed on the rockclimbing.com thread, I think by Craig Connally.

C. When applied to three anchors, your method does not equalize at all, as has been explained over and over in the various threads. If everything works ideally, the two anchors on the left each get a quarter of the load and the anchor on the right gets half. Testing of fully-tied cordelettes suggests that a similar distribution of loads is likely for three anchors, so your system offers few advantages (and the disadvantage of extension) over the classical approach.

If you are interested in simple, adaptable, quickly-deployed equalizing methods, it seems to me that, at the moment the system to beat is by Paul Raphaelson, see http://www.paulraphaelson.com/downloads/acr.pdf. But remember that the role of friction is such systems can be very considerable and, without dynamic testing, it is hard to know how much advantage they really provide.

Moreover, I believe that some of the widely-promulgated conclusions about the insignificance of extension are premature, having been obtained from tests that do not accurately model what will happen with real anchors in the field. For this reason, I would not be in a hurry to embrace anchor rigging methods that involve extension when a piece fails.

I do hope you will forgive me for saying that I will not engage in further dialog about these points, having pretty much blabbed myself half to death already on the topic. For better or worse, I've already coughed up more than a mermaid, figuratively speaking of course. Read up on what has already been said here and on rc.com, and best of luck in what is looking more and more like a Quixotic quest.

Salamanizer

Trad climber

The land of Fruits & Nuts!

Nov 28, 2009 - 11:41pm PT

Here ya go Pate!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

bhilden

Trad climber

Mountain View, CA

Nov 28, 2009 - 11:52pm PT

Gaillard,

You were asking for constructive criticism and I think both 'ihateplastic' and 'rgold' have offered very good advise. It might not be what you want to hear, but I would re-read what both of them say. You were looking for a 'small picture' or '50-foot' view. These guys are giving you the 'big picture' or '10,000-foot' view.

The ability to get the 'bigger picture' from very qualified people is one of the huge benefits of this forum.

Bruce

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 28, 2009 - 11:54pm PT

rgold:

Thanks for the reply!

1. Of course, thats how the climbing community has been since they began :)

2. I have read all that you talk about, its just that there has been nothing published about a truly serene anchor, I still believe this is, or is much closer than any preceding design.

A & B. That is not true. Just because some designs have not made it possible does not make it Impossible. A third of a leg of extension is not much, and is close to the extension that a cordelette has. Remember my lack of extension does not limit equalization, you still have the whole range of motion that equalizes.

Oh and I would love to see that post by John if you know where it is?

C. How do you figure it doesn't equalize? Or a point to the tests would be great if you don't mind.

One of the problems with the Paul Raphaelson method, is that it is not cord redundant nor is the rappel ring. Another would be that with a sliding point higher than the master point, you introduce a multiplier of friction that causes it to equalize worse than this method. And one more problem is that you can only clip three biners to the master point. I often with a party of three have more.

I am on the fence about extension, I want to see some shock tests... so I'm with you there !

Thanks for the reply again

mojede

Trad climber

Butte, America

Nov 28, 2009 - 11:57pm PT

As said earlier (to some extent) one of the more important letters of the acronym SRENE is often left out...the letter "T"--which stands for "timely". FWIW...

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 29, 2009 - 12:00am PT

Thanks bhilden but I am looking for discussion on an idea, not permission to use an untested and verified new technique. I don't need blanket statements to do it like its been done a thousand years and quit trying to innovate, that is not constructive, or forward thinking. I understand many people don't care about a new idea, and they don't need to bother with it then. But your right it is good advice, but I still think people should not respond with statements that assume a poster is inexperienced and doesn't know what hes doing, I have many years of climbing under my belt. But thanks for the comment at any rate :)

Chinchen

climber

Anacortes, wa

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:01am PT

A new idea is only useful if its better.

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 29, 2009 - 12:03am PT

No problem Rokjox, I don't want to teach new tricks :)

Hey if people want to give a hip belay 3000ft up, go for it as long as its not me :)

Just an idea to discuss

mojede

Trad climber

Butte, America

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:04am PT

...or faster.

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 29, 2009 - 12:06am PT

better is relative, why don't you be more specific. I don't see how this is any slower than an equalette, and it is certainly better performing.

GDavis

Social climber

SOL CAL

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:07am PT

Honest question, Guillard, if I may.

I've been there before, where I've been looking for a better way. Heck, I still do a lot of times!

However to take the anchor in context, I think I have some questions.

How many pitches have you lead on gear? What areas? How many different climbing partners have you had?

The reason I ask is just so we know where you are coming from. I myself have led far less than most posting here, but have probably built in honest three thousand anchors (I've led about 200 different routes that I know of, I know I like to climb the same stuff over and over again! Many multipitch).
Considering that most of my climbing, at least the stuff that warrants coherent thought, is in yosemite or tahquitz or the sierras or joshua tree, anchors like this would be pretty unnecessary, if not a flat out time waster/complexity annoying.

I am a big fan of K.I.S.S.

GDavis

Social climber

SOL CAL

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:08am PT

"Whats wrong with a good hip belay???"

kidneys are yer friends.

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:09am PT

To each his own... As long as its not me down below sitting in an avalanche zone freezin' me knuts off as the sun sets below the horizon and the snow starts to fall, waiting for the leader to strategize, analyze, equalize and otherwise set up a book-perfect anchor.

Salamanizer

Trad climber

The land of Fruits & Nuts!

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:25am PT

Sorry Pate, here ya go!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

End of my thread drift...

GDavis

Social climber

SOL CAL

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:34am PT

Thats it. Going to church tomorrow.

jstan

climber

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:39am PT

I am one of the tired old people who has never engaged particularly on this topic, falling as I do in Rich's first group of people. Simplicity is a virtue whose value should never be underestimated. And if I have a party of three or four people and anchors I do not trust, I have already made my decision as to what I need to do.

I think we have a solution in search of a problem. To repeat myself from two or three years ago, I saw a (University, mind you!)rappelling class set up to use an equalized anchor on two trees either of which I would have hung my truck from without biting even one finger nail. Now get this. A single sling was used which, were it to break, the anchor would fail utterly. I think many systems fail this redundancy requirement either partially or entirely.

As to the negative response from the crew, if you look through this night's work you should detect this has been quite a funny night. Lean back and enjoy it.

And yes, I have climbed with Brits so your terminology is not unknown.

I think people in his country spend altogether two much time thinking about absolutely "perfect" anchors and far too little time thinking about how to decrease the dynamic loads. For instance people hook a belay device directly to their anchor. You can get a doubling of the dynamic load in the system this way. Over the last forty years ropes have become very good and very elastic. (If you were not careful they used to be able to break your back.) But we really can't just throw the whole burden onto that element. Look at some of the dynamics worked out by gritstone climbers. Those are the equations that deserve some work, IMO.

Oh. Welcome aboard!

Now. Back to motherhood..................

I have not seen even one post about apple pie. What's with that?

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 29, 2009 - 12:50am PT

jstan:

It has been funny at least :)

And I can understand your not wanting to get involved in anchor topics, I mean people have been climbing successfully for many years, some are just interested in it thats all...

Although I find your comment about the direct belay interesting. It is good to note that you are GUARANTEED to double the forces on the anchor if you DON'T belay from the anchor, due to the pully effect.

Ah so you know the "Krab", the bloody rudy krab haha :D

Thanks, I hope I stay on board !

... apple pie is delicious !!

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 29, 2009 - 12:59am PT

If one doesn't want equalization, the best thin is just to clove the rope in series... then there is 0 extension. I don't understand the cordelette, it doesn't make any sense, there is even extension with the cordelette. cloving the rope is fastest and most secure if you don't want equalization.

If you do want equalization, take a "2 point equalette", aka mine without the top peice.

If you want equalization and no extension, I think mine is the only one out there, so thats really the discussion at hand, since the other options already exist obviously.

pyro

Big Wall climber

Calabasas

Nov 29, 2009 - 01:09am PT

Brendan

Trad climber

Yosemite, CA

Nov 29, 2009 - 01:10am PT

bro, you need overhands on each of the strands (no more than 10" apart from one another) for that thing to be an equilette. As is, it will shock load the other piece if it blows unless the two pieces were very very close to one another. Just use a normal equilette if you have more than 3 pieces stretched apart, I throw em up all the time in a minute or two. Just do me a favor and dont tye some gnar when im climbin below you...

.

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 29, 2009 - 10:08am PT

I'm just wondering why john longs equalette didn't receive such "its useless" remarks when his book was published. This is faster and better performing. Not a lot faster though...

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 29, 2009 - 10:27am PT

Well I am not expecting a huge "ohh" :P

But I have read many many of those proposals, in every book and thread I could get my hands on, and this design performs better than anything short of electronics that I have seen. And I haven't seen a design that uses a top peice between bolts to limit and almost eliminate extension, probably because it appears to be a death triangle even though it isn't.

I will rig it again and photo it if anyone is interested. And I can probably get my hands on some load cells at the university and drop test it.

Batrock

Trad climber

Burbank

Nov 29, 2009 - 10:42am PT

It seems too complex. More to screw up when tired or distracted or both. I need a system that is simple and is as strong as the anchor I place. I do applaud your effort. This may be a system I set up for top roping in the future but it's just too complex and too much gear for my taste.

gaillard

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 29, 2009 - 10:45am PT

Batrock:

Then cloving in with the rope in series is the anchor for you.

Pate:

Religion would always get in the way... :P

seamus mcshane

climber

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:16pm PT

Clip the Blue Camalot w/ a clove-hitch. It'll be fine.

Just ask Donini.

Pierre

Big Wall climber

Sweden

Nov 29, 2009 - 12:51pm PT

In my humble opinion this has to be -

One-Hundred-Percent , Troll ...

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Nov 29, 2009 - 01:03pm PT

Gaillard, the fact that you wonder why the Equallette wasn't criticized makes it clear you couldn't possibly have read very much.

One of the things an attentive reader would have learned, as I mentioned above, is that systems such as the one you diagram do not equalize, but rather distribute the load to a horizontally deployed three-anchor system in the proportion 25% - 25% - 50%. This fact for your configuration is illustrated in the regrettably nun and mermaid-free diagram below.

The rigging diagrams for the equalette do no better. Systems that do actually equalize in theory typically have bigger extension potential or are overly complex, sometimes both, and depend for their actual success on minimal frictional effects in spite of multiple turns and crossings, an as yet untested hypothesis.

As for performance, the extension in the Gaillardette is AT LEAST half the distance between the anchors, and can be as much as 1.5 times the distance between a pair of anchors if they are in a vertical line. (Even with two anchors in a horizontal line, your approximation of the extension as half the distance between the anchors has about a 20% error for an equilateral triangle.)

By contrast, the equallette has extension equal to half the distance between the knots; in most cases this will be less, often considerably less, than the distance between the anchors, so I can see no basis for your performance claims.

So here's where we stand: you claim to have read a lot but evidently have not, you have yet to understand the basic pulley physics governing your configuration, you make claims about extension that cannot be substantiated, and rather than listening to any of this you are beginning to rationalize the responses as an indication of the rigidity of minds closed to innovation.

Hardly a recipe for productive dialog, eh?

I've now violated a vow not to get involved in what is, sadly, the repeat of many previous discussions, I've invested some time in a picture without the slightest redeeming hint of t & a, and I don't even use a damn cordelette 99% of the time. How pathetic is that?

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Nov 29, 2009 - 01:04pm PT

We may now conclude that threads about serene anchors tend to be anything but serene. Perhaps this is a specialized manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Although arguably such threads tend toward maximum energy and maximum entropy, which would be somewhat paradoxical.

Chinchen

climber

Anacortes, wa

Nov 29, 2009 - 01:12pm PT

This thread is getting boring!

WBraun

climber

Nov 29, 2009 - 01:15pm PT

Actually if one really looks at this clearly there is no actual redundancy.

You can easily die with gillard's nightmare ......

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Nov 29, 2009 - 01:16pm PT

We shoulda realized when the first "E" was left out that the coming entropic explosion, with all its attendant hot air, was surely on the way.

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:04pm PT

How much 7mm cord are you carrying to make this setup? (Seems like plenty.) If you set this up at each anchor then you need TWICE that much 7mm! Why load your neck/rack up with a bundle of cord that serves no secondary purpose?

JimT

climber

Munich

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:04pm PT

Cheer up, the night shift is here now!
From equalettes to tranvestite nuns without missing a beat, I bow in the presence of forum Gods!

From the UKC parallel thread which cannot even offer Daryl Hannah as recompense to reading endless drivel:-
"Rgold on Supertopo (who as it happens is probably one of the cleverest people on this earth) has already told you this. If you can´t see this then don´t start designing anchors".

Respect, brothers.
Jim

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:15pm PT

Who dresses their daughter up like that?

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:16pm PT

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:17pm PT

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:18pm PT

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:19pm PT

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:20pm PT

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:20pm PT

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:21pm PT

Ihateplastic

Trad climber

Lake Oswego, Oregon

Nov 29, 2009 - 02:22pm PT

And that is all she wrote.

Paul Martzen

Trad climber

Fresno

Nov 29, 2009 - 11:37pm PT

Hey Gaillard,

Test it. Does not matter how many others have tested every variation, you have the right to test em too. Test it to failure and see what happens. Testing is fun and interesting.

You don't need a huge testing rig or super expensive or complicated equipment to do basic testing of anchor principles. You can use weights of a few pounds or less and anchors that fail consistently at low loads. There are lots of ways to make simple anchors that fail at close to the same load over and over; magnetic hooks, spring clamps, loops of thread or string, webbing laid on a surface with weight (books) holding it down, etc. Experiment.

A few further thoughts.

If you really need to equalize it means that no single anchor can hold the load entirely by itself, or at least you are not sure if any single anchor can hold the entire load. If that is the case, then it seems likely that the whole will fail if one part fails.

If placing several marginal anchors, the capabilities of each anchor are likely to be highly variable. So exact equalization is not necessarily a benefit. You want to spread the load, but also reduce the load on the weakest anchor, if you can tell which one that is.

It is funny that you made fun of hip belays in this thread. If you have marginal anchors, a body belay could be an important way of further reducing the stress on those marginal anchors. If you can somehow use your body as part of the anchor, then that helps reduce the load on the other anchors as well.

Back to my original point. We should all be playing with this stuff once in a while, no matter how many other people have tested it out. Even if a thousand other people have done a climb, we can still learn and enjoy doing the climb ourselves. The same goes for testing anchor systems to failure. It is fascinating and highly educational.

Paul

jstan

climber

Nov 29, 2009 - 11:49pm PT

My own supply of nuns and mermaids is running so low I really should not comment here. I would like to hazard that we might take this obviously interesting topic as a chance to have fun and learn, all at the same time.

The two go really well together.

WBraun

climber

Nov 29, 2009 - 11:56pm PT

A lot of times anchors can be setup bomber and still be totally stupid.

rockermike

Trad climber

Berkeley

Nov 30, 2009 - 12:02am PT

I haven't read all of the above but I'll throw in my 2 cents. One; I've recently started using the rope with big figure eight on end, with loop fed back through to create 3 adjustable rabbit ears (I don't know official name). Quick, strong, Serene (maybe not equalized if pull angle suddenly changes?), no extra gear. Second choice for me is just tied off cordelette. Simple enough if you can live with "not perfectly equalized" thing (I can). But if you do want the perfectly equalizing effect, why not use long runner or cordelette without the central tie off (sliding x style), then back up each leg with an 8 mm spectra runner, tied off to approximately the correct length (just enough slack to allow equalizing feature to work). Those runners are so light its not much of a weight penalty. fully equalized, and redundant, and to my mind simple to set up - even when fried from 16 hours on your feet. Maybe just carry one triple length 8 mm spectra plus three shoulder lengths. I think those together would be lighter than a regular cordelette.

Sitting Duck

Trad climber

The Arctic

Dec 5, 2009 - 10:23am PT

gaillard was not as far off as most of you seems to think.

Pitch 14, 5.11+. Anchor rigged by one of the most experienced cimbers on the planet.

Jonny2vests

Trad climber

Nottingham, UK

Dec 10, 2009 - 06:41am PT

Greetings North American brethren. We too on ukclimbing.com sit back in awe and wonder at the imaginarium of mr gaillard's mind. Our thread isn't as funny as yours though:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=383014&v=1#x5539647

Gaillard, I myself have something I've been working on and trying to improve. Admittedly, it's been around a while and has so far resisted all attempts at change. but I see no reason to not radically change it completely and ignore generations of logic and design...

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddx35n26_23g8p3cmdj

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Dec 10, 2009 - 06:46am PT

Appears to be the same chap looking to belay doubles with two grigris

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2235590;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Jonny2vests

Trad climber

Nottingham, UK

Dec 10, 2009 - 06:50am PT

Indeed.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=381289&v=1#x5528208

Bad Climber

climber

Dec 10, 2009 - 11:04am PT

First, start with Occam's Razor and slice that mess to bits. Yeah, it may work, but holy freakin' cluster nutz, Batman, you expect to rig that each and every belay, pitch after pitch? Go ahead and try to apply that in the real world. The rest of us will be up and off our Grade V's while you're still fiddling with cord on pitch two.

Besides a theoretical game, have you, as one posted mentioned, climbed many pitches and set many anchors? Listen to Werner. He climbs more in a month than most of us do in a decade. Experience matters--a lot. John Long has a lot of that, too.

BAd

adatesman

Trad climber

philadelphia, pa

Dec 10, 2009 - 11:14am PT

He's also the one that's:

... looking for a Hewbolt Double so he can have an autolocking device for two ropes.

... backs up his harness with a webbing swami for redundancy.

I can't wait for his next bright idea.

Euroford

Trad climber

chicago

Dec 10, 2009 - 11:16am PT

anchor threads are awesome. even awesomer with mermaids and nuns.

Srbphoto

Trad climber

Kennewick wa

Dec 10, 2009 - 12:04pm PT

kinda like the people who keep coming up with a better way to tie a figure 8

wbw

climber

'cross the great divide

Dec 10, 2009 - 02:07pm PT

There's climbing theory, and then there's climbing.

I'm reminded of a comment my old bud Derek made many years ago as we walked into Eldo. during the first annual cleanup. There were many guys hanging on ropes and scrubbing chalk marks off the rock. The array of tools and complexity on display were mind-boggling. Derek looks over the charliefoxtrot in front of us, looks at me and says, "They obviously are not getting enough climbing in."

Mason

Trad climber

Yay Area

Dec 10, 2009 - 02:12pm PT

Once I built a natural anchor using just one Metolius 4' sling and three pieces of gear in a crack.

I created two sliding Xes and overlapped them to create my power point. I thought it was better than using a cordelette because when the sling pulled in any direction, there was no slack and risk of shock loading the anchor, just like a sliding X with two pieces of gear.

Is this anchor sound? Simple, I know, but for my limited experience and gear, it's all I could think of.

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Dec 10, 2009 - 02:41pm PT

SERENE with Timely added is ERNEST

Equalized, Redudant, Non-Extending, Solid, Timely.

Your non-completely serene anchor is extending and not timely. Saying it "performs better" without saying in what way or compared to what doesn't help your cause.

However I applaud your efforts. New ideas don't have the be the new thing everyone starts using, they should just help spark ideas and hopefully lead to more developments and discussion.

KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Your anchor fails there and that's why it won't be used with any regularity.

It's best to have simple setups that use non-specialized gear.

I carry pre-tied sliding Xs with limiter knots. As fast or faster than anything else and does a pretty good job being ERNEST.

A small cam or biner or bad bolt could break, I like having the redundancy of a somewhat ERNEST anchor so I use a slidingX on every anchor because it's simple and fast.

For three poor pieces (a situation I've never had to face), I'd go with a sliding W with a short sling and extend to each piece as needed.

I like how this mermaid still has the good parts of a human.

mucci

Trad climber

The pitch of Bagalaar above you

Dec 10, 2009 - 03:17pm PT

Dog ear figure eight.

Anything more is a waste of time.

Ghost

climber

A long way from where I started

Dec 10, 2009 - 03:32pm PT

Dog ear figure eight. Anything more is a waste of time.

In the true spirit of Supertopo, I want to start an argument that ignores the value and usefulness of your stupidly-named Dog ear figure eight, and focuses instead on the fact that its rightful name is the Bunny ear figure eight. If you call it the bunny ear figure eight, then it is a terrific belay setup. If you call it the dog ear figure eight then you're stupid and don't know anything about climbing. So there!