Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 08:44pm PT
|
Hi,
My name is overkill. I like to beat dead horses.
LOOOOOONG after they are dead I can be found beating their rotting carcasses. That's my thing.
I also like to over-analize the sh#t out of everything. I don't actually climb much, but I spent 2 hours building an anchor in my backyard just so I could post pictures for you guys. Hope you like them. I analyzed them for hours. Then I over analyzed them even more. That's what I do.
I'm the guy that turns 3 pitch climbs into overnight epics. I've had to rappel off of every single grade III I've ever attempted. It gets expensive, but I make some pretty sweet rap anchors. I have photos of every single one of them. I took photos from all different angles so that I could over analyze them upon returning home.
In my world, grade IV doesn't exist. If it's longer than 3 pitches, it is automatically grade VI. I can often be seen hauling 60 pounds of gear up Nutcracker.
Still haven't finished that one. Is the mantle as scary as they say?
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 09:17pm PT
|
> RG wrote: The I-word wasn't used by Largo. It was Wootles who said ...
Yes, it's Wootles who I'm referring to. If that wasn't clear, I apologize. At the time I made my post, I don't believe that JL had even waded back into this morass, so I thought it clear who's post I was referring to.
And I read the statement "...as much as you all love to bust on rc.com everything is pretty well covered over there, that is if you can wade through the 1000 or so impertinent posts. "
As saying: In case you don't want to buy the book, JL, Healyj, RG, and I pretty well spelled out all the research we did in that thread on rc.com. Too bad it was mucked up by all those other impertinent posts.
> RG also said: Since the quote isn't from Largo, you are
> relieved of even presuming to to figure out why he said it.
> Meanwhile you have let stand your claim
>> Of course, they won't sell any books...Apparantly the fact
>> that they just might save lives seems not to be as important.
> which says that Largo, who never said what you say he said, is
> by virtue of those misappropriated words more concerned about
> book sales than human life.
Okay, I apologize for suggesting that. In fact, I was quite impressed that JL came right out and said he felt responsibile for selling an idea that he now believes to be flawed, and he clearly put a huge amount of work into getting this new research done, and promulgating a new idea anchor system that we can all agree is superior to the standard cordelette method. So far as I'm concerned, JL's heart is clearly in the right place. Absolutely no question about it.
I'll just let it go at that.
GO
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 09:20pm PT
|
"As for why he would be so dismissive of all ideas but the one presented in the book, I admit - I really can't (and shouldn't presume to) answer that question. But I sure do find the idea of tarring the entire discussion with the dismissive word "impertinent" to be a bit galling. Still, I'll try to remain productive, despite the fact that many find any input (by better minds than mine) so completely valueless."
I think this deserves a sober response. I stated in the new anchor book that the equalette was simply the first of many new possible innovations that tried to address the problem of extension and equalization. I fully expected, and encouraged others, to keep the discussion going in the hopes of fathering new rigging strategies. I recommended the equalette and the quad simply because those were the ones we were able to devise and test (Wottles work here)–both in the lab and in the field–in the limited time we had. The claim that I, personally, consider new wrinkles on this basic strategy as "completely valueless" is something that, apparently, only you believe.
I've stated many times that little if anything in any of my books is catagorically definitive, rather it's merely the most up to date information that I know of per what should and must remain an ongoing investigation.
The other issue is that I am somehow discouraging the climbing community from embracing strategies other than those shown in my books for the fear that such an endorsement would affect book sales. That's an awfully tough pill to swallow, especially considering that the anchors books are speciality items that might, at best, sell about 20,000 copies over a decade. Per hours spent in the research and writing and profits received from such sales, my rate would work out to around 10 bucks an hour, and zero bucks an hour to important contributors like Rich and Craig, as well as many others. I'm glad that for every book sold, perhaps ten or even twenty people read it. That's the point–to get the knowledge out there. It's basically my other work that allows me, and pays for me, so to speak, to work on books (such as Climbing Anchors) that would put me in the poorhouse and my family on the street if I was relying on them for my livelihood.
JL
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 09:22pm PT
|
Andanother: I'm not a particularly fast climber by anyone's measurement, but after placing the gear, this anchor takes me the same length of time to build as a standard cordelette.
GO
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 09:27pm PT
|
Well, 100 posts and not out of the rough quite yet...
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 09:30pm PT
|
Largo, I tremendously appreciate the time, effort, and money put in by you, Wootles, RG, Chiloe, Sterling, etc, for that effort, and also your role in the discussion around it, which I found extremely valuable. I said as much to Jim when I ran into him last year. In fact, IIRC, I volunteered to put in some time in some testing he was talking about doing this winter.
The fact that I found some elements of that discussion extremely frustrating does not in any way reduce my appreciation for your work.
GO
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 10:06pm PT
|
GOclimb
I'm glad for your input as it brings out good discussion and analysis. You never know what people come up with. There's always subtle nuances that appear in these analysis that surprise us.
In YOSAR, we've tested and analyzed many types of rigging and anchor systems over the years, and I'm always surprised by some of the many different nuances that come up.
I like learning all the stuff there is.
|
|
Rags
Trad climber
Sierra foothills, CA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 10:45pm PT
|
Largo wrote, "I fully expected, and encouraged others, to keep the discussion going in the hopes of fathering new rigging strategies.
John, thanx for the work you have done on anchors, and to further the sport and address safety, something many of us consider worthy of discussion. I would hope that you and wootles continue to be available for comment. You are by virtue of your testing, possibly the closest thing to "experts" on the subject.
Discussions such as this might actually stimulate new thinking on an old topic. However, this become tedious because the discussion gets perforated by those that think it a waste of time. In this regard, it is the very act of interjecting meaningless drivel, irrelavant to the topic, that hobbles an intelligent and worthy discussion. Even the marginally relevant misunderstandings detract from the otherwise intelligent analysis and exchange of ideas. If you have nothing of value to add, have some consideration and respect for others, exhibit some self-control, and post to the "nothing thread".
Back to your regularly scheduled program--------------
The point that I find curious is the suggestion that a sliding X or W assumes that all pieces are bomber and won't blow. The ASCA website has this, "While the sliding X does equalize the pieces, it assumes that neither could break, since if one does break, there is severe extension in the system - enough that it would likely cause the carabiners to break."
Obviously the testing has proved this to be a myth. However, it has been my practice to use this arrangement, and the "W", in most of my anchors, including an arrangment that utlized a marginal piece. A knot to shorten extension always seems the simple solution. Since shock loading is now a marginalized concept, why are there still concerns regarding extension at all?
As someone pointed out, a fall of factor 2 is highly unlikely. Redirects and practicing a "soft belay" in the event there is a possibility would seem to mitigate the risk even further. I am suggesting that our techniques are as important as our mechanics.
"How we do" with "what we have" ultimately dtermines the net risk. There needs to be an integration of both in the learning process and evaluation process.
Thanx to all that have "contributed" to the discussion.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 10:59pm PT
|
Rags, have you read the entire rc.com sliding-x thread? One would hope any discussion here would use that as a starting point versus attempting to cover all that ground again. Comments about the wisdom of doing so here have to do with the seemingly unavoidable landmines of various stripes this topic has invoked at both sites. In my opinion, anyone really committed to such a discussion who hasn't read the rc.com thread in its entirety ought to consider doing so before starting in here in order to understand the lay of the land and the reason for statements of caution.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007 - 11:05pm PT
|
I find a perlon cordolette a sweet piece of gear and carry it, and use it, in many situations. I am fully aware of it's limitations and apply it in situations that I think are safe. It is a quick way to setup an anchor.
I have also used the same system as healyje on occasion, tie off on the high piece with a clove-hitch, tie into two lower pieces via a "magic-x"... equalize the clove-hitch and you're good to go.
It also helps to pick a good belay spot appropriate for the gear you got rather than put some jingus pro in an arbitrary place. When I'm leading I'm always looking for the belay spot...
|
|
Rags
Trad climber
Sierra foothills, CA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 02:54am PT
|
healyje,
yes I was reading along for quite a while when the thread started. Maybe a review isn't a bad idea. It is possible that I am asking something that may have been answered before. So are others. Isn't that what started this thread?
Restating and reinforcing updated information is exactly what needs to occur for MYTHS, such as the one I quoted from ASCA to be dispelled. In fact, there is other value in reviewing information. The review process often sheds new light that reveals unexpected results. Now I've gone and done exactly what I criticzed, a post of marginal relevance to the topic.
|
|
v10gripper
Boulder climber
Joshua Tree, CA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 03:40am PT
|
I'm not going to sit here and read all of the posts in this topic, so this may have already been said.
I have switched out my static cordelette with dynamic cordelette, this aliviates(sp?) some of the factors in a "what if" situation. I think that this helps out both scenarios(sp?) the sliding "w" and the "figure 8" at the "power point". I use a peice of a twin rope. I would bet in the next couple of years you are going to see just about all manufactures(sp?) marketing some sort of similar(sp?) product just for equalizing(sp?) anchors.
sorry about all the"(sp?)'s" but I have had too much to drink to spell properly, or for that matter care that much.
S.Powers
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 04:37am PT
|
My apologies for continuing the flogging of this dead horse, but I find the discussion interesting and have a couple of comments/questions.
1) I really like this setup:
I’ve used it on many occasion and with the quad as per Largo’s book it seems like a perfectly reasonably anchor, am I missing something? I don’t use it all the time, and like a good Marine I improvise, adapt and overcome depending on the situation.
Goclimb, I can set it up pretty quickly, what is it exactly that you don’t like or what takes you so long?
It’s ironic that the setup you consider to be so quick, I (and apparently a few others?) consider to be complex or time consuming. Guess it’s just a matter of practice and familiarity, right?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 04:52am PT
|
"I'm not going to sit here and read all of the posts in this topic, so this may have already been said...."
And so it begins...
|
|
wootles
climber
Gamma Quadrant
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 07:09am PT
|
To GO and others who may have been offended by my 'impertinent' statement. I apologize for being so general. I was referring to the vile ugliness that erupted in a couple of the threads on this topic at rc.com. Ultimately there was more positive discussion and great ideas than impertinence.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 08:36am PT
|
"if you are tied to the anchor with a dynamic rope there is no shock loading."
Everything doesn't seem to be clear yet...
The problem as I see it is about shock loading and the belayer. I dont think the above statement is correct in general, the loading on the ancors depends on the length of dynamic rope between the ancor and the belayer. This lengths could be very short when for example using a cordallete. I believe that I sometimes clip the biner directly into the rope tie in loop (not the harness tie in loop).
The logical step I have seen several times and dont agree with.
Extension is bad if the connection belay belayer is static but it doesn't pose any problem if you have the rope in the chain between belay and belayer.
This is true if the extension is much less than the connection rope. I dont belive that this is always the case and the statement is false otherwise.
Have someone done any testing of the loads on the anchor that also inlude the belayer?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 11:08am PT
|
Degaine--
That set up is bomber so far as the individual placements are bomber. A common misuderstanding is that the rigging determins the holding power of a given anchor. The rigging can only exploit the potential holding power of the individual placements, nothing more.
An interesting side note to the above anchor (the Degaine pic) is that in testing, were were aware of the so-called "clutch effect" that sometimes happens in the Sliding-X and other systems were rope strands are running over in a way that can bind on the biner. Wottles found that by using a big, pear-shaped, anodized biner, with the mouth on top, gate faced outwards, the clutch effect was largely if not entirely eliminated. This is really a point worth noting because it makes a huge difference in the degree of load sharing in an anchor.
JL
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 11:30am PT
|
Degaine,
The pair of sliding-exes is indeed a fair setup. You asked if you are missing anything. I really don't know, as you didn't state the pros and cons as you see them.
Here they are as I see them. I'll take the three-point anchor just for clarity's sake, though all the pros and cons apply for two- or four-point anchors, too:
Pros:
1 - Shares load between all anchor points
2 - Easy to understand and inspect
3 - Requires fairly small amount of gear (one long sling, one short sling, and one biner)
4 - Is fairly resistant to cutting of slings (say by a falling rock). The only point that, when cut, will cause the entire anchor to fail is the small area between the knots at the power-point.
Cons:
1 - Even with no friction, one of the pieces gets half the load, while the other two each get a quarter.
2 - Requires tying, untying, and adjusting four knots.
3 - In testing, the sliding-x has been shown to sometimes bind on itself (the two strands are moving in opposite directions at a pretty good clip), so the dynamic equalization potential is limited.
For reference, here's the pic of the setup Degaine is referring to:
GO
|
|
v10gripper
Boulder climber
Joshua Tree, CA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 11:33am PT
|
""I'm not going to sit here and read all of the posts in this topic, so this may have already been said...."
And so it begins... "
and so it ends
S.powers
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2007 - 11:49am PT
|
Degaine said "It’s ironic that the setup you consider to be so quick, I (and apparently a few others?) consider to be complex or time consuming. Guess it’s just a matter of practice and familiarity, right?
It is indeed. I now carry my cordelette with those two knots in it already, so all that's required is that I clip the cord into the three pieces, pull the middles down to the power point, adjust the two knots, and I'm done.
By the way, the mooselette doesn't only work as I showed it earlier, with all three pieces lined up nicely in a horizontal. Here's a pic of it where all three pieces are spread out over three dimensions. Note that the foreshortening of the camera angle makes it look like there's a high angle in the cord on the left side, whereas it's really just that the tricam is buried in a rather deep crack.
GO
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!