Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab:
Improved sliding x: Is it really safer?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Lab

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next page Last page  View All


devils_advocate


Sep 14, 2006, 9:23 AM
Post #901 of 915 (107777 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1823

Re: Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
:twisted: ................................................ BUMP! ....... :lol:

Jim you are evil, truely evil.

My boss likes your work, he'll be contacting you.


vivalargo


Sep 14, 2006, 12:08 PM
Post #902 of 915 (107779 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 1512

Re: Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Someone should lab tet all of these rigs so we can get some figures on how they all perform under controlled circumstances--then we can go from there.

JL


icculus


Sep 15, 2006, 12:12 PM
Post #903 of 915 (107777 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 32

Re: Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

A few more questions about the "mhabicht" rig...

What kind of knots are those connecting the biners...figure 8's?
Are there two separate cordelettes rigging that anchor or only one?

...and the "mooselette" rig...
Can someone explain how to tie off the powerpoint in the "mooselette" anchor? It's hard to see from the photo. Is it just an overhand knot or figure 8?

Thanks.


Partner cracklover


Sep 15, 2006, 1:12 PM
Post #904 of 915 (107781 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
...and the "mooselette" rig...
Can someone explain how to tie off the powerpoint in the "mooselette" anchor? It's hard to see from the photo. Is it just an overhand knot or figure 8?

Thanks.

There are two knots in the central leg of the mooselette. Both are overhand knots. I leave them in the cord, and just move them up or down as needed. Because the weight is so well distributed, they never get set hard, so they're easy to move each time I go to set up an anchor. Of course their placement doesn't need to be particularly exact.

Another note - I set up the knots so that the double fisherman's that makes up the -lette is permanently up above the upper of the two knots. That keeps it out of the way of any moving parts.

Dunno if it's helpful, but here's another photo I took from way back when we first started discussing these -lettes.
http://i26.photobucket.com/...riker/mooselette.jpg

GO


jjones16


May 20, 2011, 10:09 AM
Post #905 of 915 (3839 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2010
Posts: 80

Re: [pico23] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece.


jt512


May 20, 2011, 10:20 AM
Post #906 of 915 (3838 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

Re: [jjones16] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jjones16 wrote:
I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece.

Would you really want "true equalization" between two pieces if you thought one of them was very weak?

Jay


patto


May 20, 2011, 12:32 PM
Post #907 of 915 (3784 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1446

Re: [jt512] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ZOMBIE THREAD!!!!


Incidentally how much is the equalette actually used?

This whole thread was based of flawed research. Shock loading most definitely does exist.


tomcecil


May 22, 2011, 2:04 PM
Post #908 of 915 (3679 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 13, 2009
Posts: 43

Re: [j_ung] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

J
the acronym can stay the same-
Solid-Redundant-Equalized-Nominal Extension--

cheers


healyje


May 22, 2011, 3:26 PM
Post #909 of 915 (3670 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4196

Re: [patto] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
This whole thread was based of flawed research. Shock loading most definitely does exist.

Been awhile, but I don't recall anyone saying shock loading doesn't exist, just that it's impact on anchors was exaggerated.


Rudmin


Jun 14, 2011, 1:04 PM
Post #910 of 915 (3429 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606

Re: [jt512] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
jjones16 wrote:
I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece.

Would you really want "true equalization" between two pieces if you thought one of them was very weak?

Jay

What else are you going to do with your weak piece? Use it as a backup?


healyje


Jun 14, 2011, 1:14 PM
Post #911 of 915 (3424 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4196

Re: [tomcecil] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Someone should have gotten a thesis or dissertation off this thread by now.


kaizen


Jun 14, 2011, 1:22 PM
Post #912 of 915 (3421 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 17, 2009
Posts: 154

Re: [patto] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
ZOMBIE THREAD!!!!


Incidentally how much is the equalette actually used?

This whole thread was based of flawed research. Shock loading most definitely does exist.

Was there a new study or set of tests done on this? I was under the impression that the last research done on cordage anchors showed that the cordelette was considerably flawed, and that the equalette mitigated some of these concerns. I haven't seen anything that refutes the equalettes superiority. If you have any material you could share I would definitely be interested. I currently use the equalette more than any other configuration, though granted I don't climb multi-pitch very frequently.


patto


Jun 14, 2011, 1:23 PM
Post #913 of 915 (3420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1446

Re: [healyje] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
Someone should have gotten a thesis or dissertation off this thread by now.

Its advanced high school physics or basic first year University physics. Hardly advanced stuff. But since you bait I'll bite back at your previous comments that I never responded to.

healyje wrote:
Been awhile, but I don't recall anyone saying shock loading doesn't exist, just that it's impact on anchors was exaggerated.

We can play semantics on how it was presented but either way to suggest that the results of the 'study' or 'testing' showed that shock loading on anchors was exaggerated is not accurate. The tests were flawed and almost meaningless.


jt512


Jun 14, 2011, 4:41 PM
Post #914 of 915 (3388 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

Re: [Rudmin] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Rudmin wrote:
jt512 wrote:
jjones16 wrote:
I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece.

Would you really want "true equalization" between two pieces if you thought one of them was very weak?

Jay

What else are you going to do with your weak piece? Use it as a backup?

Theoretically? Rig it so that it would take less than half the load. I don't know if there's a practical way to do that, though.

Jay


Partner cracklover


Jun 15, 2011, 9:24 AM
Post #915 of 915 (3308 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [jt512] Improved sliding x: Is it really safer? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Rudmin wrote:
jt512 wrote:
jjones16 wrote:
I don't understand why you would not use a sliding X if you thought one of your two pieces was very weak. This scenario is the inspiration behind the sliding x. It is the only setup, especially given the fact that you're saying you only have two pieces, that offers true equalization, which in turn gives you the least probability of putting more weight on your weak piece.

Would you really want "true equalization" between two pieces if you thought one of them was very weak?

Jay

What else are you going to do with your weak piece? Use it as a backup?

Theoretically? Rig it so that it would take less than half the load. I don't know if there's a practical way to do that, though.

Jay

If the weak piece happens to be further from the power-point than the stronger piece, a tied-off nylon sling or cord between the two (you could use the standard cordelette method, or clove hitches like the OP anchor) will accomplish that. The additional material to the further piece means that significantly less force gets put on that further piece. The force transmitted through the material is proportional to the distance stretched divided by the amount of material. And since both sides have approximately the same stretch distance as the load comes on, the longer sling will transmit less force. So there's a solution for 50% of the cases.

In the opposite situation (where the weak piece closer) if you happen to have both spectra and nylon available you could use the nylon to the weaker piece and the spectra to the stronger one. Again, you have to link them together in such a way as to forgo dynamic equalization. As significant load (like a factor 2 fall) begins to come onto the pieces, both materials will begin to stretch. The load will start out roughly even (at close to zero), but for every distance stretched, the load on the better piece will rise much more quickly.

That would take care of the other 50%. It would look something like this:



GO

First page Previous page 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : The Lab

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$35.96 (10% off)
$126.00 (10% off)
$195.26 (10% off)
$40.46 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook