Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab: Re: [blondgecko] Holey dogbones, Batman! (Yet another anchor thread): Edit Log




patto


Jul 3, 2012, 6:08 AM

Views: 6137

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1446

Re: [blondgecko] Holey dogbones, Batman! (Yet another anchor thread)
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

I give you extra points for style and beauty with the colour combination with matching biners. Wink

My normal response to these threads is to rubbish the design and say use climbing rope or cordalette. This time I not going down that path (maybe its the beer and my good mood, or maybe its a clever design)

It seems like a useful anchor which, if given the item and a couple of bolts, I wouldn't hesitate to use. (There might even be a market for it!) Laugh

But back to my normal response: Wink

Still the differences between this and a long sling knotted with extension limiters is minimal. Also without the reinforcement the anchor sling strength would be rated at less than the loop rating (load is held by two strands + angle)

Finally the obsession with obtaining an anchor that will survive a cut in any point seems a bit silly really. Redundancy makes sense when there is a non negligible probability of failure. In makes sense to approach some gear placement with this attitude. Equipment failure (rope breakage, sling breakage, carabiner breakage) is pretty much negligible. As such redundancy is not necessary.

A similar comparison are in engineered structures. Redundancy is not considered at all important for most members in most circumstances. What is important is ensuring the maximum expected loads are less than the capacity and ensuring appropriate quality control so that members behave as expected.


(This post was edited by patto on Jul 3, 2012, 6:09 AM)



Edit Log:
Post edited by patto () on Jul 3, 2012, 6:08 AM
Post edited by patto () on Jul 3, 2012, 6:09 AM


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?