Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!