|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 2:10 PM
Post #1 of 60
(6197 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
some of you may have read this thread about designing a new hanger:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
one of the main issues i tried to avoid was working with a weighted chain. when you anchor to the middle links the chain gets weighted and sometimes you pin in place a biner you need to remove. im sure most of you understand what i try to explain. so thats why i began designing the 2 holed hangers, which i am about to cut some prototypes for tests.
but, last week i was replacing some chains that were stolen from the anchors of a popular route. so i thought, instead of joining the chain with the hanger using a quicklink at the end of the chain, i could put the quicklink on a middle link, creating 2 independent piedes of chain. this would allow one piece to be the working end, and the other, shorter piece, to be used for anchoring... so i placed the quicklink on the third link of the chain, leavin 2 links on one side and 3 or 4 on the other side....
i did that to both chains. so, my idea is to use the lower link on the short side for anchoring (using the rope, PAS, daisy, quickdraws, whatever) and use the longer chain to setup the rappel, or put some quickdraws there to setup a toprope....
what do you think?? good idea, bad idea?? it costs the same to setup like that or in the original way. i have $7 in the 2 hangers, 2 pieces of chain and 2 quicklinks, way cheaper than normal anchors...
(This post was edited by shu2kill on May 19, 2010, 3:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 19, 2010, 2:21 PM
Post #2 of 60
(6187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Now the chain gets pinched. I guess you figure that's better than the biner. I don't know for sure if it's true over the lifetime of the chain but that would be my guess too.
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 2:28 PM
Post #3 of 60
(6171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
shockabuku wrote: Now the chain gets pinched. I guess you figure that's better than the biner. I don't know for sure if it's true over the lifetime of the chain but that would be my guess too.
yes, the chain gets pinched. however, i dont think pinching would significantly reduce the life neither of the chain nor the biner. if anything, it would harm the biner more, since its aluminium and the chain is steel. but, the issue with the biner being pinched is that sometimes i need to remove that biner, and i struggle because my own weight is pinning it down.... with the chain, the first link is pineed in place, but the ones under it can move freely....
|
|
|
|
|
scottek67
May 19, 2010, 2:37 PM
Post #4 of 60
(6153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2008
Posts: 515
|
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 2:42 PM
Post #5 of 60
(6146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
scottek67 wrote: do you mind explaining what your point is? while you are at it do you mind explaining why bother using locking biners if you are not going to lock them?
the point is basically to prevent anchoring the biners to the same chain i am going to load with my weight, as this pins them in place sometimes. besides, i dont like how the biners pinch with the link under them if they are not at the end of the chain and i weight them...
and i didnt lock the biners because, as you can see, im rappeling. you can tell that from the fact that you can see my hiking boots, and the purcell prussik and PAS are not weighted.... my weight was always on the rappeling rope....
|
|
|
|
|
patto
May 19, 2010, 2:49 PM
Post #6 of 60
(6132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Nice work shu2kill.
Ignore the tards. There are always some who feel the need to be pedantic about locking redundant biners.
|
|
|
|
|
scottek67
May 19, 2010, 2:50 PM
Post #7 of 60
(6132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2008
Posts: 515
|
shu2kill wrote: shockabuku wrote: Now the chain gets pinched. I guess you figure that's better than the biner. I don't know for sure if it's true over the lifetime of the chain but that would be my guess too. yes, the chain gets pinched. however, i dont think pinching would significantly reduce the life neither of the chain nor the biner. if anything, it would harm the biner more, since its aluminium and the chain is steel. but, the issue with the biner being pinched is that sometimes i need to remove that biner, and i struggle because my own weight is pinning it down.... with the chain, the first link is pineed in place, but the ones under it can move freely.... 
|
|
|
|
|
potreroed
May 19, 2010, 2:50 PM
Post #8 of 60
(6132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454
|
I've done this a number of times at EPC--works fine.
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 2:57 PM
Post #9 of 60
(6119 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
thanx patto and potreroed. i think i will start using this anchors when i run out of the fixe ones i got... this are much cheaper and i think they will work fine...
and yes scottek67, you dont get it....
|
|
|
|
|
scottek67
May 19, 2010, 2:59 PM
Post #10 of 60
(6118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2008
Posts: 515
|
shu2kill wrote: and i didnt lock the biners because, as you can see, im rappeling. you can tell that from the fact that you can see my hiking boots, and the purcell prussik and PAS are not weighted.... my weight was always on the rappeling rope....
okay... am I looking at the right pics? if so I'm even more confused...
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 3:06 PM
Post #11 of 60
(6098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
scottek67 wrote: [image]http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu248/shu2kill/DSC07453.jpg[/image] okay... am I looking at the right pics? if so I'm even more confused...
yes, thats one of the pics, but not the only one:
look at this one:
there you can see hiking boots, purcell prussik is loose, and PAS is also loose, you can notice that at the chain. i pushed with my legs to get away from the wall to take the pictures. on another pic you can see my left hand fingers where i pulled on the purcell to lift it and get a better angle of the chains....
(This post was edited by shu2kill on May 19, 2010, 3:07 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
May 19, 2010, 3:51 PM
Post #12 of 60
(6047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
someone stole anchors from a route that you had to rappel into? Must be other climbers then, lame...
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 4:06 PM
Post #13 of 60
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
redlude97 wrote: someone stole anchors from a route that you had to rappel into? Must be other climbers then, lame...
well, actually, the anchors were set at a place where they could be easily reached walking. there were 2 hangers with a 3 feet chain each. about a month ago, someone stole the chains. we thought maybe it was the owner of the place, since the routes are in a private ranch and we know ranchers have lots of uses for chains. so we replaced the chains with quicklinks 2 weeks ago. and this sunday, when i went there again, i found out someone had stolen the quicklinks. but since this time i had my drill with me, i rappeled to the last hanger, drilled another hole, set another hanger, and installed the chains... then i walked to the top and removed the 2 original hangers. the bolts were all rusty, i will use them to try to convince the locals to rebolt the area....
i know i altered the route, removing about 6 feet of boring and really easy climbing, but we cant be leaving fixed gear every time we go there... this time, if they steal the chains, we will know for sure there were other climbers...
|
|
|
|
|
turbodarky
May 19, 2010, 7:06 PM
Post #14 of 60
(5946 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2010
Posts: 14
|
Personally I think it's unnecessary, because all the anchors I've used have more than 3 links hanging from the hangers. So what I do is anchor to the top link, then by putting my weight on it, the other two links hanging freely allows you to remove your draw(s) and run the rope through the last link. Allowing you to set up your belay device, take the weight off the PAS and unclip.not sure if it's the best way (not the safest by any means) but its always been smooth cleaning my routes this way.
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 7:14 PM
Post #15 of 60
(5934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
turbodarky wrote: Personally I think it's unnecessary, because all the anchors I've used have more than 3 links hanging from the hangers. So what I do is anchor to the top link, then by putting my weight on it, the other two links hanging freely allows you to remove your draw(s) and run the rope through the last link. Allowing you to set up your belay device, take the weight off the PAS and unclip.not sure if it's the best way (not the safest by any means) but its always been smooth cleaning my routes this way.
thats the way i do it too. but maybe your chains are bigger than the ones normally found here. because i have noticed that when i anchor on one link and then transfer my weight to the last link (threading the rope and loading the rappel devece), the biner sometimes gets pinched and stuck between the link it is clipped and the one under it. so i have to release my weight off the chains to be able to remove the biners, even if they are not holding any weight.... so, even if thats how we do it and its very possible, its definitely not always smooth or easy...
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
May 19, 2010, 7:17 PM
Post #16 of 60
(5929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
shu2kill wrote: turbodarky wrote: Personally I think it's unnecessary, because all the anchors I've used have more than 3 links hanging from the hangers. So what I do is anchor to the top link, then by putting my weight on it, the other two links hanging freely allows you to remove your draw(s) and run the rope through the last link. Allowing you to set up your belay device, take the weight off the PAS and unclip.not sure if it's the best way (not the safest by any means) but its always been smooth cleaning my routes this way. thats the way i do it too. but maybe your chains are bigger than the ones normally found here. because i have noticed that when i anchor on one link and then transfer my weight to the last link (threading the rope and loading the rappel devece), the biner sometimes gets pinched and stuck between the link it is clipped and the one under it. so i have to release my weight off the chains to be able to remove the biners, even if they are not holding any weight.... so, even if thats how we do it and its very possible, its definitely not always smooth or easy...
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 7:23 PM
Post #17 of 60
(5920 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
redlude97 wrote: shu2kill wrote: turbodarky wrote: Personally I think it's unnecessary, because all the anchors I've used have more than 3 links hanging from the hangers. So what I do is anchor to the top link, then by putting my weight on it, the other two links hanging freely allows you to remove your draw(s) and run the rope through the last link. Allowing you to set up your belay device, take the weight off the PAS and unclip.not sure if it's the best way (not the safest by any means) but its always been smooth cleaning my routes this way. thats the way i do it too. but maybe your chains are bigger than the ones normally found here. because i have noticed that when i anchor on one link and then transfer my weight to the last link (threading the rope and loading the rappel devece), the biner sometimes gets pinched and stuck between the link it is clipped and the one under it. so i have to release my weight off the chains to be able to remove the biners, even if they are not holding any weight.... so, even if thats how we do it and its very possible, its definitely not always smooth or easy... Looks like you are using lockers that are too big(belay lockers). I like to use BD positron or vaporlock lockers, which work great with just about any anchor I encounter due to the small nose.
well, im using the ones on the pics since those are the skinnier ones i have... are the ones you mention smaller than those?? mine are trango screwlocks i believe....
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 19, 2010, 7:31 PM
Post #18 of 60
(5906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
not a bad idea, particularly when there is more than one climber weighting the anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 7:33 PM
Post #19 of 60
(5896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: not a bad idea, particularly when there is more than one climber weighting the anchor.
thats another thing i didnt mention, i think these could work good on multipitch anchors, as climbers would be in independent strands of the chain....
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
May 19, 2010, 7:52 PM
Post #20 of 60
(5871 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
I think it would be great for hanging belays with long chains.
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 8:01 PM
Post #21 of 60
(5859 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
the reason i used those small chains is that i originally was going to put them at a place easily accesible walking, so i thought smaller chains would prevent someone from taking them as they would be useless... but then i decided to lower the anchors so you cant get to them walking....
i was told by a friend that from the pics it looks as it would create the Amercian Triangle.... anybody else thinks that??? i dont think so, but he mentioned it...
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
May 19, 2010, 8:10 PM
Post #22 of 60
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
Connecting to the ends of the chains would set up a pretty large angle that wouldn't be desirable for a lead anchor but is insignificant for rappelling.
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 8:14 PM
Post #23 of 60
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
hafilax wrote: Connecting to the ends of the chains would set up a pretty large angle that wouldn't be desirable for a lead anchor but is insignificant for rappelling.
what do you mean?? in my understanding, conecting the 2 smaller tails with the rope would create the ADT. but those are to be used to anchor yourself, and the rope is threaded through the loner tails, which are set more or less equalized under the hangers....
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
May 19, 2010, 8:32 PM
Post #24 of 60
(5818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
This is probably ok, my bigger concern is the second photo. That bolt on the left is a bit to close to that crack for my liking. I don't know the area, but that rock looks friable to me.
Again, I'm not seeing this in person, but I'm not real sure that one bolt is all that good.
Can anybody comment on this?
|
|
|
|
|
shu2kill
May 19, 2010, 8:41 PM
Post #25 of 60
(5804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
|
socalclimber wrote: This is probably ok, my bigger concern is the second photo. That bolt on the left is a bit to close to that crack for my liking. I don't know the area, but that rock looks friable to me. Again, I'm not seeing this in person, but I'm not real sure that one bolt is all that good. Can anybody comment on this?
well, the rock is not the hardest one. and as you can see in the same pic, i hammered several places farther away from the edge, but the rock sounded like hollow. i noticed i was going to bolt it close to the edge, but it was either there, or in the rock that didnt sound good. im using 1/2" bolts, and i was told to leave at least 10X diameter of the bolt from any rock's imperfection. i think the edge is about 5" from the hole, barely at 10Xdiameter. i didnt measure, just estimated....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
