Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 12:05am PT
|
In your second to last pic (4 point anchor) only one leg on each side bears weight as you slide your anchor point one way or the other. If these two weight bearing legs are the ends with the figure eight in them, then the total weight of the anchor is bearing all the weight on only two strands of perlon. They are backed up on each side. If the backup is a clove hitch, then if the figure 8 leg fails, all the weight is again transferred (shock loaded to a degree) to a single strand of perlon.
Something to think about when setting it up.
another note edit: This is also one of the short comings of the equalette.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 12:10am PT
|
"no easy way to escape the belay in case of accidents"
That's not true.
You just untie from the rope. And yes I've had to do this many times for various reasons not necessarily due to accidents.
|
|
Crag Q
Trad climber
Louisville, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 23, 2008 - 12:22am PT
|
Werner, I had you figured for more of "cut the rope" kind of guy. But alas, you found the simpler path once again.
|
|
ChrisW
Trad climber
boulder, co
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2008 - 11:23am PT
|
Hey Craig!!! You are such the thinker. But remember more steps, more complicated, more chances of something going wrong. Remember our anchors at "CAMP" Those where BOMBER.
Man, haven't seen you for years. I am getting knee surgery this week. But, ready to go again in September. Been doing in big Walling?????
HOw's the kids?
Chris.
|
|
Crag Q
Trad climber
Louisville, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2008 - 10:05pm PT
|
I'm doing great Chris although the girls and work have been keeping me busy. Climbing has taken some set backs the last couple of years. I broke my arm last spring as a follow up to my accident the year before. Hoping to get back on track this spring.
Neil Worden came through this winter. It was good to see him.
Where are you hanging these days?
|
|
Brentg
climber
|
|
Craig, great rigging. Just a few ideas to add & see what people think. I don't think I would personally use the setup in the first few pics where overhands were tied with the strands hanging. This leaves you having to clove hitch to pieces, which along with the powerpoint are reasons that have kept me from using the equalette. The clove hitch may be fast & easy but it's still a knot and requires adj. However, when I saw your rabbit runner setup it got me thinking. For most people that think this is to much work or to complicated, after maybe 10 min. of messing with this rigging I could consistantly set it up in no more than 10-20sec longer that a cordolette & much quicker than an equalette. Basically 2 overhands instead of 1 overhand with cordelette. I don't clove to any pieces, just clip bights and ends of rabbit runner as if rigging cordelette. In a 3-4 piece anchor, equalize your powerpoint as you would with cordelette, release the outermost arm or arms, tie your 2 overhands in proper location, and clip arm back in. I'm not adding anything new to Craigs great idea, but perhaps further expressing the simplicity of it. I'm basically doing what Craig is showing in figure 9-11. Instead of equalizing the 2 left bolts & cloving to the right, I'm rigging the whole thing, finding the powerpoint & then tying overhands.
My main ? for everyone after playing with this idea is why not just carry a couple rabbit runners instead of tied cordelettes or equalettes? Does anyone already do this? Any ideas? $8 for 7mm cord & you can buy sewn rabbit runners for the spectra lovers. I found using a 14ft. rabbit runner I could rig an equalette(triplette) to 2-4 pieces, or a cordelette to 2-4 pieces in about the same amount of time. Further you could double it over to sling trees, boulders, etc. Seems pretty versatile to me. Also, using the equalette with 4 pieces=4 single strands tied to each piece. With a rabbit runner you end up with 2 loops & 2 single strand. Don't know how much that matters. I think I have way over thought this. I need to go climbing.
|
|
Crag Q
Trad climber
Louisville, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2008 - 10:07pm PT
|
Hey Brentg,
I think that's a nice simplification! Shazam! Basically doing a mini cordolette on the left and right. I gave it a quick go and seemed to work very well in the horizontal configuration. I sort of did my figure 9 & 10 on the left and then again on the right. I suspect you could also string it all together, unclip a couple strands and tie the two knots sort of like tying a cordolette with two overhads. It sounds like maybe that's what you did.
You could throw in a clove hitch on any leg after if you needed to take up some slack or make an adjustment. I agree, it's a pretty simple rig once you do it a few times and not really all that complicated.
I haven't tried it out with a rabbit runner, but I suspect the metolius and moutain tools webolette things would rock if you eliminated the clove hitches. However, regular 7mm works nicely and is much cheaper.
Sorry, I missed your reply earlier. Mundane climbing topics like tying knots don't survive long on the front page. :-)
|
|
JAK
climber
The Souf
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 11:20am PT
|
Hmmm...
Not sure how I feel about this. The potential to equalize 6 pieces is interesting. However, I wonder about situations where I might need a *six* piece anchor. Few and far between in good rock.
It does seem like it'd be faster than a regular three-strand-powerpoint equalette to rig less than four pieces.
However, it's definitely always going to be bulkier and result in a more complex anchor rigging.
I think I prefer the method I've been using, which is essentially the same, but without the fig8 legs. I just tied the tails into a double OH check knot behind the overhand limiter knots, and trimmed them.
It's pretty much what Trenchdigger described last May here:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1595156;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;guest=29388045
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 12:16pm PT
|
Any system where you have to untie the knots joining the cord is a deal-killer in my book. Perhaps you could make that part of the system modular and attach the legs.
Basically though, in almost any decent rock, anchors should never be so sketchy that perfect equalization should be needed.
The lack of shock-loading afforded by a regular cordalette may be better protection that perfect equalization.
Also, the time savings afforded by any system that's significantly faster to employ might afford more safety than a slower, better equalized system. Time is safety on longer climbs.
Here's my idea, if you REALLY need the best anchor protection on some sketch rock, just clip a shorty screamer to each piece (or at least one or two of them) and rig a regular cordalette anchor to the screamers.
If the system gets stressed enough to be an issue, the screamers will extend, leading to perfect equalization with no shock load, and also absorb energy from the situation at the same time.
How's that sound Largo?
Peace
karl
|
|
Gobie
Trad climber
Northern, Ca.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 12:38pm PT
|
I agree with ragz. Adding another tool to your arsenal is wise. I prefer to use a simple anchor much like the one Clint has shown up thread, but you should be able to look at the situation and quickly analyze what may work best for you at the given moment. If you insist on one type of configuration for every belay that requires passive protection you could spend unnecassary time configuring something that is not needed. When I first started climbing I took for ganted that anchors came easily for me. After teaching and guiding it became quite obvious that there are very talented people that struggle with anchor configurations. Ive always inisted to them that they take whatever time is necassary to first build a sufficient anchor, then worry about time. Ultimately the goal is to live to climb another day. I have actually climbed with a guy once that told me as I started to clean his pitch that I probably didnt want to trust his anchor. When I got to the belay i could tell he was gripped and his anchor consisted basically of a magenta camalot laying in the crack equalized to a small stopper. He had plenty of gear to rig a belay but for whatever reason he got freaked out and was unable to think straight. As someone mentioned above, stress can affect your posture so having rehearsed many scenarios is key to survival. I think we should do the basement scenario standinbg in a bucket of icewater, with the sprinkler on, in your underwear, with some one yelling your gonna die over and over again in your ear.:]
BTW, when I got to my buddies belay, I calmly reassured him that his belay was crap, clipped throug a couple of pieces I added and then suggested that I lead out the remainder of the day. No sense in overreacting and ruining a nice day in The Meadows.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 01:48pm PT
|
The potential to equalize 6 pieces is interesting.
Could you explain how this is done?
In my estimation you might get an approximate equalization (if your cloves are precise) at one position. If your PP moves left or right with this, your left with equalization on 2 points that are backed up by the other points of protection.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 03:35pm PT
|
Anybody aware of a significant pattern of anchor failure using the traditional cordelette method of rigging? Not just anecdotal evidence ('I know a guy who...', 'I heard this somewhere...'), but a clearly demonstrated and documented pattern?
The theoretical advantages of these variations all sound plausible and reasonable, but at some point theories can elevate beyond practical reality. That is to say, if we were seeing a significant number of anchor failures due to the traditional cordelette method, then the goal of additional equalization (and added complexity of building) would be justified.
I'm all for exploring new applications and theories, as long as there is a clear, realistic application and need. The most beautiful, effective mechanical systems are simple ones.
|
|
Tahoe climber
Trad climber
a dark-green forester out west
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 05:27pm PT
|
I like the simple ones, too.
Nice reply above, Clint Cummins.
Good to discuss. Good to have tools in the old toolbox.
Use what works best for you, but for me, cordelette works best all around, with clove hitches to gear coming in close second.
TC
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 05:55pm PT
|
There are no statistics for belay anchor failure as there are relatively few accidents involving anchor failure, especially anything well documented, for obvious reasons.
For the most part, testing various anchor scenarios is limited to "the lab" which has some limitations. The work that was done to investigate the equalization properties of the cordelette was done in controlled conditions in the lab. Those tests showed the superior equalization properties of the "sliding-X." These sorts of tests are useful when thinking through a belay anchor system like tying your rope to one piece with a clove hitch and then putting a couple of more pieces in, connected with the sliding-X, and equalizing the length or the rope. That's the system I prefer, but I also believe that you should get anchor pieces in such that any one of them would hold a severe fall.
I think there are many possible, excellent anchor systems. But these haven't been tested by many severe falls. There are no systematic studies of belay anchor failure. That is good, we seemed to have addressed this issue with redundant safety systems.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 06:18pm PT
|
Ed-
I posed that rhetorical question (apologies if it was misleading) as an attempt to bring perspective to the question of the 'triplette' system- unless I've been missing something, I've not heard of a multitude of anchor failures (documented or anecdotal) due to the use of the 'traditional' cordelette system.
The theoretical and lab-studied advantages of the triplette or many of the other variations seem to be attempting to create a solution to a problem (anchor failure) that doesn't seem to exist. The speed and simplicity of traditional cordelette system seems to far outweigh any minor lab-discovered equalization issues.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 06:34pm PT
|
Karl wrote: The lack of shock-loading afforded by a regular cordalette may be better protection that perfect equalization.
Except that lab testing strongly suggested that shock loading does not occur in the way we once thought - that the dreaded "cascade" zipper would happen if one piece ripped, and that the total force of the fall would be transmitted from one failed placement to the next one. There are many variables involved, but providing that the first placement (to fail) has some decent holding power, it actually REDUCES the loading forces onto the next piece in the chain. But there's some pretty fancy physics (especially once dynamic cord/sling is introduced) involved here and I'd better leave it at that.
That much said, I truly believe that the emphasis on the absolute holding power of the anchor is largely misplaced. When belaying a second up, unless there is a chance for a huge swinging fall, the load on the anchor is comparatively small, unsually in the low hundreds of pounds. The emphasis should always be on making sure that the top piece ("Jesus nut"), the piece that will actually arrest the leader fall, is bomber so you never fall directly onto the belay anchor - something that is exceptionally rare on everything but slab routes.
JL
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2008 - 09:10pm PT
|
Apogee wrote: "...unless I've been missing something, I've not heard of a multitude of anchor failures (documented or anecdotal) due to the use of the 'traditional' cordelette system.
The theoretical and lab-studied advantages of the triplette or many of the other variations seem to be attempting to create a solution to a problem (anchor failure) that doesn't seem to exist."
The thing about anchors, as Ed points out, is that we have virtually no idea how good belay anchors are. And as we soldier on in this state of almost complete ignorance, it is convenient and comforting to mistake the fact that belay anchors are almost never tested for evidence that they almost never fail. We don't know if the anchor failure problem "that doesn't seem to exist" is a reflection on the basic soundness of climbing anchors or an artifact of the extreme paucity of factor-2 falls.
In fifty years of climbing (as of this summer), I've come across about five documented cases of anchor failure in the U.S., a rate of about one every ten years. (I have no idea what numbers the rest of the world has experienced.) Without even a hint of knowledge of how many anchors in the U.S. in the last fifty years have been subjected to factor 2 falls, we have absolutely no idea what the anchor failure rate is and so have absolutely no idea whether or not an anchor failure problem exists.
Let me add that when it comes to anchors, what we consider "experience" in the climbing world is a process that contains virtually no reality feedback, because hardly anyone who builds an anchor and makes a judgement about its soundness is ever confronted with a test that would enable them to understand (and possibly modify) how sound their judgement is. "Experienced" people whose anchors have never been tested teach other people to build anchors, and those other people build lots of untested anchors and eventually themselves become "experienced." I might add that, if memory serves, all but one of the anchor failures I referred to happened to "experienced" parties.
I'm not suggesting that we have any realistic alternatives at the moment, nor am I suggesting that we abandon our faith-based practices and instead wallow in paralyzing fear and dread. I do think the climbing world could pay more attention to Largo's exhortations about protecting the belay It is possible that discussions about equalization are distracting people from a far more important imperative.
Finally, I think that it is appropriate, considering the actual state of ignorance we live in, to adopt, first of all, a humble attitude about our so-called "expertise," and second of all, to cut those who wish to experiment with more effective procedures a little more slack then they seem to be getting, even if we do not yet find ourselves pursuaded to adopt solutions that, at this very early stage, seem too cumbersome and time-consuming.
|
|
Crag Q
Trad climber
Louisville, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 13, 2008 - 09:34pm PT
|
Rgold that is one of the most articulate and spot on replies I've seen to anything on this forum.
|
|
morse
Trad climber
CT
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2008 - 11:05pm PT
|
Interesting,
How about a "quad" configuration with a Frost knot on one side and an overhand knot on the other side (tied with 10' or 12' of 7mm or 8mm). Should be pretty clean.
Originally, I was playing around with the Frost knot as a way of eliminating the double fisherman's knot (one knot instead of two/and full strength strands) for a two-bolt powerpoint like you would find on a wall climb.
The only way to adjust it though is to take wraps around the carabiners at the bolts.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!