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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 37 Next page Last page  View All


Partner dominic7


Feb 20, 2006, 7:55 AM
Post #151 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Posts: 18646

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:
The extension of a truly equalizing system is a function of the lengths of the legs. In general, a system will extend somewhere less 2x the length of the failing leg, depending on the angle of the leg.[

Sorry I mispoke here. The extension of an anchor where a leg of length x fails is somewhere around x/n, where n is number of remaining legs.


dingus


Feb 20, 2006, 8:07 AM
Post #152 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

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:

On an unrelated note ... for some reason this thread about equalization makes me think of Bridwell's infamous clove-hitched RURP belay (was it Sea of Dreams?). Anyone know an online source for that photo?

I looked for it recently and couldn't find it.

DMT


kachoong


Feb 20, 2006, 8:11 AM
Post #153 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

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

Gordo,
In reply to:
http://members.cox.net/gbisapk/Gordo-lette.jpg
This provides very little extension, and full redundancy. Cut any leg and you get the same extension as loosing any piece of the anchor. The cloves will need to be adjusted to get them level for whatever arrangement the pieces are in. Moving the master point around moves the cloved biners but keeps the system equalized. I'll get a better pic tomorrow if I haven't figured out the glaring reason this is dumb.

Do you have the inside strand of the out side legs running through the biners? To me that looks like it could cause problems when a piece blows. When the system then extends to equalize, the speed of these strands running through the biner could infact cut into the clove hitches. Does that make sense?

In reply to:
are the oval biners at all weighted? if so having them horizontal like that seems like it wouldnt be the strongest orientation.

I agree.... I prefer to have the biners 'vertically' aligned. Though all these ideas have their pros and cons, none of them should be used until proper testing is done.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=69733

In reply to:
i like kachoongs the best so far. as long as it's redundant if any of the legs blow out it'll extend and still be ok. Simple and pretty speedy if you just leave the powerpoint and cloves intact on the rack.

Using limiter knots, which I didn't show in my picture, on the outside arm reduces the extention somewhat. It's definately a fast setup and the clove hitches don't have to be in an exact spot. The sliding nature of the setup counteracts this.

I really like the 'bunny ears' part of healyje's pivot point set up.


roy_hinkley_jr


Feb 20, 2006, 8:44 AM
Post #154 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652

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

Gotta agree with Dingus that none of these rigs are practical in the real world. KISS outranks SRENE. I'd clove hitch the rope to sequential pieces (like we've done for decades) before any of these clusterfucks. The short Trango Equalizer is looking better all the time for a fast, compact, cheap rig that you can easily escape the belay.

The AAC has always been pathetic on gear testing and standards; this has been pointed out numerous times and doesn't appear likely to change.


ambler


Feb 20, 2006, 9:57 AM
Post #155 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690

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:
Most of these proposals totally blow the KISS principle out of the water. I think the chance of mis-rigging increase very quickly each time you add a knot to the assembly, especially if that knot is not a figure 8... the defacto standard.

I look at some of these riggings and imagine trying to teach that to Billy Bob Noob...
Or to crusty old-timers.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/...000027108AbOWzdszbNh


healyje


Feb 20, 2006, 11:09 AM
Post #156 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

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

That's a bit too cluster crusty, even for an old guy passing through...


dingus


Feb 20, 2006, 11:29 AM
Post #157 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

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

I always liked this one:

http://img410.imageshack.us/...seanalyzethis1ew.jpg

DMT


ambler


Feb 20, 2006, 11:33 AM
Post #158 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690

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:
That's a bit too cluster crusty, even for an old guy passing through...
Well it looks like a cluster ... but looks are sometimes deceiving. 8^)


gordo


Feb 20, 2006, 12:37 PM
Post #159 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111

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

Ok, well, I'm trying to get some ideas, building and changing. I keep coming back to this. It's clean, simple (3 biners and a cordolette), uses one type of knot that EVERY climber must know (right?). Here's a bit of a tutorial just to see if it makes more sense. It would be nice if a few of you would build one, it's super fast. Took me under 2 minutes this time, not counting pics.

Start with a simple cordolette arrangement: The arrows show where the clove hitches will go

http://members.cox.net/...rdo-lette%20001a.jpg

Here I've joined it together to a basic Alpine Equalizer (At least that's what I've heard it called)

http://members.cox.net/...rdo-lette%20002b.jpg

Here I've joined the legs with cloves, the inside leg of each outside loop is left untied. When you do it at first they will be uneven, tie all 4 and then make them close to even, that's the beauty of a clove. It's not very even because I was trying to be fast, and it's not going to really matter.

http://members.cox.net/...ordo-lette%20004.jpg

These 2 show how it equalizes. The biners move to allow equalization out to about 10 degrees each way. The biners aren't holding any real force at this time, they are really not involved in the system until a failure.

http://members.cox.net/...ordo-lette%20005.jpg

http://members.cox.net/...ordo-lette%20006.jpg

Here we get into failure mode. Loosing a piece of Pro or cutting the cord are the same. Extension equals the length of the biner, and it is fully redundant like a cordolette. It's basically 3 separate loops.

http://members.cox.net/...ordo-lette%20007.jpg

Center leg failure:

http://members.cox.net/...ordo-lette%20008.jpg

You can see that the biner goes into use when a leg fails, is pulled down and loaded in the correct direction.

No, the clove hitch couldn't "burn through" with only a few inches of movement, and the untied leg can go in or out of the binner, makes no difference.

This also works when the three legs are not in the same plane. Up and down movement does not affect it. I don't see how it would work with 2 placements (just use the sliding x) or more than 3, so you would have to hook 2 together (in case of 4 placements) to get to 3 legs.

OK, so has anyone built this? Or can anyone set up another design that has this few parts and knots, very little extension, good equalization, and full redundancy?


healyje


Feb 20, 2006, 1:09 PM
Post #160 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

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

Gordo,

I think you have a pretty good compromise option there relative to a viable [generic] limiting option for all AE rigs. It obviously provides more equalization than knots do. Not sure I would opt for this over a straight AE rig with two redundant X's that would still allow for full equalization. You definitely get the minimization award, however and I'll keep this solution in the back of my mind in the future.


slcliffdiver


Feb 20, 2006, 1:28 PM
Post #161 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489

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:
In reply to:
Perhaps the two are mutually exclusive
John,

I think to some degree this is what makes this such a difficult problem - that equalization and extension are somewhat mutually exclusive goals.

Limiting extention by neccesity limits the "range of angles" through which a system can equalize but not neccisarily the equalization itself (neglecting material stretch).

What limits the angles vs how much extension you have is the distance between the pieces. What limits the useful angles is the configuration (not just distance between the pieces) and if I remember correctly the length of the material. Material stretch probably should be taken acount of if you have unequal arm lenths and are using nylon for your anchor material otherwise the long arm will legthen and the biners may bind against the limiting not and limit the useful equalization to an extent.

I read a bit slower this time so hopefully I'm not repeating someone this time. But I had a really late night and the screens still a blurry so who knows.


gordo


Feb 20, 2006, 1:36 PM
Post #162 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111

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:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Perhaps the two are mutually exclusive
John,

I think to some degree this is what makes this such a difficult problem - that equalization and extension are somewhat mutually exclusive goals.

Limiting extention by neccesity limits the "range of angles" through which a system can equalize but not neccisarily the equalization itself

That is of course the bottom line. It's a matter of degrees. Full equalization at extreme angles excluses limited extension. Zero extension, ie one sling off of each piece, excludes real equalization.

Real equalization over a limited range combined with little extension is the middle ground. I've always been a "middle of the road" and "split the difference" kind of guy.


Partner epoch
Moderator

Feb 20, 2006, 2:04 PM
Post #163 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 32055

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:
Or to crusty old-timers.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/...000027108AbOWzdszbNh

Here we are talking about redundant, safe, and self-equalizing systems. it would be simpler to have just loosened the upper clove and had the loop on the draws be your power-point.

I have never commented on someone's posted anchor, but that looks scary to me. I think I would feel uncomfortable using that set up.


Partner dominic7


Feb 20, 2006, 2:11 PM
Post #164 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Posts: 18646

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


Your wife was just giving you funny looks for building anchors in your living room. How's she doing with you punching holes in the vinyl siding of your house? :)


jakedatc


Feb 20, 2006, 2:32 PM
Post #165 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

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

hehe i was thinking the same thing.. glue in or rawls for bolting in vinyl? ;)

Jda I'd climb on anything that larry put up for an anchor.

at Cathedral the last time i was there a guy came practically running over the top of a route next to us. cloved himself into one of the bolts "Off belay", clipped a 24" sling with a biner on both ends to each bolt.. sliding x.. single locker power point.. set up belay "On Belay" total time. 30 seconds? (Gabe remember the guy on top of the book?) for what he was using it for.. quick and sufficient


gordo


Feb 20, 2006, 2:36 PM
Post #166 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111

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:

Your wife was just giving you funny looks for building anchors in your living room. How's she doing with you punching holes in the vinyl siding of your house? :)

:lol: yeah, that looks bad huh? Those holes are where she hangs her plants in the summer, they are from an old resident. I'm in the clear :D


Partner cracklover


Feb 20, 2006, 3:10 PM
Post #167 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9972

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:
at Cathedral the last time i was there a guy came practically running over the top of a route next to us. cloved himself into one of the bolts "Off belay", clipped a 24" sling with a biner on both ends to each bolt.. sliding x.. single locker power point.. set up belay "On Belay" total time. 30 seconds? (Gabe remember the guy on top of the book?) for what he was using it for.. quick and sufficient

Don't remember it specifically, but that's exactly what I do for multipitch sport. Saves two draws for the leader on the next pitch.

GO


dr_monkey


Feb 20, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #168 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2005
Posts: 81

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

It is rather simple when there are just two bolts on one plane; two biners, clove hitch rope (off), sliding x, locker (on belay.) (Un)Fortunately I don't do that all that often.

In reply to:
OK, so has anyone built this? Or can anyone set up another design that has this few parts and knots, very little extension, good equalization, and full redundancy?

I built it and then I combined your clove hitched oval technique with Healyje's rig (the single biner one, there is actually less friction than with two biners.)

If you grab the correct 2 strands you can limit extension if any one of the three pieces go with only 1 biner. To find the correct strands watch 3 of the strands on one side of the central biner as you move the PP side to side, two will be moving in the same direction. Those are the two to clove hitch together with a biner.

This rig has no advantages over Gordo's, but it meets all the same requirements with the same amount of gear. It is still too complex for my taste, but it is kinda of cool to play with. The interesting thing is that it even "catches" if the piece on the opposite side of the hitched biner fails. Try it.

Wee Haw, got nothing better to do on a Monday night, a wait a sec...

DRS


Partner cracklover


Feb 20, 2006, 7:58 PM
Post #169 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9972

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 thoughts.

First, regarding the Gordolette:

http://members.cox.net/...ordo-lette%20004.jpg

I'm really impressed at the fact that Gordo came up with a solution that is self-equalizing, has redundant strands (meaning that not only is it okay if a piece rips, but also if the line is cut), and has almost no extension. A sort of holy grail. So those are the pros.

Here were the cons:
1 - I found tying the biners in a bit finicky. You have to get the cloves in the right spot, or you lose some movement. With practice this could be pretty speedy, as I'm sure Gordo could attest at this point. ;)
2 - At times, self equalization is pretty limited. You only have the biner's range of movement. In practice, this *might* not be a problem. I haven't used it on the side of any cliffs yet.
3 - Of all the methods thrown out, it's the most complex IMHO. Not too bad, really, just throwing that out there.

Okay, now the Mooselette:
http://i1.tinypic.com/o6bn9y.jpg

I found this to be one of the easiest to put together. It's actually about as easy as the standard cordelette configuration. And if you were doing it commonly, you could have one or both of the limiter knots pre-tied in your cordelette (you'd move the lower one once you start rigging.) It's also extremely successful at limiting extension, and it provides full equalization over a wide range. I mentioned earlier my concern about the potential for an American Triangle force with widely spread legs (oh my!) Would want to check with JL and his testers to see if that's a valid concern.

But the biggest issue I have with most of these systems is their complete failure when you cut a strand. That's where the Gordolette (the first one) really shines. So how does the Mooselette do? Actually, better than I expected. Turns out that if you cut the middle strand, the Mooselette only extends an inch or two to the lower limiter knot, and then perfectly self equalizes on the two outer pieces! Unfortunately, if the strand is cut on either of the outer arms, no such luck. But if you back up the Mooselette by clipping your tie-in rope to a piece or two, at least you've got redundancy there.

Now with all that being said, I can't help but return to the crossed slings:
http://i26.photobucket.com/...ker/2_xed_slings.jpg

How does this rig stack up? It's the quickest and easiest to put together of the bunch. It's fully redundant - if any individual line is sliced, the rig equalizes on the other two pieces. If a piece blows, there's acceptable (very minimal) extension. And you get an extremely wide range of self equalization, even with 3D anchors.

There is just one downside: No specialty piece of gear like a cordelette! Damn, what are we gear hounds going to do? Seriously, though - to me, for three pieces, it seems like the best of the bunch.

GO


papounet


Feb 21, 2006, 5:09 AM
Post #170 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471

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

Gordo, this is brilliant work !!
By connecting the most outer line with the nearest strand to the inside anchor, you are recreating the 2-piece sling x.

I have replaced the munter hitch by cows tails knot. this allows less precision in where you tie the "links" between arms at the costs of a slighter greater extension. because the linking biners are taken off-line. you have full load distribution across a larger angle range

setup
http://img425.imageshack.us/...26/papounette4jy.jpg

to one side
http://img389.imageshack.us/...apounette22mx.th.jpg

to the other side
http://img389.imageshack.us/...apounette30ye.th.jpg

ARGGGH: failure of a the most extreme point
http://img385.imageshack.us/...apounette44aq.th.jpg

WFFFFF, we are safe thanks to the papounette (TM).

The use of at least 2 knots such as cows-tail, fig-8, butterfly,etc... allow you to have a pre-rigged papounette which is even faster to setup, (shown here with dedicated biners marked appropriately)

http://img385.imageshack.us/...apounette53zb.th.jpg
It is then possible to use munter hitch or butterlfly for the remaining linkage between the arm of the central point


jeremy11


Feb 21, 2006, 6:01 AM
Post #171 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2004
Posts: 597

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

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=69768

this takes the sliding x with limiter knots and allows it too be redundant and capable of multiple anchors. take a cordalette and loop it in half (or 2 big slings) (the doubling making the cordalette or sling redundant - an issue with most of our other systems) then tie an overhand on either side. clip one piece to each end and one piece to inside the limiter knot. adjust the limiters accordingly. more pieces can be clipped anywhere. it has great equalization (with two big anodized pear biners it slides really nice) and little extension. you can keep the cordalette tied like this for the next anchor and keep the powerpoint biners in there too. note this anchor has six pieces but only needs one sliding x rig and maybe a few extra biners and slings for the oddball pieces. for really spread out anchors when you are low on slings you can use the same concept but without the doubled redundant cordalette, and then you could even put in multiple limiter knots on either side.


jackflash


Feb 21, 2006, 7:00 AM
Post #172 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 483

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 nice idea, but won't it will be difficult to equalize the extra placements that are merely clipped into the middle of the sliding x's arms? That was one problem with the standard cordelette mentioned earlier: "eyeballing" equalization is nearly impossible. In your configuration, the pieces seem to only serve as backups. Even if you did place the knots just right so that they were loading the inner pieces appropriately, that loading would change as soon as the direction of pull shifted.


kachoong


Feb 21, 2006, 7:25 AM
Post #173 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

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:
Gordo, this is brilliant work !!
By connecting the most outer line with the nearest strand to the inside anchor, you are recreating the 2-piece sling x.

I have replaced the munter hitch by cows tails knot. this allows less precision in where you tie the "links" between arms at the costs of a slighter greater extension. because the linking biners are taken off-line. you have full load distribution across a larger angle range

setup
http://img52.imageshack.us/...61/papounette2jg.jpg

Clove hitches are probably better, since they will more likely stay in place on the 'ends' of the biners, as opposed to sliding and creating a possible crossloading.


dingus


Feb 21, 2006, 8:15 AM
Post #174 of 915 (110159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

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:
Clove hitches are probably better, since they will more likely stay in place on the 'ends' of the biners, as opposed to sliding and creating a possible crossloading.

The socalled redundancy of the gordelette relies upon a 2 clove hitches in tandem. I don't share the confidence in clove hitches some of my climbing companions have.

But then again, I don't share the common zeal for equalized anchors nor what I believe is an unreasonable fear of shock loading either. The bulk of mu climbing anchors are not equalized as I grok it is unnecessary for solid pieces.

DMT


vivalargo


Feb 21, 2006, 9:18 AM
Post #175 of 915 (110210 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

I have an eye infection and can't read much for another couple days but there's what is coming back from the guys field testing all this stuff plus a couple comments from me (based on our testing at Sterling).

1. Dingus' contention to keep it simple is a prime concern in real world climbing.

2. The pulley systems (all basically build on the Trango Equalizer model) are too complicatd/slow to actually rig in the field. Perhaps if you got them down you could use them efficientally.

3. The pullley rigs are tricky to use on vertically oriented placmenets.

4. A note: The main drawback (really the only drawback according to our testing) with the slinding x (to connect 2 pieces) is that the X sometimes binds on itself (the "clutch" effect), but this in entirely avoided by using an anodized widmouthed biner at the master point. Always use one and the slidng x is just about as good as it gets for use with two pieces--in both vertical and horizontal orientations.

5. Another note: There is little if any evidence of a strand breaking in a rigging system in any real world fall. Providing your gear is in good condition, the concern that a strand might break is a theoretical, not a real world, concern. Anything can get cut--even the rope--but a strand does not simply break from a fall. Note how many cam tie in loops have actually broken in all the hundreds of thousands of falls on those units. Any? I've never heard of this happending if the cord is in good shape.

6. So far, the equalette and the quad are field testing the best (in both ice and rock climbing situations). Easy, solid, fast to set up and dismantle, no doodads, and no special gear.

JL

First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 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?
$243.00 (10% off)
$62.55 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$174.56 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook