competely serene anchor

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 21 - 40 of total 95 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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
Messages 21 - 40 of total 95 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta