Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab:
Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea...
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Lab

Premier Sponsor:

 


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 9:15 AM
Post #1 of 147 (39442 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea...
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm curious what you all think about this one.

My problem with the current design of the equalette is the lack of a single master point that is redundant. To achieve an attachment to a redundant master point, you must use two carabiners on the two strands of the equalette. I frequently belay a second in autoblock mode when climbing multi-pitch, and this adds some difficulty to the system. Also, clipping additional carabiners into the weighted loops of the equalette can be somewhat difficult.

Attached is my idea for a possible solution to this problem.

The advantages of this idea are that the master point is simplified and singular, yet maintains redundancy and the same degree (if not better) equalization as the equalette. The system also eliminates the knotted arm of the equalette by incorporating that junction into the other knots in the system.

The disadvantages are that it is more difficult to untie. I have used a modified version of a double fisherman's knot to tie this version of the equalette. A figure eight or overhand could possibly be used, but I worry about the eight capsizing off the end should one arm fail and the knot is loaded with a carabiner directly on it. I'm not sure the simle overhand would afford enough security in the standard configuration. If the "best" knot for this system can be sussed out, I believe this could be even better than the equalette.

Comments? Criticism? Do I have a few screws loose or is this a decent idea?
Attachments: New_Equalette.jpg (40.8 KB)


rocknice2


May 11, 2007, 9:28 AM
Post #2 of 147 (39417 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1203

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post



This will not work. The DF's will slip towards the master point.


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 9:34 AM
Post #3 of 147 (39408 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [rocknice2] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You're right, they will if you just tie a double fishermans in two strands with the third strand free sliding through the knot. You'd have to do sort of a modified version of the knot - there are a few ways to tie the knot to solve the problem that I've come up with. None are knots I've seen before, but are basically derivations of the double fishermans.

Or there's the option for some other knot that might be better. Any ideas?.

At this point I'm not sure what the best knot is. The point is that the system seems to be an improvement on the equalette for the reasons listed above. Other than your objection listed above, do you see any issues with this system? Think it's better? Or worse?


Partner drector


May 11, 2007, 9:57 AM
Post #4 of 147 (39387 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Figure-8 follow through?


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 10:01 AM
Post #5 of 147 (39382 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [drector] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Well, the drawback to the figure 8 (likewise in the equalette) is that if one arm of the equalette cuts, you have the knot loaded across two strands coming out of the same end of the knot. Eights tend to capsize and roll in this load configuration (hence the reason you use a European Death Knot - the overhand - instead of an eight when tieing ends of a rope together to rap). So maybe a simple overhand would be better? My concern is that the overhand wouldn't be secure enough in the standard load configuration of this system. But maybe it would if you added a backup double overhand on the tag end?


(This post was edited by trenchdigger on May 11, 2007, 10:04 AM)


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 10:22 AM
Post #6 of 147 (39354 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If you present this to few expert riggers, I am sure they will all agree that you need some major help.


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 10:24 AM
Post #7 of 147 (39350 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
If you present this to few expert riggers, I am sure they will all agree that you need some major help.
Thanks for the always productive input Majid.


greenketch


May 11, 2007, 11:05 AM
Post #8 of 147 (39317 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 12, 2005
Posts: 501

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'd be willing to play with the idea a bit. My initial thoughts are that this looks like a fiddly time consumer.

If one can get it together in advance it works kinda. But in the more realistic world of a trad anchor with unequal legs all the knots and playing looks from a glance to be slower than I would choose.


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 11:10 AM
Post #9 of 147 (39309 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [greenketch] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

greenketch wrote:
I'd be willing to play with the idea a bit. My initial thoughts are that this looks like a fiddly time consumer.

If one can get it together in advance it works kinda. But in the more realistic world of a trad anchor with unequal legs all the knots and playing looks from a glance to be slower than I would choose.

No more fiddly or time consuming than an equalette IF you don't have to adjust the location of the knots (in almost all cases, you shouldn't). As with the standard equalette, there are ways to shorten an arm as necessary to prevent the need for adjusting the knots.

This thing is definitely meant to be tied and left tied unless you need the cord to bail off of or something. I treat the equalette the same way when I use it (which isn't very often). I still prefer the standard tied cordelette for most anchors.


(This post was edited by trenchdigger on May 11, 2007, 11:11 AM)


billl7


May 11, 2007, 11:47 AM
Post #10 of 147 (39271 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
Well, the drawback to the figure 8 (likewise in the equalette) is that if one arm of the equalette cuts, you have the knot loaded across two strands coming out of the same end of the knot.
With the equalette, I've been going with the figure 8 vice overhand for the limiter knots because of the strength difference under usual loading (no failures). Under failures, the kind of loading you mention occurs if a) both strands of one arm are cut or if b) both strands go to one piece of pro and that pro pulls; I have an overhand when and where the whole arm attaches to the pro. The probability of "a" is low enough for me to not be a concern. Regarding "b", I usually pick the most bomber pro I have for this arm; even so, if that pro comes out and the knot rolls it can go ahead and roll until it is stopped by the end of the loop - if it doesn't reset before that.

Majid, you are being a dick.

Edit: The overhand knot I mentioned above when one arm goes to one piece is important (and is shown in the Long/Gaines anchor book). If it is not there then cut the loop of that arm in one place and a rolling knot won't be stopped (unless it resets).


(This post was edited by billl7 on May 11, 2007, 11:53 AM)


binrat


May 11, 2007, 12:02 PM
Post #11 of 147 (39240 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Have you tried a overhand knot on each side and an double overhand knot on the standing ends of the rope?


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 12:03 PM
Post #12 of 147 (39239 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [billl7] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks for the good info, Bill.

My "improvement" really does nothing more than adding a third strand to the "master point" of the equalette. In doing this, I feel it makes clipping into the equalette easier by eliminating the need to clip each of the standard equalette strands individually, and by making the master point more accessible when the equalette is under load.


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 12:07 PM
Post #13 of 147 (39233 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

[URL=http://imageshack.us]


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 12:11 PM
Post #14 of 147 (39224 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [binrat] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

binrat wrote:
Have you tried a overhand knot on each side and an double overhand knot on the standing ends of the rope?

Yes. It seems pretty good.

I've also tried an overhand in the "loop" of the arm, then pass the standing end through that overhand, then tie a double overhand in the standing end around the "loop" of the arm. It ends up much like a double fishermans, dresses nicely, and seems like it would be very strong (though I haven't done any testing yet). I may be able to access a load cell to test some of these ideas in the next few weeks. If so, I'll post the results.

Attached is another diagram that may better show the idea, in case my multiple colors of lines were confusing. The blue ellipses are the knots which fix all three strands at that point.




(This post was edited by trenchdigger on May 11, 2007, 12:15 PM)
Attachments: New_Equalette2.gif (10.7 KB)


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 12:17 PM
Post #15 of 147 (39214 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
I like your last image better.


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 11, 2007, 12:19 PM)


billl7


May 11, 2007, 12:20 PM
Post #16 of 147 (39207 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

To be clear, I was not discounting your modification.

A lot of folks will like the idea of "explicitly" loading two strands instead of loading each strand via isolated and hopefully same-sized biners. And before you mentioned it, I hadn't considered accesibility of the master point under load.


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 12:20 PM
Post #17 of 147 (39206 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:

I like it better

It's exactly the same thing, just without the text and leading lines. So tell me why a "master rigger" like yourself wouldn't approve.

Edit: (to accomodate Majid's edit)
majid_sabet wrote:

I like your last image better.
I think you misunderstood the first drawing (and I didn't explain well). The systems are identical. The blue lines in the first drawing are not cord - only leading lines to indicate what the text refers to. I should have been more clear.


(This post was edited by trenchdigger on May 11, 2007, 12:28 PM)


binrat


May 11, 2007, 12:22 PM
Post #18 of 147 (39200 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If you don't have a simple little twist in one of the ropes where the biners are clipped and have an anchor failure, the biners may simply slide over the knot. This would create a system failure. If you twisted 1 of the ropes and clip both strands this will prevent it.


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 12:24 PM
Post #19 of 147 (39196 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [billl7] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
To be clear, I was not discounting your modification.

A lot of folks will like the idea of "explicitly" loading two strands instead of loading each strand via isolated and hopefully same-sized biners. And before you mentioned it, I hadn't considered accesibility of the master point under load.

Thanks, yes I understand.

I've tried the equalette and I like the way it works. I just hate working with the master point in any situation other than a toprope with 2 opposte/opposed carabiners.

But when I'm at a semi-hanging belay and I want to bring up a second on an autoblock device, it presents a whole new problem. Then my second arrives at the belay and has trouble clipping into the master point. It just has too much cluster f*** built in for my liking. I think this may solve the problem. I just wanted to see if anyone could poke any holes in it.


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 12:25 PM
Post #20 of 147 (39191 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:

I like it better

It's exactly the same thing, just without the text and leading lines. So tell me why a "master rigger" like yourself wouldn't approve.

I do not like your middle point as I marked in my pervious image cause during shock load, your center point will hit the hardest due to least stretch and the other two points are only getting a fraction of the load therefore your equalized anchor is not functioning as equalized .

built it simple and do not add stuff you do not need


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 11, 2007, 12:26 PM)


billl7


May 11, 2007, 12:35 PM
Post #21 of 147 (39162 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Majid,

Assuming by shock load you mean the initial impact from the fall, trenchdigger's modification has two strands taking the load just as would the unmodified equalette. So the stiffness and equalization is the same. Now, if the 3rd strand is much shorter than the other two then there could be some unecessary loading of that strand, the limiter knots, as well as the two arms of the rig. So make all 3 strands the same length (might already be the plan).


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 12:38 PM
Post #22 of 147 (39156 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [billl7] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
Majid,

Assuming by shock load you mean the initial impact from the fall, trenchdigger's modification has two strands taking the load just as would the unmodified equalette. So the stiffness and equalization is the same. Now, if the 3rd strand is much shorter than the other two then there could be some unecessary loading of that strand, the limiter knots, as well as the two arms of the rig. So make all 3 strands the same length (might already be the plan).

The only reason I made one strand slightly shorter was to make it simple to clip 2 of the three. A slight difference in length shouldn't make a difference. In fact, it might make the system slightly stronger because it will prevent the knot from being loaded directly onto the carabiner. That's another thing I'd like to test in a load cell.


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 12:47 PM
Post #23 of 147 (39146 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [billl7] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
Majid,

Assuming by shock load you mean the initial impact from the fall, trenchdigger's modification has two strands taking the load just as would the unmodified equalette. So the stiffness and equalization is the same. Now, if the 3rd strand is much shorter than the other two then there could be some unecessary loading of that strand, the limiter knots, as well as the two arms of the rig. So make all 3 strands the same length (might already be the plan).

Bill
A foot of cord stretch differently than 18 inches of same cord therefore we do not need to go thru those arguments. The whole purpose of building any type of equalized anchor is to make sure that we are safe in event of a shock load. That is the whole goal and nothing else therefore, that will leave us with few questions such as;

What type of anchor are we building here (simple, complex).
What is it going to used for?
In event of sh8t hit the fan, what is the worse possibility?
Which one of these anchors point is going to die on us first?
Are we safe in event of 1-2 point fail?
Now we can go out there and build all kind of CF anchor and confuse the fu8k out of ourselves thinking it is bomb proof but then we could find out the hard way or we could just built do the job in simplest way.

Simple = safe = easy to inspect= least fuc8up
Complex = may be safer= harder to inspect= more to miss = more fuc8up


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 11, 2007, 4:37 PM)


helios


May 11, 2007, 12:48 PM
Post #24 of 147 (39145 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Would it be better to clip into the strand going from anchor to anchor (what you have drawn as the top strand) and have one of the strands near the end be the third, backup, loop?

I used a quad for multipitch sport at Potrero this year, and it was easy to use and felt super secure clipping into 2 of the four strands for a power point.


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 12:52 PM
Post #25 of 147 (39136 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [helios] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

helios wrote:
Would it be better to clip into the strand going from anchor to anchor (what you have drawn as the top strand) and have one of the strands near the end be the third, backup, loop?

I used a quad for multipitch sport at Potrero this year, and it was easy to use and felt super secure clipping into 2 of the four strands for a power point.

Ideally, it shouldn't matter which 2 of the three strands you clip, so long as the knot properly fixes the line.

I agree with your sentiment on the Quad. It's just bulky overkill. This takes only about 60% of the cord required for a Quad. This is my attempt at finding something simpler.

Thanks for your feedback.


the_climber


May 11, 2007, 1:02 PM
Post #26 of 147 (5526 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 6142

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

There is definitely potential for a good anchor system here.

In reply to:
The only reason I made one strand slightly shorter was to make it simple to clip 2 of the three. A slight difference in length shouldn't make a difference. In fact, it might make the system slightly stronger because it will prevent the knot from being loaded directly onto the carabiner. That's another thing I'd like to test in a load cell.

Interesting thoughts. It would propably be a good idea to have the difference as minimal as practical to not load the knots. You would also have to determine which knot would be most effective/safest.

Having it prerigged like a quad would be the way to go. Looks like it would be easy enough to suppliment with a sling for anchors with more than 2 or 3 peices.... addaptable in that sence maybe.

I think I'll reserve my other thought for now untill I can rig up a couple mock anchors to test a couple ideas... I may have a solution to the ideal knot, but I'm not sure yet (computer wires are not ideal to mock with).


And Majid, I don't think this is another cluster f$ck of a system, it has the potential to be much more simple than a quad. And, this IS what the Lab forum is for... to through ideas on the table and discuss, to see what better or alternative ways there are to make climbing as safe as possible. I've yet to find one way to rig an anchor that I use even 70% of the time... every situation is different. just go with the flow on this one as se what "possitive ideas" you can come up with. OK?

B


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 1:03 PM
Post #27 of 147 (5524 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

This system is no more complex than the equalette. It is functionally equivalent, except with respect to how you clip into it. The only real difference is at the master point. And I believe the master point of this setup is simpler to use and therefore less prone to mistakes or complaisant improper use.


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 1:07 PM
Post #28 of 147 (5519 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [the_climber] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

the_climber wrote:
Interesting thoughts. It would propably be a good idea to have the difference as minimal as practical to not load the knots. You would also have to determine which knot would be most effective/safest.

Having it prerigged like a quad would be the way to go. Looks like it would be easy enough to suppliment with a sling for anchors with more than 2 or 3 peices.... addaptable in that sence maybe.

I think I'll reserve my other thought for now untill I can rig up a couple mock anchors to test a couple ideas... I may have a solution to the ideal knot, but I'm not sure yet (computer wires are not ideal to mock with).


And Majid, I don't think this is another cluster f$ck of a system, it has the potential to be much more simple than a quad. And, this IS what the Lab forum is for... to through ideas on the table and discuss, to see what better or alternative ways there are to make climbing as safe as possible. I've yet to find one way to rig an anchor that I use even 70% of the time... every situation is different. just go with the flow on this one as se what "possitive ideas" you can come up with. OK?

B

Thanks. I'd love to see the knot(s) you come up with. With a little luck, I'll be able to pull test some ideas and see what is best.

Majid doesn't like me because I always give him shit. He does post an occasional valid and productive point though. If nothing more than for his entertainment value, he's a beloved contributor to these forums.


helios


May 11, 2007, 1:13 PM
Post #29 of 147 (5514 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
helios wrote:
Would it be better to clip into the strand going from anchor to anchor (what you have drawn as the top strand) and have one of the strands near the end be the third, backup, loop?

I used a quad for multipitch sport at Potrero this year, and it was easy to use and felt super secure clipping into 2 of the four strands for a power point.

Ideally, it shouldn't matter which 2 of the three strands you clip, so long as the knot properly fixes the line.

I agree with your sentiment on the Quad. It's just bulky overkill. This takes only about 60% of the cord required for a Quad. This is my attempt at finding something simpler.

Thanks for your feedback.

My point wasn't to suggest you use the quad, just to be clear. But rather to point out the similarities with the two regarding their powerpoints. I have only played around with the equallette at home, and am only now starting to lead trad, but I don't like the double biner powerpoint of the equallette thus far either.


the_climber


May 11, 2007, 1:16 PM
Post #30 of 147 (5508 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 6142

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
Thanks. I'd love to see the knot(s) you come up with. With a little luck, I'll be able to pull test some ideas and see what is best.

If I have some time this weekend to get out climbing (providing my ideas prove safe and viable) I will try some field testing... with redundant, overkill, and safe backups that I would winch my truck off of.Wink

trenchdigger wrote:
Majid doesn't like me because I always give him shit. He does post an occasional valid and productive point though. If nothing more than for his entertainment value, he's a beloved contributor to these forums.

Which is why I was also pointing out the idea behind having a "Lab" Forum. He does have some great point ever once and a while. Constuctive input is the key!

I'll be offline for the weekend, so hopefully I'll have worked out a few things by Monday!
(Experimenting is to much fun!)


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 1:20 PM
Post #31 of 147 (5499 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [the_climber] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Sweet... Have fun and take some pix if you can.


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 1:44 PM
Post #32 of 147 (5486 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
the_climber wrote:
Interesting thoughts. It would propably be a good idea to have the difference as minimal as practical to not load the knots. You would also have to determine which knot would be most effective/safest.

Having it prerigged like a quad would be the way to go. Looks like it would be easy enough to suppliment with a sling for anchors with more than 2 or 3 peices.... addaptable in that sence maybe.

I think I'll reserve my other thought for now untill I can rig up a couple mock anchors to test a couple ideas... I may have a solution to the ideal knot, but I'm not sure yet (computer wires are not ideal to mock with).


And Majid, I don't think this is another cluster f$ck of a system, it has the potential to be much more simple than a quad. And, this IS what the Lab forum is for... to through ideas on the table and discuss, to see what better or alternative ways there are to make climbing as safe as possible. I've yet to find one way to rig an anchor that I use even 70% of the time... every situation is different. just go with the flow on this one as se what "possitive ideas" you can come up with. OK?

B

Thanks. I'd love to see the knot(s) you come up with. With a little luck, I'll be able to pull test some ideas and see what is best.

Majid doesn't like me because I always give him shit. He does post an occasional valid and productive point though. If nothing more than for his entertainment value, he's a beloved contributor to these forums.

I am glade you admit that you give me hard time on every post but I hate no one on this site or any where else. Anyway, build your anchor for the job not just because the book said so.


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 11, 2007, 2:39 PM)


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 1:52 PM
Post #33 of 147 (5476 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
I am glade you admit that you give me hard time on every post but I hate no one on this site or any where else.

I didn't say you didn't deserve it! Tongue

majid_sabet wrote:
Anyway, build your anchor for the job not just because the book said so.
Quoted for emphasis... most definitely.

Nice anchor pix, but I don't see one equalette in there. This thread is about the equalette - more specifically, my "improved" equalette. Post images for the thread, not because they're good images.

Copyright TD


rocknice2


May 11, 2007, 2:00 PM
Post #34 of 147 (5471 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1203

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
Nice anchor pix, but I don't see one equalette in there. This thread is about the equalette - more specifically, my "improved" equalette.

That's jumping the gun a bit . I would say "modified". The jury is still out.

To the person using majid_sabet's computer: Where is Majid and what have you done with him?Wink


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 2:02 PM
Post #35 of 147 (5467 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [rocknice2] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

yap


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 11, 2007, 2:33 PM)


binrat


May 11, 2007, 2:27 PM
Post #36 of 147 (5449 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Majid,
$2200 and eight days, is that for a Rigging for Rescue course??


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 2:36 PM
Post #37 of 147 (5440 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [binrat] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

binrat wrote:
Majid,
$2200 and eight days, is that for a Rigging for Rescue course??

I will make it back this summer by given a class making $6000 in 5 days .

How about that !!!!


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 11, 2007, 3:09 PM)


rocknice2


May 11, 2007, 2:55 PM
Post #38 of 147 (5427 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1203

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
yap

you.....Post then delete it all.....



WELCOME back Majid!



Someone been use your computer.


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 3:06 PM
Post #39 of 147 (5420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [rocknice2] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rocknice2 wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
yap

you.....Post then delete it all.....



WELCOME back Majid!



Someone been use your computer.

I paid with my frozen hands for those photos , can't just leave them out there for every one plus he said, " those images are not related to his topic " so I took them back.


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 11, 2007, 3:07 PM)


rocknice2


May 11, 2007, 3:11 PM
Post #40 of 147 (5412 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1203

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
rocknice2 wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
yap

you.....Post then delete it all.....



WELCOME back Majid!



Someone been use your computer.

I paid with my frozen hands for those photos , can't just leave them out there for every one plus he said, " those images are not related to his topic " so I took them back.

Bring back the other guy


billl7


May 11, 2007, 3:46 PM
Post #41 of 147 (5390 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just for the historical record, there was a proposal to do something very similar in this thread (subj: Equalette Concern?). However, the main thrust then was concern about all the loading going to one strand if everything was not equal. One novel point in the current thread is that of working with the equalette at a hanging belay.


(This post was edited by billl7 on May 11, 2007, 4:08 PM)


moose_droppings


May 11, 2007, 5:11 PM
Post #42 of 147 (5360 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If its only a 2 point anchor and you want extra and redundant master point, maybe this could work, seems simple enough too.

Take your regular 20' cordelette, make a half twist in it to make two large loops and hang them to your 2 anchor points.


Then pull down the center between the two points,


And tie off two overhand limiter knots on each leg,


Equalizes easily and has four strands at the master point.
Just a doubled up slidingX with limiter knots


mike_ok


May 11, 2007, 5:31 PM
Post #43 of 147 (5353 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2003
Posts: 345

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Copied from the other thread:

In reply to:
In these discussions on the merits of the cordalette and equalette, little mention has been made lately of the web-o-lette.

I swithed to the web-o-lette several years back and won't bother to sing its praises over the cordalette (there are many), but I'm wondering why, when the web-o-lette is out there, people seem to be switching to the equalette lately. Is there some advantage to the equalette I'm missing? I suppose if you already have long enough cord currently tied in a cordalette and you just want to retie in the equalette - fine...

http://mountaintools.com/cat/mt/webolette/webolette.html

As I'm reading through this - is the issue that you are trying to stay away from having a single master-point? In terms of having more points to clip into, I see why you would want this, but in terms of shock loading the point if you were to lose on of your anchor points - this wouldn't happen with the web-o-lette... so I' still like to see its merits judged alongside these.


majid_sabet


May 11, 2007, 6:36 PM
Post #44 of 147 (5328 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [mike_ok] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Instead of increasing its strength, letís just add another 9 extra knot in there

What do you think?

[URL=http://imageshack.us]


moose_droppings


May 11, 2007, 6:44 PM
Post #45 of 147 (5317 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'd leave the Double Fishermans in there thats ties the cordelette together.


billl7


May 11, 2007, 7:11 PM
Post #46 of 147 (5291 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [moose_droppings] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
Equalizes easily and has four strands at the master point. Just a doubled up slidingX with limiter knots
Long calls it the "Quad" in the Long/Gaines anchor book. Great minds think alike, eh?Wink


(This post was edited by billl7 on May 11, 2007, 7:12 PM)


moose_droppings


May 11, 2007, 7:18 PM
Post #47 of 147 (5280 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [billl7] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

What is this thing you call a "book".

Smile


trenchdigger


May 11, 2007, 7:19 PM
Post #48 of 147 (5278 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [billl7] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Exactly. The drawback is that it uses almost twice as much cord as the idea I proposed and it way bulky. And yes, it does achieve the same end goal.


billl7


May 11, 2007, 7:37 PM
Post #49 of 147 (5272 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [moose_droppings] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
What is this thing you call a "book".
Smile
Aye, and this is real reason why trad leaders climb multipitch on big mountains - they must because they can't read the road signs leading the way around. Cool


billl7


May 11, 2007, 7:41 PM
Post #50 of 147 (5268 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
Exactly. The drawback is that it uses almost twice as much cord as the idea I proposed and it way bulky. And yes, it does achieve the same end goal.
I've used the Quad exactly once and I felt sheepish with all that horsepower on a TR anchor. I might use it more if I climbed only multipitch routes that had two-bolt anchors everywhere.


ja1484


May 11, 2007, 8:31 PM
Post #51 of 147 (6378 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [billl7] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
Y'know, that second image trenchdigger posted would result in a nice and bomber anchor rig if some company would replace the limiter/finisher knots with tacks. That'd hold everything nice and snug and make sure there was no slippage.

I'd still like limiter knots in front of the tacks, however, to prevent any biners sliding around the master point from attempting to peel the tacked strands apart.

Lastly, please don't make it out of webbing. Webbing is more of a pain in the ass to clove hitch securely, and sometimes the Equalette setup you want is four cloves. 7mm nylon cord please.


asdf


May 12, 2007, 11:00 PM
Post #52 of 147 (6336 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Posts: 16

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

OK, so I want credit if this catches on; perhaps it can be named the "Reed Variation of the equalette."

picture 1 - tie and overhand where you want the limiter knots to be.

Picture 2 - thread the loose ends through the opposing limiter knots.

Picture 3 - tie a double fisherman's to back up against the overhand knot.

Picture 4 - snug the thing together.

Picture 5 - Presto.
Attachments: IMG_1027.jpg (118 KB)
  IMG_1028.jpg (118 KB)
  IMG_1029.jpg (127 KB)
  IMG_1025.jpg (100 KB)
  IMG_1023.jpg (116 KB)


trenchdigger


May 13, 2007, 11:03 PM
Post #53 of 147 (6278 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [asdf] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

asdf wrote:
OK, so I want credit if this catches on; perhaps it can be named the "Reed Variation of the equalette."

picture 1 - tie and overhand where you want the limiter knots to be.

Picture 2 - thread the loose ends through the opposing limiter knots.

Picture 3 - tie a double fisherman's to back up against the overhand knot.

Picture 4 - snug the thing together.

Picture 5 - Presto.
Thanks... Nice pix. That's exactly what I was trying to describe in my post: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1595266#1595266. It's one of the best knots I've come up with for the purpose. The other is similar and also a variation of the double fishermans. I'll have to take some pix and post up.


binrat


May 14, 2007, 7:26 AM
Post #54 of 147 (6248 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

These knots are getting to apoint that it will be hard to inspect. Have you thought of tying a figure eight bend with a bight and tail? I use this often, its easy to make, inspect, and untie once done. Look here for it http://www.ahsrescue.com/pc-1211-105-personal-purcell-prusik-system.aspx


trenchdigger


May 14, 2007, 8:20 AM
Post #55 of 147 (6234 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [binrat] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

binrat wrote:
These knots are getting to apoint that it will be hard to inspect. Have you thought of tying a figure eight bend with a bight and tail? I use this often, its easy to make, inspect, and untie once done. Look here for it http://www.ahsrescue.com/pc-1211-105-personal-purcell-prusik-system.aspx

The knot above isn't hard to tie or inspect at all. Tension each strand individually to set the knot and it seems pretty solid (and should be, considering the theory behind the knot).

The problem with the eight bend (including the tail) is the unusual loading of the knot. In the proper equalette loading condition, the eight bend is ideal. But if one arm fails, the eight is loaded "across" the knot in the way an EDK or "flat" overhand bend is loaded. An eight bend in this configuration capsizes easily (with 2 strands, at least). I'm not sure how prone to capsizing the three-strand knot would be when loaded in this way.

So, does anyone have a way to pull test some of these ideas? I'm hoping I'll have a chance to, but it may not be too soon.


fulton


May 14, 2007, 8:50 AM
Post #56 of 147 (6233 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

To me, any Equalette conversation must take place in the same paradigm as the cordelette conversation (as the former presurposes itself as a substitute for the latter). That paradigm is most commonly known as: SERNE.

trenchdigger wrote:
My problem with the current design of the equalette is the lack of a single master point that is redundant...

SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal.

Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant)

Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension)

So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.


trenchdigger


May 14, 2007, 9:07 AM
Post #57 of 147 (6222 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [fulton] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

fulton wrote:
SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal.

And impossible to achieve.

fulton wrote:
Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant)

Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension)

So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.
How are you concluding that the equalette isn't redundant? My quote refers to the fact that you have to clip each strand of the equalette individually to earn redundancy. My idea simplifies this by making a redundant, single master point.

I'm a firm believer that in most anchors, redundancy is far more important than true equalization. For that reason, I use a standard tied cordelette for most anchors. It's simple, it's quick, and it's solid.

However, there are times when the best equalization you can achieve is indeed important. Those are the cases where the truly equalizing systems shine the most.

What if a redundant system were created that were redundant and equalized well? Why not have your cake and eat it too? Meet the equalette. It does all of this, but at the expense of the "No Extension" clause. Fortunately, it has been determined that extension (especially when minimized with limiter knots) isn't as big a deal as we once thought. I think most will agree that allowing minimal extension in exchange for excellent equalization is a worthy compromise.

As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other. So which is more important?

If you think you have a better way, let's see it.


(This post was edited by trenchdigger on May 14, 2007, 9:10 AM)


niloc


May 14, 2007, 9:08 AM
Post #58 of 147 (6221 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 27

Re: [fulton] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

fulton wrote:
To me, any Equalette conversation must take place in the same paradigm as the cordelette conversation (as the former presurposes itself as a substitute for the latter). That paradigm is most commonly known as: SERNE.

trenchdigger wrote:
My problem with the current design of the equalette is the lack of a single master point that is redundant...

SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal.

Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant)

Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension)

So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.

Not true. A few inches extension with the equalette is not an issue. Equalization is more important than no extension. Do your research, in particular: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1361921#1361921


fulton


May 14, 2007, 9:32 AM
Post #59 of 147 (6209 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
I'm a firm believer that in most anchors, redundancy is far more important than true equalization. For that reason, I use a standard tied cordelette for most anchors. It's simple, it's quick, and it's solid.

Thank you, we agree on this point.

trenchdigger wrote:
What if a redundant system were created that were redundant and equalized well? Why not have your cake and eat it too? Meet the equalette.

Here we disagree, see your statement below as to why:

trenchdigger wrote:
As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other.

Like I said, trading one problem for another. Don't get all in my face about it - homeboy.


fulton


May 14, 2007, 9:35 AM
Post #60 of 147 (6204 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
If you think you have a better way, let's see it.

I do not have a better 'way' to solve hypothetical death belays.


the_climber


May 14, 2007, 9:38 AM
Post #61 of 147 (6202 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 6142

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
asdf wrote:
OK, so I want credit if this catches on; perhaps it can be named the "Reed Variation of the equalette."

picture 1 - tie and overhand where you want the limiter knots to be.

Picture 2 - thread the loose ends through the opposing limiter knots.

Picture 3 - tie a double fisherman's to back up against the overhand knot.

Picture 4 - snug the thing together.

Picture 5 - Presto.
Thanks... Nice pix. That's exactly what I was trying to describe in my post: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1595266#1595266. It's one of the best knots I've come up with for the purpose. The other is similar and also a variation of the double fishermans. I'll have to take some pix and post up.

I was experimenting with something similar to these pics on the weekend. (Sorry no pics yet) I used a half a douple fishermans instead of the overhand limiter (keeps the rig more inline than an over hand) and a half a tripple fishermans on the single strand (did this to make the stoper knots aropx equal size). It seems OK, I definitley have to do a bit more research on the strength reduction on these knots, and some drop tests in the field.
I had planned on doing drop tests last Sat, but the Wife and I were laid up with some CO poisening on Sat.... not fun.Unsure

I may get a change to do some tests mid week.


trenchdigger


May 14, 2007, 9:41 AM
Post #62 of 147 (6193 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [fulton] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

fulton wrote:
trenchdigger wrote:
What if a redundant system were created that were redundant and equalized well? Why not have your cake and eat it too? Meet the equalette.

Here we disagree, see your statement below as to why:

trenchdigger wrote:
As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other.

Like I said, trading one problem for another. Don't get all in my face about it - homeboy.

Ah, but you you quote the obvious but avoid the important question...

trenchdigger wrote:
As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other. So which is more important?

And would you care to explain how a Solid (Sound), Redundant, Equalized, and Minimally Extending anchor is a "hypthetical death belay"?


billl7


May 14, 2007, 9:44 AM
Post #63 of 147 (6193 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [fulton] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Fulton, Either one solves all problems or one solves none? Perhaps you didn't intend to but your posts come across as extreme.

Bill L


fulton


May 14, 2007, 10:09 AM
Post #64 of 147 (6175 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [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 clearly don't get it.

I thought that this equalette thing is for building belays with less than bomb gear, where a shifting load can be a problem (i.e. hypothetical death belays).


healyje


May 14, 2007, 10:10 AM
Post #65 of 147 (6172 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [billl7] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

None of this is 'improves' the Equalette. The whole idea of the Equalette is not having a single power point. I see nothing about a single power point worth bastardizing a fairly simple and straightforward design - if anything, it seems more like you're missing the point in pursuit of the comfortably familiar.

As far as equalization vs. extension goes, I thought it had been pretty conclusively established equalization is what we are after while avoiding extension to any degree possible. The mutual exclusivity of the two are inescapable - but equalization is given more weight in the measure in terms of design goals.


billl7


May 14, 2007, 10:17 AM
Post #66 of 147 (6162 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [healyje] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

None of this improves the equalette? Then you must have tried the equalette at a hanging belay and don't see the issue so please do share. No offense intended. I'll concede there are different ideas of what constitutes an improvement.


healyje


May 14, 2007, 10:18 AM
Post #67 of 147 (6161 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [fulton] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

fulton wrote:
Ok, well I clearly don't get it.

I thought that this equalette thing is for building belays with less than bomb gear, where a shifting load can be a problem (i.e. hypothetical death belays).

I'd agree you're not 'getting it'. The Equalette was designed for normal, everyday use in situations where the anchor isn't two side-by-side bolts at the same level relative to a horizontal line.


asdf


May 14, 2007, 10:22 AM
Post #68 of 147 (6152 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Posts: 16

Re: [billl7] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

There seems to be two threads in one here. Once with people who are interested in fine tuning a rigging idea and another for people who want to discuss the merits of such a pursuit. I used the rig that was in the pictures above with a guide this weekend. He does not use an equalette, nor had he ever really looked into them before but he inspected the rigging and could not find any issues in regards to the way it was tied. Clipping two strands at the master point was great and it proved a very clean way of putting together a gear anchor. I believe I will keep one tied on my harness when I know I will be putting together many gear anchors. The feedback on how to tie this incarnation of the equalette is great. I'd love to see photos of how others are achieving the same end (descriptions of knots somehow always leave me blank) as well as issues relevant to this topic; keep it coming.


trenchdigger


May 14, 2007, 10:27 AM
Post #69 of 147 (6148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [healyje] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
None of this is 'improves' the Equalette. The whole idea of the Equalette is not having a single power point. I see nothing about a single power point worth bastardizing a fairly simple and straightforward design - if anything, it seems more like you're missing the point in pursuit of the comfortably familiar.

As far as equalization vs. extension goes, I thought it had been pretty conclusively established equalization is what we are after while avoiding extension to any degree possible. The mutual exclusivity of the two are inescapable - but equalization is given more weight in the measure in terms of design goals.

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought the goal of the equalette was to get closer than ever to SRENE in an anchor system. If the goal was just to have a non-singular master point then you should just clip the individual loops of the master point of a tied cordellete. But what's the benefit of that?

The equalette is just a pain to use a hanging belay. The master points are hard to clip when they're weighted. I'm also curious how others attach an auto-blocking belay device to a redundant part of an equalette anchor. I don't see how it can be done without twisting the equalette into a sliding X (degraded equalization) or using a device that accepts two carabiners (Trango B52 + 2 lockers in an equalette at a hanging belay = cluster F#@%). My idea makes all this much easier while maintaining the benefits of an equalette.


trenchdigger


May 14, 2007, 10:34 AM
Post #70 of 147 (6142 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [asdf] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Cool... I might hold off on using this until some conclusive evidence is found that the knots we're coming up with are strong and safe. They should be, but I wouldn't hang my life on it just yet.


healyje


May 14, 2007, 10:48 AM
Post #71 of 147 (6130 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
If the goal was just to have a non-singular master point...

Clearly that would be a non-goal and simply a 'found' attribute or byproduct of the Equalette. I personally like both strands being loaded independently and suspect that is no small part of the Equalette's tested performance.


the_climber


May 14, 2007, 10:58 AM
Post #72 of 147 (6119 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 6142

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post



This is one of the ideas I tried this weekend. Sorry for the bad sketch. I also tried it with incorporating the third strand into the fisherman's knots (which is how I curently have one tied at home now).

My question would be how are these knots going to behave when ring loaded? That would only occur if one are of the system failed. And is my bigest concern at them moment with this system. I realize that the limiting knots on an equallet, or quad for that matter, are also ring-loaded if one arm fails.

Does anyone know how well a double fisherman's handels ring loading?
Attachments: EqualletAlternative1.jpg (56.3 KB)


trenchdigger


May 14, 2007, 11:04 AM
Post #73 of 147 (6114 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [healyje] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
trenchdigger wrote:
If the goal was just to have a non-singular master point...

Clearly that would be a non-goal and simply a 'found' attribute or byproduct of the Equalette. I personally like both strands being loaded independently and suspect that is no small part of the Equalette's tested performance.

Apologies... that's how I interpreted:
healyje wrote:
The whole idea of the Equalette is not having a single power point.

Interesting thought about the equalette's performance being associated with clipping each strand individually. I'm not sure I'd agree though. Just because the strands are loaded independently doesn't necessarily mean they're loaded evenly. Even in the standard equallete conficuration, the load should be distributed as evenly if you were to clip both strands with the two carabiners (essentially what I'm doing, except I added a third strand to build redundancy back into the system.) Definitely woth testing, though.


billl7


May 14, 2007, 11:17 AM
Post #74 of 147 (6102 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [healyje] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
trenchdigger wrote:
If the goal was just to have a non-singular master point...

Clearly that would be a non-goal and simply a 'found' attribute or byproduct of the Equalette. I personally like both strands being loaded independently and suspect that is no small part of the Equalette's tested performance.
Definitely yes in terms of the sliding X versus two independently biner'd strands. However, equalization with the mod under discussion shouldn't be any worse than with the Long/Gaines Quad. I suspect it would be hard to detect a difference.

It's an interesting discussion and the amount of caution being expressed by many seems about right.


fulton


May 14, 2007, 11:37 AM
Post #75 of 147 (6086 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210

Re: [everyone] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Solve in a unified way.

Equalization vs. Extention
Equalization vs. Redundany
Redundancy vs. Extension.

All three variables to be concidered EQUALLY important.

Best solutions should be able to sustain at least 2 failures (i suspect that real world cordelettes generally meet this 'standard' of redundant).

Now that ya'll have some direction, try to solve without calling me stupid or an asshole.

fulton wrote:
To me, any Equalette conversation must take place in the same paradigm as the cordelette conversation (as the former presurposes itself as a substitute for the latter). That paradigm is most commonly known as: SERNE.

trenchdigger wrote:
My problem with the current design of the equalette is the lack of a single master point that is redundant...

SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal.

Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant)

Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension)

So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.


(This post was edited by fulton on May 14, 2007, 11:40 AM)


healyje


May 14, 2007, 11:56 AM
Post #76 of 147 (6131 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [fulton] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

fulton wrote:
Solve in a unified way.

Equalization vs. Extention
Equalization vs. Redundany
Redundancy vs. Extension.

All three variables to be concidered EQUALLY important.

I'm guessing you didn't wade through the 'Improved Sliding X' thread. Redundancy is a static variable with regards to the requirements. Equalization vs. Extension is the primary challenge, with testing showing Extension to be a bit less of a bugaboo than it was always assumed to be.


niloc


May 14, 2007, 12:02 PM
Post #77 of 147 (6125 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 27

Re: [healyje] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
fulton wrote:
Solve in a unified way.

Equalization vs. Extention
Equalization vs. Redundany
Redundancy vs. Extension.

All three variables to be concidered EQUALLY important.

I'm guessing you didn't wade through the 'Improved Sliding X' thread. Redundancy is a static variable with regards to the requirements. Equalization vs. Extension is the primary challenge, with testing showing Extension to be a bit less of a bugaboo than it was always assumed to be.

And in particular when this extension is only a few inches as in the equalette - it has been proven to be a non-issue - see my previous post and link. Also discussed in the latest Long/Gaines book.


asdf


May 15, 2007, 9:29 PM
Post #78 of 147 (6063 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Posts: 16

Re: [niloc] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Anyone pull test anything? I've shared the arrangement presented in this thread to a few folks and everyone has been more than content with the safety of the knots.

Here are the a few ways I can see the knots failing:

1. reducing the strength of the cord due to the type of limiter knots. - wouldn't you also have this concern with the two strand equalette?

2. The double fisherman pulling through? is anyone really worried about this?

3. having the overhand roll off the end. - can't see it happening with the fisherman backed against it.

Does anyone see any other concerns here or is this it?


binrat


May 16, 2007, 5:43 AM
Post #79 of 147 (6052 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155

Re: [asdf] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

asdf wrote:
Anyone pull test anything? I've shared the arrangement presented in this thread to a few folks and everyone has been more than content with the safety of the knots.

Here are the a few ways I can see the knots failing:

1. reducing the strength of the cord due to the type of limiter knots. - wouldn't you also have this concern with the two strand equalette?

2. The double fisherman pulling through? is anyone really worried about this?

3. having the overhand roll off the end. - can't see it happening with the fisherman backed against it.

Does anyone see any other concerns here or is this it?

I plan to rig it this weekend and have a failure in 1 anchor. Planned weight about 180-210 Kg. I plan to try it with the overhand knot, with the running ends having a dbl overhand knot, and then trying it with the figure 8 bend that includes the running end. If my camera works I'll attached the pics once done.


knudenoggin


May 17, 2007, 11:07 AM
Post #80 of 147 (6010 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [the_climber] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

the_climber wrote:
This is one of the ideas I tried this weekend.
I continue to find it surprising that all this build-a-better-anchor theorizing ignores
a simple and effective idea put forward a few times:
simply make your equalizing powerpoint runner with a 60cm/24" HMPE sewn sling,
and, with it being the "V" of the anchor point, tie into each bight-end of this tape "V"
with the twin 6-7mm nylon cord, using a sheet bend or variant. The cord will
thus run from the anchor placements to the "V" corners, crossing between them
and so closing the "V" into a triangular loop, such that only ONE 'biner need be
clipped--solves the clip-each-strand or the clip-into-X issues.
With a 2-foot sling, each side of the "V" is 1 foot; extension from one arm failing
is a bit complicated by some swing of the line of tension, but from just
the material gain in this arrangement, it will be a half foot, if the nylon cord contributes
1 foot in closing the "V" (so, an equilateral triangle with 1 foot sides, makes a
closed loop 3' in circumference, and on isolated-arm loading, the length of this loop
is 3/2 = 1.5', a half foot longer than if both arms are in place).
This Extension-Limiting Equalization Triangle (ELET) uses common gear,
minimal 'biners (just 1 for the attachment vs. 2 of Equalette), and is pretty
simple to set up.

In reply to:
My question would be how are these knots going to behave when ring loaded? ... Does anyone know how well a double fisherman's handels ring loading?
Testing done by Edelrid for Jost Gudelius for an Offset Grapevine Bend showed
the knot to do pretty well, in the given couple of ropes tested.
cf http://www.gudelius.de/spst.htm

*kN*


the_climber


May 17, 2007, 12:03 PM
Post #81 of 147 (6000 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 6142

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

knudenoggin wrote:
the_climber wrote:
This is one of the ideas I tried this weekend.
I continue to find it surprising that all this build-a-better-anchor theorizing ignores
a simple and effective idea put forward a few times:
simply make your equalizing powerpoint runner with a 60cm/24" HMPE sewn sling,
and, with it being the "V" of the anchor point, tie into each bight-end of this tape "V"
with the twin 6-7mm nylon cord, using a sheet bend or variant. The cord will
thus run from the anchor placements to the "V" corners, crossing between them
and so closing the "V" into a triangular loop, such that only ONE 'biner need be
clipped--solves the clip-each-strand or the clip-into-X issues.
With a 2-foot sling, each side of the "V" is 1 foot; extension from one arm failing
is a bit complicated by some swing of the line of tension, but from just
the material gain in this arrangement, it will be a half foot, if the nylon cord contributes
1 foot in closing the "V" (so, an equilateral triangle with 1 foot sides, makes a
closed loop 3' in circumference, and on isolated-arm loading, the length of this loop
is 3/2 = 1.5', a half foot longer than if both arms are in place).
This Extension-Limiting Equalization Triangle (ELET) uses common gear,
minimal 'biners (just 1 for the attachment vs. 2 of Equalette), and is pretty
simple to set up.

OK, so I just went cross-eyed reading that....Crazy

knudenoggin wrote:
In reply to:
My question would be how are these knots going to behave when ring loaded? ... Does anyone know how well a double fisherman's handels ring loading?
Testing done by Edelrid for Jost Gudelius for an Offset Grapevine Bend showed
the knot to do pretty well, in the given couple of ropes tested.
cf http://www.gudelius.de/spst.htm

*kN*

Thanks


knudenoggin


May 17, 2007, 11:34 PM
Post #82 of 147 (5975 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [the_climber] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Perhaps the following schema (ah, the good ol' days of ASCII Art!)
will clarify my words which crossed your eyes. The HMPE (Spectra/Dyneema)
sling is chosen for slickness, enhancing the sliding of the (lone) 'biner;
the twin nylon cord is chosen for some elasticity and knottability.


Code
P                       P 
.. .. <---cord hitched/clipped to protection
.. ..
.. ..
.. .. } 6-7mm twin nylon cord
.. ..
.\\:::::::::://. <--tied to bight ends of sling w/sheet bends (or ...)
\\ // (the cord between sling ends might be slacker)
\\ //
\\ // } 6-12mm HMPE sling "V" (hence, dbl. strands)
\\ //
\\//
B } one locker at the powerpoint (or more ...)

*kN*


the_climber


May 18, 2007, 9:12 AM
Post #83 of 147 (5961 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 6142

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ah, Gotcha!


asdf


May 18, 2007, 9:39 PM
Post #84 of 147 (5922 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Posts: 16

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Looking at that study on the strength of the double fisherman's, am I reading it correctly when it says that it does not roll and it holds between 21 and 28 kN when the knot is ring loaded?


knudenoggin


May 19, 2007, 1:43 PM
Post #85 of 147 (5906 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [asdf] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yes, the daN shifts the radix point left to KN, and those are the figures
reported for the Offset Grapevine Bend.
It's worth noting that many offset bends can be oriented in a range of
positions--lightly tension the rope and rotate the knot body, i.e.--,
so one can't take these isolated tests, and tests that didn't recognize
this variability, as definitive.
But I think it's a fair indication of the knot's security & strength
adequate for the use in question.

*kN*


binrat


May 23, 2007, 7:44 AM
Post #86 of 147 (5817 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Well,
I did three tests with a 183 kg load ( 180 kg of bagged concrete and 3 kg for the skid) In each test 1 anchor failed by means of having a link made of para cord which was cut after loading. This was a static failure. The knot tested was the overhand knot with a back-up knot on the running end of the cord. It was tested with Mammut 7 mm static cord. Of the three possible strands that could have been clipped, only 1 was clipped for 2 of the tests. The 3rd test 2 strands was clipped.

What happened:
1. On the single strand tests the knot rolled until it was tight against the back-up knot. Distance prior test between knots was 38 1/2", after on two strands was 39 1/4, and on the loaded strand 42 3/4.
2. On the double strand test, the know again rolled marignally. Lengthening of the 2 strands was marginal.


elnero


May 24, 2007, 11:14 PM
Post #87 of 147 (5761 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 28, 2006
Posts: 191

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
I'm also curious how others attach an auto-blocking belay device to a redundant part of an equalette anchor. I don't see how it can be done without twisting the equalette into a sliding X (degraded equalization) or using a device that accepts two carabiners (Trango B52 + 2 lockers in an equalette at a hanging belay = cluster F#@%). My idea makes all this much easier while maintaining the benefits of an equalette.

Theres been a few threads about creating a master point of sorts with the equalette for belaying with an autoblock. The method that seems best for me is to tie a bunnyeared figure 8 from your harness and clip that into the two lockers, then clip your atc into the two loops on the figure 8 knot.


asdf


Aug 17, 2007, 10:27 PM
Post #88 of 147 (5638 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Posts: 16

Re: [elnero] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Out of curiosity, has anyone adopted the use of the "three strand" equalette since this thread developed?


landongw


Aug 17, 2007, 11:11 PM
Post #89 of 147 (5634 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 2, 2004
Posts: 114

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

this is the most ridiculous troll i've ever seen. i can't believe so many people are dumb enough to take it seriously.

if this isn't a troll, then you're a complete moron.

Laugh


asdf


Aug 18, 2007, 8:13 PM
Post #90 of 147 (5596 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Posts: 16

Re: [landongw] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Asshole meter:

Assholes: 1

Responses: 0


ja1484


Apr 10, 2008, 8:46 PM
Post #91 of 147 (5364 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [asdf] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

asdf wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anyone adopted the use of the "three strand" equalette since this thread developed?


Thread revive.

Yes, actually. My partner and I have both been using one of these puppies (usually for rigging anchors on gear, but they work fine on bolts too) for close to a year now.

No complaints. A lot of compliments in fact. We love it. Very quick and simple to rig, but also very versatile. Comes as close as you can to real SRENE. Isn't gear intensive. What's not to like?


Edit: Regarding security of the knots, I have no concerns. I'm quite confident that the failure mode would have to be breakage of the cord, and I just don't see the forces going that high.

I'm willing to trust knots-on-bights in my slings and ropes. I see no reason not to do so here.


(This post was edited by ja1484 on Apr 10, 2008, 8:50 PM)


shockabuku


Apr 10, 2008, 9:17 PM
Post #92 of 147 (5354 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4861

Re: [ja1484] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Three strand equalette is one side going to two pieces and the other side to only one piece?


moose_droppings


Apr 10, 2008, 9:23 PM
Post #93 of 147 (5352 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [shockabuku] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
Three strand equalette is one side going to two pieces and the other side to only one piece?

Yes, and it equalizes on two pieces, one leg on each side.


(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Apr 10, 2008, 9:27 PM)


shockabuku


Apr 10, 2008, 9:27 PM
Post #94 of 147 (5348 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4861

Re: [moose_droppings] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Right, it's a terminology issue. I haven't perused that thread for some time. Thanks.


mattltambor


Apr 10, 2008, 10:31 PM
Post #95 of 147 (5327 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 3, 2006
Posts: 32

Re: [shockabuku] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Interesting thread. I was wondering if it might be better to re-thread the overhand on a bight with the third strand (like tying a water/tape knot) before tying the double fisherman's? Don't know if this would make much difference but I just thought of it while looking at asdf's pics.


ja1484


Apr 11, 2008, 4:58 AM
Post #96 of 147 (5289 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [shockabuku] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
Three strand equalette is one side going to two pieces and the other side to only one piece?


Actually, I believe in the context of this thread, we're talking about the "three strand powerpoint". It rigs up like a typical equalette, resulting in 2 legs off of 2-4 pieces, depending on circumstances.

Re-read the first page or so.


karlbaba


Apr 12, 2008, 9:17 AM
Post #97 of 147 (5230 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Basically though, in almost any decent rock, anchors should never be so sketchy that perfect equalization should be needed.

The lack of shock-loading afforded by a regular cordalette may be better protection that perfect equalization.

Also, the time savings afforded by any system that's significantly faster to employ might afford more safety than a slower, better equalized system. Time is safety on longer climbs.

Here's my idea, if you REALLY need the best anchor protection on some sketch rock, just clip a shorty screamer to each piece (or at least one or two of them) and rig a regular cordalette anchor to the screamers.

If the system gets stressed enough to be an issue, the screamers will extend, leading to perfect equalization with no shock load, and also absorb energy from the situation at the same time.

How's that sound Largo?


ja1484


Apr 12, 2008, 9:50 AM
Post #98 of 147 (5223 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [karlbaba] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

karlbaba wrote:
Basically though, in almost any decent rock, anchors should never be so sketchy that perfect equalization should be needed.

Agreed

In reply to:
The lack of shock-loading afforded by a regular cordalette may be better protection that perfect equalization.

Shock loading doesn't exist if the climbing rope is in the system.

In reply to:
Also, the time savings afforded by any system that's significantly faster to employ might afford more safety than a slower, better equalized system. Time is safety on longer climbs.

With a little practice, the equalette is just as fast to rig as a cordelette. On two piece anchors, it's generally faster. Just gotta get comfortable feathering clove hitches for the rest. Regardless we're talking about a matter of a minute or two. Unless it's a speed run, it's an immaterial difference.

This is why I made the switch - better equalization with no cons.

In reply to:
Here's my idea, if you REALLY need the best anchor protection on some sketch rock, just clip a shorty screamer to each piece (or at least one or two of them) and rig a regular cordalette anchor to the screamers.

Should work fine, but it's more gear ya gotta carry.


(This post was edited by ja1484 on Apr 12, 2008, 9:58 AM)


karlbaba


Apr 12, 2008, 10:03 AM
Post #99 of 147 (5211 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159

Re: [ja1484] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

It's my opinion that there will be shock-loading in any system that has some "extension" in it, if one of the pieces fails. Perfect equalization usually means allowing some extension.

If an anchor piece fails, the anchor is going to be shock-loaded

peace

Karl


ja1484


Apr 12, 2008, 10:11 AM
Post #100 of 147 (5207 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [karlbaba] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

karlbaba wrote:
It's my opinion that there will be shock-loading in any system that has some "extension" in it, if one of the pieces fails. Perfect equalization usually means allowing some extension.

If an anchor piece fails, the anchor is going to be shock-loaded

peace

Karl

Per the research at Sterling ropes, best evidence available suggests that's just not the case so long as the dynamic rope is the attachment to the system. The numbers suggest no shockloading and, at times, lower forces than the initial impact.

Until someone can point me to *other* available evidence suggesting otherwise, I'm sticking with the best evidence we have at this time.


(This post was edited by ja1484 on Apr 12, 2008, 10:14 AM)


karlbaba


Apr 12, 2008, 11:26 AM
Post #101 of 147 (4773 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159

Re: [ja1484] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ja1484 wrote:
karlbaba wrote:
It's my opinion that there will be shock-loading in any system that has some "extension" in it, if one of the pieces fails. Perfect equalization usually means allowing some extension.

If an anchor piece fails, the anchor is going to be shock-loaded

peace

Karl

Per the research at Sterling ropes, best evidence available suggests that's just not the case so long as the dynamic rope is the attachment to the system. The numbers suggest no shockloading and, at times, lower forces than the initial impact.

Until someone can point me to *other* available evidence suggesting otherwise, I'm sticking with the best evidence we have at this time.

I'd love to see the Sterling link. I could buy that as long as no piece falis, but if a piece fails, it's obvious that the system will extent and it's self evident that sudden extension equals shock-loading. What am I missing here?

Peace

karl


ja1484


Apr 12, 2008, 11:30 AM
Post #102 of 147 (4769 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [karlbaba] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

karlbaba wrote:
ja1484 wrote:
karlbaba wrote:
It's my opinion that there will be shock-loading in any system that has some "extension" in it, if one of the pieces fails. Perfect equalization usually means allowing some extension.

If an anchor piece fails, the anchor is going to be shock-loaded

peace

Karl

Per the research at Sterling ropes, best evidence available suggests that's just not the case so long as the dynamic rope is the attachment to the system. The numbers suggest no shockloading and, at times, lower forces than the initial impact.

Until someone can point me to *other* available evidence suggesting otherwise, I'm sticking with the best evidence we have at this time.

I'd love to see the Sterling link. I could buy that as long as no piece falis, but if a piece fails, it's obvious that the system will extent and it's self evident that sudden extension equals shock-loading. What am I missing here?

Peace

karl


Here's the link to the post right here on rc.com where John Long transcribed Jim Ewing (Sterling Ropes) testing numbers and conclusion:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1317687#1317687

And this was with piece failure in a lead fall situation.

I'll transcribe it again here for posterity, should the link ever die for some reason. As you can read, the load is passed along to the remainder of the anchor, but it is equivalent. The load is not multiplied by extension.

Bolded emphasis is mine.

In reply to:
I was going to hold off on making a definitive statement on "Shock Loading" till I had time to work up what Jim at Sterling had actually found from his tests. But since it seems some folks simply can't let the thing go (nor should they till the data's in), here's basically what Jim scribbled down after doing some tests to try and create a shock load in a normal set up with a pretty stout dynamic fall (factor 1--80 kilo load dropped on 10.2 nylon rope connected to a two annchor point equalette).

Wrote Jim:

Leg failure test of Equalette.

All the same set up as previous unequal leg tests but with the short leg
connected with a 'fuse'. The 'fuse' is meant to break around 2kN. To save some time I also kept using the same cord and dynamic rope that I had just tested the Equalette unequal_arm with (see results below). Note: Using the same piece of climbing rope increases the chances of a shock load since after repeated drop testing, the rope looses it's stretch and becomes little more than a piece of static line.

The force/time curve is quite jagged at the beginning indicating lots of vibration. I can see on the curve the point at which the 'fuse' fails. Immediately after the 'fuse' blows there is a sharp drop in force followed by a normal looking curve. The peak force varied depending on the tenacity of the 'fuse'. The stronger the 'fuse' the lower the peak force on the remaining leg, the weaker the 'fuse' the higher the peak force on the remaining leg. Predictable but still interesting. No catastrophic shock load occurs a result of the extension.

6mm PC Equalette

short long

3.11 2.99
3.58 3.93
4.38 4.26
4.45 5.21
---------------------

The important thing to see is that the secondary loading is roughly the same as the initial loading--meaning there is no "load multiplication" between the initial leg failure and the mass slamming onto the remaining anchor point. Half the time it's less--the rest it's the same or a little more--at most about .75 kN, or 168 lbs. And that's only on the last drop, when the nylon rope was already stretched like crazy. And that's all on a rig with the limiter knots basically 10 inches apart--pretty far by normal standards.

My impression is that a true shock load can be understood in terms of the kind of shock we see in human beings. Shock usually means the level of stress or injury was greater than the resilience of the person's biology. In climbing systems, all the components have a degree of resilience, and these are by and large only maxed out when a section of unbelayed static line or high tensile strength cord sustains a dynamic load that is transmitted directly to the anchor. Like when a leader clips off to an anchor with a tech cord daisy, climbs up two feet and slips, falling 4 feet directly onto the anchor. You can bust biners this way, because the gear can't handle mass decelerating that quickly. Stretch and give allow the mass to decelerate slower. In a shock load you basically have the equavilant of a head on collision--something that's not going to happen when you're on a dynamic climbing rope that is running through a belay device, and when you're clipped into the anchor with the climbing rope.
Here, extension simply means that the next anchor that holds will be subjected to basically the same load--maybe a bit less--as that which blew out the first leg/piece. In other words, the initial loading is not multiplied through extension, it is simply passed on, sometimes at a lesser weight, depending on the strength of the "fuse" (failed arm).


JL


again, this is only one test, but so far as I'm aware, it's really the *only* testing done on this kind of situation by professionals with the equipment to duplicate a realistic simulation of a real-world scenario. I'm open to additional testing/data if anyone knows of any.


(This post was edited by ja1484 on Apr 12, 2008, 11:35 AM)


adatesman


Apr 22, 2008, 8:00 AM
Post #103 of 147 (4667 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


trenchdigger


Apr 22, 2008, 9:05 AM
Post #104 of 147 (4648 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
Sometime soon I'll throw some samples of the all three versions (Equalette, Tripplette, ELET) onto the pull tester and get video of how they behave under load with one or more legs cut, but until then here's some non-ASCII pics.

Rad. I look forward to it. I was going to PM you to request this, but never got around to it. I have a few ways I've tied the triplette. Will try to get some photos for you. Thanks for your work on this.

Adam


acorneau


Apr 23, 2008, 1:01 PM
Post #105 of 147 (4602 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
First, the power point loop should be stronger since it incorporates 2 strands of cord on one side and 2 strands of runner on the other, where the Tripplette has 2 strands of cord on one and one on the other.

True, but does that really matter? The "top" strand is only loaded if one side of your anchor system fails. If that were to happen I think you'd get off of it quick!


In reply to:
Secondly, it has one fewer knot and...

A Tripplette can be tied with two knots, the ELET (as shown) has three. How is that less?

Not being snarky, just looking for clarification.


adatesman


Apr 23, 2008, 1:31 PM
Post #106 of 147 (4592 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


asdf


Apr 24, 2008, 8:52 AM
Post #107 of 147 (4549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Posts: 16

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [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 want to rain on anyone's parade but I think to tie a sling into an anchor is a really really bad idea. Slings are known to be cut in two when knotted to another material. People think that this is a "static knot" so friction is not an issue but when you load a few thousand pounds of force on those knots they tighten and heat up and I personally would not trust them. If you all remember back, there was a post about a pair of girth hitched slings in a rap anchor that just about cut through one another.

my 2 cents


the_climber


Apr 24, 2008, 10:15 AM
Post #108 of 147 (4534 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 6142

Re: [asdf] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

asdf wrote:
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but I think to tie a sling into an anchor is a really really bad idea. Slings are known to be cut in two when knotted to another material. People think that this is a "static knot" so friction is not an issue but when you load a few thousand pounds of force on those knots they tighten and heat up and I personally would not trust them. If you all remember back, there was a post about a pair of girth hitched slings in a rap anchor that just about cut through one another.

my 2 cents

The issue you are siting is one which involves the ultra-light/ultra-thin dynema slings. As for Nylon on Nylon (or the wider dynema/dynema blend slings) the jury is still out, and the common consensus is it is still common practice to hitch slings together.


moose_droppings


Apr 24, 2008, 11:30 AM
Post #109 of 147 (4522 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Is that really a sheet bend. Guess I don't recognize it doubled up, where are the ends?

Anyway, the tripplette (sp), like you mentioned can be tied with two OH knots, is easily adjusted when tying to whatever size triple center you want, and then left that way to carry with you. With 4" tails seems like its not going anywhere. I can't see it capsizing on itself if its weighted on both sides of the knot.

I'm also a little concerned with hitching spectra to nylon, as is asdf. Maybe its unfounded.

Just my .02 with plenty of room for enlightenment.
Thanx.


ja1484


Apr 24, 2008, 11:57 AM
Post #110 of 147 (4510 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [moose_droppings] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
My question is what are the tangible advantages?

I don't need stronger - the equallette and cordelette are already beyond good enough.

The modified triplette (essentially Trench's version) I use gives me all the strength of the cordelette, better equalization, and no increase in rigging time after a little practice. That's a tangible benefit.

What is the ELET giving me? Is it faster to rig? Is it a less complex, simpler, easier to inspect anchor?

It does not have less knots than a modified triplette. Observe:

Mod. Triplette:

2x OH knot
2x double OH backup.

ELET:

2x double OH (or 1x2fish, but it's really two knots)
2x sheet bend


I have pre-tied my triplette and leave it tied. There's no real reason to untie it. It still functions like a long cordage runner end-to-end in the event of an emergency where I need to prussik with it or something. Faster-to-tie is immaterial to me, as I'm not tying anchor rigging on the cliff.

I want to know what I *need* that it's going to do for me. I've got enough strength. I don't need more of that.


(This post was edited by ja1484 on Apr 24, 2008, 12:03 PM)


majid_sabet


Apr 24, 2008, 12:13 PM
Post #111 of 147 (4493 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [asdf] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

asdf wrote:
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but I think to tie a sling into an anchor is a really really bad idea. Slings are known to be cut in two when knotted to another material. People think that this is a "static knot" so friction is not an issue but when you load a few thousand pounds of force on those knots they tighten and heat up and I personally would not trust them. If you all remember back, there was a post about a pair of girth hitched slings in a rap anchor that just about cut through one another.

my 2 cents


I am sorry but,the climbers round here are not looking for your logical $0.02 input. These guys are constantly challenging each other on CF eqalette bullsh*t till someone actually breaks one and dies while setting it up .Till then this myth will continues.


majid_sabet


Apr 24, 2008, 12:16 PM
Post #112 of 147 (4491 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
knudeNoggin made a posting on Page 4 (Link) about another alternative that sounds interesting (the ELET). He only provided an ASCII art diagram, so I threw one together yesterday and took some pics.

Basically you take your cordalette tied in a loop (I used a DF) and use a pair of sheet bends (or any of a number of other knots) to splice a runner into the middle of it for the powerpoint. Playing around with it I have to say I think there's some significant advantages over the Tripplette. First, the power point loop should be stronger since it incorporates 2 strands of cord on one side and 2 strands of runner on the other, where the Tripplette has 2 strands of cord on one and one on the other. Secondly, it has one fewer knot and is much easier to tie and untie. I found the Tripplette a bit fiddly to tie and set neatly with the strangle knots backed up tight against the overhands. The sheet bends in this version were quite simple to tie and easy to adjust. The runner I used was shorter then he suggested, but seems to work fine. I think I'd actually prefer a longer runner though, as it would give room to put an overhand on each end to provide some redundancy in case one of the strands of the runner was cut (tie the sheet bends through the loop the overhand creates on the end).

Sometime soon I'll throw some samples of the all three versions (Equalette, Tripplette, ELET) onto the pull tester and get video of how they behave under load with one or more legs cut, but until then here's some non-ASCII pics.

[image]http://www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/anchors/anchor.jpg[/image]
Detail of front:
[image]http://www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/anchors/anchorfront.jpg[/image]
Detail of back:
[image]http://www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/anchors/anchorback.jpg[/image]

This a true class I CF anchor.


adatesman


Apr 24, 2008, 12:28 PM
Post #113 of 147 (4483 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


moose_droppings


Apr 24, 2008, 12:46 PM
Post #114 of 147 (4476 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

They aren't tied with a ring bend, they're tied with an overhand. There is a difference.
If you tie an overhand in the middle of a rope and apply force to both ends, it cannot capsize.

edit:

In your what to test thread, I suggested you test a ring bend (water knot) with a piece of 7mm and see what happens and asked if there's tests on this someone please point me to it. The capsizing I think your refering to is associated with an overhand bend.


(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Apr 24, 2008, 12:54 PM)


ja1484


Apr 24, 2008, 1:38 PM
Post #115 of 147 (4464 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
ja1484 wrote:
My question is what are the tangible advantages?

I suppose the biggest advantage would be that its much easier to untie should you ever need a full length looped cordelette, but if you don't feel that you'd ever need to do that then its pretty much on par with the Triplette. I will say that the biner slid on the loop easier on the ELET, but that's not really anything to call home about.

Just for the record, it isn't my design and I don't have a vested interest in it. I just felt it looks promising and deserves some looking into. As I mentioned earlier, sometime soon I'll put a couple of each on the puller and see what they do under load.

Personally I'm not too thrilled with the 2-knot, 3-strand ring bend version of the Tripplette since ring bends are known to roll when loaded like they would if one side of the anchor failed. Although I suppose worst case would be that it rolls until you're only on 1 strand instead of 2..... The ring bend/strangle backup version looks fine since it would prevent the rolling; I just found it a bit fiddly to get tied neatly. And with the ELET, I have no idea how the sheet bends will behave when ring loaded. Hence wanting to bring it up for discussion and do some testing.

-aric.


Yeah, I'm very interested in the pull test results. If there's a disturbing sign from that (i.e. knot failures at unusually low loads, etc.) that could influence my decision.

As it stands now, I like the Trenchelette/Triplette as it is.

My main curiosity with the ELET is that we know soft on soft is not the best attachment methods for runners and cords strength wise, but will the sheet bend attached runner prove stronger than just a plain ol' limiter knot in the same place.

In any case, I look forward to the results of your pulltesting, and thanks again for doing it for us.


knudenoggin


Apr 24, 2008, 2:03 PM
Post #116 of 147 (4461 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [majid_sabet] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
asdf wrote:
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but I think to tie a sling into an anchor is a really really bad idea. Slings are known to be cut in two when knotted to another material. People think that this is a "static knot" so friction is not an issue but when you load a few thousand pounds of force on those knots they tighten and heat up and I personally would not trust them. If you all remember back, there was a post about a pair of girth hitched slings in a rap anchor that just about cut through one another.

my 2 cents

I am sorry but,the climbers round here are not looking for your logical $0.02 input. These guys are constantly challenging each other on CF eqalette bullsh*t till someone actually breaks one and dies while setting it up .Till then this myth will continues.

Two quite unhelpful posts.
That "2 cents" is absolutely much more, but negative: there was no such
sling-cutting case demonstrated
; if you had paid attention, you'd have seen
a bunch of people making wild conclusions to support their agenda (dental
floss is bad, bad, bad, esp. when knotted), which was ridiculous on its
face, and subsequently tested and proved so by both Kolin Powick's (BDel)
sling testing and Mammut's investigation of the infamous John Sherman sling.
.:. It was cut by a SHARP object (think: knife), NOT by fibre.

And this false charge against such slings has popped up another time even
after this testing, and was then too rebutted. Will it never die? (Yeah, Major
Sorbet, talk about a myth that continues!)
Crazy

As for you, Majid, to find something so simple as the ELET a "CF", gimme
a break. Heck, it hardly has enough to it to merit your trademark arrows!

As for counting knots between the Triplette / ELET:
the ELET has TWO;
whether you want to tie the cord together or not ("to knot or not")
is a separate question--as one end of the twin strands will likely be tied
to protection 'biner for length adjustment, anyway, and the ends can be
there, post-knot, free.

In another implementation, the knotting would be of one 60cm sling through
another, and then cord will be tied (w/Clove hitches?) to 'biners clipped
into the non-PPoint sling bight ends.

And Why ... ? --because HMPE slings give the least friction for the best
equalization (Craig Connally so attested). And the set-up is easily adjusted,
the knots easier to untie to re-set (for one short, one much longer leg),
and the gear is in your pack already.

*kN*


jt512


Apr 24, 2008, 2:11 PM
Post #117 of 147 (4455 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

knudenoggin wrote:
there was no such
sling-cutting case demonstrated
; if you had paid attention, you'd have seen
a bunch of people making wild conclusions to support their agenda (dental
floss is bad, bad, bad, esp. when knotted), which was ridiculous on its
face, and subsequently tested and proved so by both Kolin Powick's (BDel)
sling testing and Mammut's investigation of the infamous John Sherman sling.
.:. It was cut by a SHARP object (think: knife), NOT by fibre.

Could you possibly provide a link to those investigations?

Jay


ja1484


Apr 24, 2008, 2:18 PM
Post #118 of 147 (4452 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [jt512] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 

Mammut's investigation:

http://www.mammutusa.com/...%20Sling%20Break.pdf


Two BD investigations of sling-on-sling attachment:

http://www.bdel.com/...p_archive.php#110906
http://www.bdel.com/...p_archive.php#052107


C'mon Jay, you know how to use the internet.

Consensus: Sherman's sling was cut, but not by another sling.

Also, sling-on-sling attachment methods seem to sap between 30 to 60% of the sling's rated breaking strength, depending on the combination of materials and the type of loading.


I had to look all this stuff up a few weeks ago when I mentioned there was some "concern in the community that skinny slings might not be suitable for knotting" and kN came along threating to set me on fire during the night as I slept.


jt512


Apr 24, 2008, 2:23 PM
Post #119 of 147 (4450 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [ja1484] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ja1484 wrote:

Mammut's investigation:

http://www.mammutusa.com/...%20Sling%20Break.pdf


Two BD investigations of sling-on-sling attachment:

http://www.bdel.com/...p_archive.php#110906
http://www.bdel.com/...p_archive.php#052107


C'mon Jay, you know how to use the internet.

I guess my internet skills are only so-so. My initial search turned up nothing, so I posted the question. After that, I changed the keywords, and found at least the Mammut report. I was just returning to this thread to post the links myself, but you beat me to it.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 24, 2008, 2:24 PM)


jt512


Apr 24, 2008, 3:28 PM
Post #120 of 147 (4426 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [ja1484] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ja1484 wrote:
Two BD investigations of sling-on-sling attachment:

http://www.bdel.com/...p_archive.php#110906

A couple of interesting details in there: first, that the strop hitch (which I'd never heard of) is stronger than the true girth hitch. Fooling around with a couple of Spectra slings just now, I suspect that we're usually connecting two slings together with strop hitches, and mistakenly calling them girth hitches. If I understand the strop hitch correctly, I have to try hard "de-symmetrify" it into a girth hitch. The other interesting detail is that pre-tensioning the strop hitch increases its strength against a dynamic load, presumably by decreasing slippage, and hence, heat, during loading.

Jay


palidon11


Apr 24, 2008, 3:29 PM
Post #121 of 147 (4447 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 2, 2007
Posts: 63

Re: [jt512] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i looked into this a while ago after i saw that alot of you guys dont like the equalette and didn't find what i was looking for. what is the problem with the equalette? i use it from time to time as the powerpoint for my toprope anchors.


ja1484


Apr 24, 2008, 4:22 PM
Post #122 of 147 (4433 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [palidon11] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

palidon11 wrote:
i looked into this a while ago after i saw that alot of you guys dont like the equalette and didn't find what i was looking for. what is the problem with the equalette? i use it from time to time as the powerpoint for my toprope anchors.


Nothing. I just prefer the trenchlette for the 3-strand powerpoint.


majid_sabet


Apr 24, 2008, 4:48 PM
Post #123 of 147 (4422 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [ja1484] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

GH knot naturally create a 2:1 mechanical advantages within the jointed area. This means, that every time you GH an sling to another rope (cord, whatever). You build an internal 2:1 MA right where the two materials are attached. Adding 2:1 MA in addition to motion will create great deal of heat which causes the GH to fail.

Why do you want to GH an anchor which may come under a massive force?

[URL=http://imageshack.us]





(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Apr 24, 2008, 11:36 PM)


adatesman


Apr 24, 2008, 6:50 PM
Post #124 of 147 (4393 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


moose_droppings


Apr 24, 2008, 7:42 PM
Post #125 of 147 (4384 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

A waterknot (aka tape knot, ring bend) is an overhand on one end, then retraced the first overhand with the other end. Notice where the ends exit the knot in different directions.
#14
http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_Bends.htm

An overhand bend (aka euro death knot) you take both ends together and tie an overhand with them. The ends come out of the knot the same direction. My understanding of the testing is if the knot is dressed properly and set well with adequate tails, its not prone to rolling off the ends.
The top pic on this page is a water knot, scroll down to see an overhand bend tied.
http://ozultimate.com/.../one-sided_overhand/


moose_droppings


Apr 24, 2008, 8:02 PM
Post #126 of 147 (7200 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
That said, are we talking about different knots here? In my mind its the same knot and just a question of which of the 4 strands coming out of it are being loaded.

Possibly semantics, but the motion you go through to tie it is an overhand. If its even a bend any more, I don't know, since a bend is tying two ends together, joining them.
Smile

PTFTW edit:


(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Apr 24, 2008, 8:03 PM)


knudenoggin


Apr 24, 2008, 10:49 PM
Post #127 of 147 (7191 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [jt512] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ja1484 wrote:
My main curiosity with the ELET is that we know soft on soft is not the best attachment methods for runners and cords strength wise, but will the sheet bend attached runner prove stronger than just a plain ol' limiter knot in the same place.
The ELET is a general, triangular structure; this can be implemented in various
ways. E.g., concerned with soft-2-soft, you could clip a sling into 'biners,
and use cord to tie off the 'biners and make the connecting side of the
ELET (as Aric shows, but absent 'biners at cord-2-tape joints). Or, a single
tape could be Clove hitched to the 'biners at the connection corners, and
separate material used to connect from 'biner to anchor.
I should expect that an equilateral triangle would be adequate in most cases,
and this will keep the connection corners from shifting to the powerpoint if
one side pulls out. (Aric's short sling doesn't achieve this; and the Triplette
was shown with an overly long connecting strand.)

And the Triplette is an implementation of the ELET, except that with the
connecting (single) strand nearly the same length as the paired strands
(which are clipped), it allows needless extension vs. limiting it--which I
see someone (Bill7) actually thought was a GOOD thing!?)

jt512 wrote:
A couple of interesting details in there: first, that the strop hitch (which I'd never heard of) is stronger than the true girth hitch. Fooling around with a couple of Spectra slings just now, I suspect that we're usually connecting two slings together with strop hitches, and mistakenly calling them girth hitches.
Egads.
The misnomer "Girth hitch" is bandied about w/o regard for the result,
sadly; one should in the climber-use case regard it as a tying algorithm,
the result of which can vary w/tyer, material, and maybe phases of the moon.

Double egads is that Kolin only once, apparently accidentally, shows what
I presume is the most common result of the algorithm--an asymmetric
geometry, in which one sling is pretty much unaltered (initially), and the
other bends around it--is "girth hitched" to it. You can see this form in the
climerware [sic--no 'b', contrary Kolin] site (and in Soles's Outdoor Knots,
p. 97).

In reply to:
If I understand the strop hitch correctly, I have to try hard "de-symmetrify" it into a girth hitch.
Sounds right, except for the "hard" part: IMO, orienting tape into the neat
symmetric form of the "Strop H." is what requires care--a departure from the
usual quickly made hitch, in which one sling is worked around the other
(and often I think w/o regard as to whether the result resembles what it
would around a rigid object ('biner) or with the bight tip fallen back over
the hitched-to sling).

In reply to:
The other interesting detail is that pre-tensioning the strop hitch increases its strength against a dynamic load, presumably by decreasing slippage, and hence, heat, during loading.

Yeah, likely. And it's a worry to me about what I hope will be a better way
to join slings: to simply interweave them ("girth"-/"strop"-wise) a few times.
The thought is that with an extended section of twisted sling-sides, each
sling will dominate at its end of entry, and so take less initial bending,
off-loading force gradually. Such a structure is inevitably easy to untie,
as its center is a long slit between the entwisted sides. But your note about
the friction & benefit of a pre-set tight knot is a worry, as this extended
twisting is harder to set so tight.

*kN*

ps:
majid wrote:
GH knot naturally create a 2:1 mechanical advantages ...
Geeesh, open your eyes and LOOK at what is being discussed--don't go off
on some irrelevant tangent connected only by the overloaded name "GH"
(you seem to be taking C.Connally's definition; it'snot that common a one,
and irrelevant entirely re joining slings).

pps:
In reply to:
... and kN came along threating to set me on fire during the night as I slept.
Shocked Yeah, that'll learn ya!

(But we'd both much rather someonElse lit your fire during the night ... .)


knudenoggin


Apr 24, 2008, 11:02 PM
Post #128 of 147 (7189 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
They aren't tied with a ring bend, they're tied with an overhand. There is a difference.
If you tie an overhand in the middle of a rope and apply force to both ends, it cannot capsize.
I agree that pulling on both ends won't be a problem, but if one side of the anchor fails you have an overhand/ring bend on top loaded correctly and one on bottom that's having the two strands on the same side pulled opposite directions, which is what leads to the rolling problem.

The knot in question is a an Overhand knot in doubled rope with another
strand run through it and tied off around the pair with a Strangle (a form
of Dbl.Oh). And the loading of it upon failure of its anchor will be that of
an offset Ring Bend (note the usefulness of Soles's term "offset")
with an extra strand to the Strangle, which also makes it conceivable as
an Offset "Half Grapevine", but it's not quite that.
To a good pull in 8mm low-elongation cord it looks stable so loaded;
but that's one quick check, at maybe 400#? (And just an Oh vice Strangle)

*kN*


majid_sabet


Apr 24, 2008, 11:34 PM
Post #129 of 147 (7184 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8358

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

knudenoggin wrote:
adatesman wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
They aren't tied with a ring bend, they're tied with an overhand. There is a difference.
If you tie an overhand in the middle of a rope and apply force to both ends, it cannot capsize.
I agree that pulling on both ends won't be a problem, but if one side of the anchor fails you have an overhand/ring bend on top loaded correctly and one on bottom that's having the two strands on the same side pulled opposite directions, which is what leads to the rolling problem.

The knot in question is a an Overhand knot in doubled rope with another
strand run through it and tied off around the pair with a Strangle (a form
of Dbl.Oh). And the loading of it upon failure of its anchor will be that of
an offset Ring Bend (note the usefulness of Soles's term "offset")
with an extra strand to the Strangle, which also makes it conceivable as
an Offset "Half Grapevine", but it's not quite that.
To a good pull in 8mm low-elongation cord it looks stable so loaded;
but that's one quick check, at maybe 400#? (And just an Oh vice Strangle)

*kN*

what is used to join these two cords?

That gray looking sling and red looking rope ?

[URL=http://imageshack.us]


ja1484


Apr 25, 2008, 5:06 AM
Post #130 of 147 (7169 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

knudenoggin wrote:
ja1484 wrote:
My main curiosity with the ELET is that we know soft on soft is not the best attachment methods for runners and cords strength wise, but will the sheet bend attached runner prove stronger than just a plain ol' limiter knot in the same place.
The ELET is a general, triangular structure; this can be implemented in various
ways. E.g., concerned with soft-2-soft, you could clip a sling into 'biners,
and use cord to tie off the 'biners and make the connecting side of the
ELET (as Aric shows, but absent 'biners at cord-2-tape joints). Or, a single
tape could be Clove hitched to the 'biners at the connection corners, and
separate material used to connect from 'biner to anchor.
I should expect that an equilateral triangle would be adequate in most cases,
and this will keep the connection corners from shifting to the powerpoint if
one side pulls out. (Aric's short sling doesn't achieve this; and the Triplette
was shown with an overly long connecting strand.)


The Trenchlette I use just has all three powerpoint strands the same length. Pick two to clip, which two doesn't matter.

As for adding in the carabiners, again, we're just bumping complexity of the rigging more and more. I like the Trenchlette, because it's nothing but an equallette with an extra strand on the PP (meaning you can use one less 'biner, so it's kind of a tradeoff complexity wise).

I think it's hard to state anything as having further advantages if they're negated by increased setup time or rigging complexity.

In reply to:
And the Triplette is an implementation of the ELET, except that with the
connecting (single) strand nearly the same length as the paired strands
(which are clipped), it allows needless extension vs. limiting it--which I
see someone (Bill7) actually thought was a GOOD thing!?)


Meh, the climbing community needs to get over extension. The tests by Jim Ewing at Sterling have basically shown it to be a non-issue in terms of load multiplication as long as the climbing rope is in the system.

FWIW, I think the SRENE acronym has been pretty much shown to be what an anchor rigger's exact order of priorities should be:

Strong first and foremost. Sacrifice any of the other three to get stronger until you're "good enough".

Redundant next. Sacrifice any equalization or extension limitations, but NOT strength, to get redundant.

Equalized third. No extension can be sacrificed to become more equalized, but you should NOT decrease strength or redundancy for more equalization.

Lastly, limit extension as much as you can, as long as it does not decrease the prior three properties.


(This post was edited by ja1484 on Apr 26, 2008, 5:45 AM)


knudenoggin


Apr 25, 2008, 8:47 AM
Post #131 of 147 (7147 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [ja1484] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [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:
what is used to join these two cords?
That gray looking sling and red looking rope ?
The red rope is joined by a Dbl.Grapevine Bend (aka "Triple Fish." : note
the nice aspect of using the "Grapevine" nomenclature in that the overwraps
count matches the prefix ("dbl" = "2", vs. the "triple" w/"Fish")).

The knot joining the cord-to-sling is, absent anchor failure, a Reverse Becket
bend (or hitch, which name I'm favoring); upon achor failure, that of the
holding anchor becomes a fixed loopknot or sorts like the Eskimo Bowline,
and the one of the failed anchor becomes a reversed Rev.Becket Bend
--i.e., a Becket Bend.

Given the use of the sling, there are some tricks that can be done in tying
to it, should further security be wanted.


ja1484 wrote:
The Trenchlette I use just has all three powerpoint strands the same length. Pick two to clip, which two doesn't matter.
It matters re extension. Keep the "connecting" strand minimal, and the two
to clip to stand out clearly, and you limit extension.

In reply to:
As for adding in the carabiners, again, we're just bumping complexity of the rigging more and more.
Maybe not so much: one can have a pre-tied ELET structure to which you
repeatedly, variously tie your anchoring cord--no big deal, and perhaps more
easy than having to re-tie the entire structure per set-up.

In reply to:
Meh, the climbing community needs to get over extension. The tests by Jim Ewing at Sterling have basically shown it to be a non-issue in terms of load multiplication as long as the climbing rope is in the system.
All that they didn't show was any shock that might come in the case that
the belayer's mass is accelerated into static connections, which might be
an unlikely case.
But one might prefet to limit extension for other than force-generating reasons.

In reply to:
Lastly, limit extension as much as you can, as long as it does not decrease the prior three properties.

Bingo!! So why make the connecting strand so gratuitously long?
--that's all I'm saying.

Smile


adatesman


Apr 25, 2008, 9:13 AM
Post #132 of 147 (7142 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


moose_droppings


Apr 25, 2008, 10:43 AM
Post #133 of 147 (7123 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'd be more concerned about the sheet bend should one side give out since it is not generally considered to be very strong or reliable.

Anyway I guess someone can always add something to an already working mousetrap. As long as someone will use it and its safe, no foul no harm.


moose_droppings


Apr 25, 2008, 10:48 AM
Post #134 of 147 (7121 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [adatesman] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
Also hadn't heard of the Eskimo Bowline. Apparently preferred over the regular bowline when the two legs of the loop are pulled in opposite directions. Link

-a.

Just looked that one up. Looks like it work great for snaring polar bears (wider working loop).
Smile


trenchdigger


Apr 25, 2008, 10:56 AM
Post #135 of 147 (7115 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

knudenoggin wrote:
In reply to:
Lastly, limit extension as much as you can, as long as it does not decrease the prior three properties.

Bingo!! So why make the connecting strand so gratuitously long?
--that's all I'm saying.

Smile

Exactly. Plus the shorter strand makes it easier to clip. I have tied them with the short strand just the right length so it has no slack, but is basically untensioned with the anchor arms spread to 120 degrees - the max I'd accept in an anchor.


knudenoggin


Apr 25, 2008, 4:26 PM
Post #136 of 147 (7088 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

trenchdigger wrote:
knudenoggin wrote:
In reply to:
Lastly, limit extension as much as you can, as long as it does not decrease the prior three properties.
Bingo!! So why make the connecting strand so gratuitously long?
--that's all I'm saying. Smile
Exactly. Plus the shorter strand makes it easier to clip. I have tied them with the short strand just the right length so it has no slack, but is basically untensioned with the anchor arms spread to 120 degrees - the max I'd accept in an anchor.

The extension of the ELET is 1/2 the length of the connecting strand,
excluding any consideration for pendulum effects of spread anchors.
Joining two 2'(60cm) slings could yield an ELET that at 120deg., would
be an equilateral triangle w/6" extension, e.g. (the sling used for making
the hitching consuming half its length in knots & eyes, half left for the
connecting span).

------
"Becket Bend/hitch ("hitch" taken as the one side hitching to an eye]
differs from the Sheet bend in that both legs of the bight (u-part) are loaded.
(Although I think that the origin of the Sheet bend was for tying sheets to
an eye-like structure.)

*kN*


ja1484


Apr 25, 2008, 7:27 PM
Post #137 of 147 (7069 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
kN/Trench:

I can respect wanting to limit extension for other reasons aside from prevention of "shock loading", and I totally get behind that.

That said, I like being able to just choose any two strands of the trenchelette to clip as my powerpoint. I'm willing to risk the extra 2- 4 inches of extension in the event of a leg failure for the versatility.

I suppose this is something everyone has to decide on per their preferences.


jt512


Apr 25, 2008, 9:06 PM
Post #138 of 147 (7055 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [ja1484] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ja1484 wrote:
...I think the SRENE acronym has been pretty much shown to be what an anchor rigger's exact order of priorities should be[.]

I wonder to what extent, if any, that was John Long's intent; I don't recall his ever mentioning that he intended the order to have any significance. I, for one, merely assumed that the acronym was intended to be similar to the word "serene," implying that a SRENE anchor should give the climber peace of mind.

But I completely agree with you, now that you've pointed it out, that the priorities for an anchor are in the exact order of the acronym. I think you may be the first person to make this observation on the internet. I'm not one to lament the loss of trophies, but if we did have a means of rating posts, your simple, elegant observation would get the highest rating, at least from me.

You might want to think about working this up into an article for Climbing or R & I.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 25, 2008, 9:08 PM)


ja1484


Apr 26, 2008, 5:42 AM
Post #139 of 147 (7021 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [jt512] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
ja1484 wrote:
...I think the SRENE acronym has been pretty much shown to be what an anchor rigger's exact order of priorities should be[.]

I wonder to what extent, if any, that was John Long's intent; I don't recall his ever mentioning that he intended the order to have any significance. I, for one, merely assumed that the acronym was intended to be similar to the word "serene," implying that a SRENE anchor should give the climber peace of mind.

But I completely agree with you, now that you've pointed it out, that the priorities for an anchor are in the exact order of the acronym. I think you may be the first person to make this observation on the internet. I'm not one to lament the loss of trophies, but if we did have a means of rating posts, your simple, elegant observation would get the highest rating, at least from me.

You might want to think about working this up into an article for Climbing or R & I.

Jay


An article ain't a bad idea, even if it only ends up on here to educate.

And I agree, I'm not sure that's what JL had in mind, I just think with the evolution of anchor rigging and evidence disproving significant shock loading from extension, things kind of fell into place.


(This post was edited by ja1484 on Apr 26, 2008, 5:47 AM)


knudenoggin


Apr 27, 2008, 1:09 PM
Post #140 of 147 (6921 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [jt512] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
ja1484 wrote:
...I think the SRENE acronym has been pretty much shown to be what an anchor rigger's exact order of priorities should be[.]

I wonder to what extent, if any, that was John Long's intent; I don't recall his ever mentioning that he intended the order to have any significance. I, for one, merely assumed that the acronym was intended to be similar to the word "serene," implying that a SRENE anchor should give the climber peace of mind.

Before history gets revised much, let's read what VivaLargo/JL actually writes:
SRENE is an acronym for "Solid, Redundant, Equalized, and No-Extension"
first connived by professional guide Marc Chauvin, for use when teaching clients
anchoring fundamentals. Marc's first acronym was RENE; "S (Solid)" was later
added, resulting in SRENE, which was appropriated by the IFMGA (Int.Fed.
of Mtn. Guides Assoc.), and later by me in the first anchor book.


So making the originally absent "S" the most important factor turns this anchor
principle on its head, so to speak! It also changes "solid" into "strong", before
taking off w/rationalization.

But what is solid? Craig Connally's take on it sheds some light--to wit:
"'S' should mean 'strong & secure'. These are not the same." [Mnteering Hndbk]
And he also mentions "ERNEST" (which pops up in Craig (no relation) Leuben's
Climbing Anchors, a second point in anchor-acronym thinking that sorta
*determines the line*: "foremost, anchor acronyms must be pronounceable".
(And printable: the little-known "Foundation Using Cord for Kinetic Energy
Dispersal for Uber Protection" never left the publisher; it also has unfortunate,
unsettling connotations--as did "Bomber, Adjustable, & Duplicative", which
also did not find favor.)

So, the strength, or solidness, of arguing for Strong's prominence seems
weakened by a reflection on the origin of the principles. --or one might
counter-argue that the omission arose from taking it as so fundamental
that it did not in need stating.

In reply to:
But I completely agree with you, now that you've pointed it out, that the priorities for an anchor are in the exact order of the acronym.

... which, to reiterate, were enumerated by ja1484 as:

In reply to:
Strong first and foremost. Sacrifice any of the other three to get stronger until you're "good enough".

Redundant next. Sacrifice any equalization or extension limitations, but NOT strength, to get redundant.

Equalized third. No-Extension can be sacrificed to become more equalized, but you should NOT decrease strength or redundancy for more equalization.

[No-Extension] Lastly, limit extension as much as you can, as long as it does not decrease the prior three properties.

I take issue with the apparent assertion that it's all so simple as stated;
I'm also unconvinced with the asserted importance ranking.

Firstly, how does one evaluate Strong? Note that ja1484 qualifies this
(rightly) as "strong enough"; but what then is enough? To me,
this entails knowing the strength of the materials and anchor placements and
knots, all of which I surmise have variances not so easily perceived. (Mistakes
can be seen in the hype about how super-strong new hi-modulus fibres are, w/o
regard for their equally high loss of strength when knotted.) Are you sure that
the bolt (or the rock it's in) is good, is "strong enough"?

And implicit in Redundant is the answer "no" to the above question;
so one takes a precaution against the unknown weakness(es) by providing
a second, independent support.

One could suggest that Equalized is a fickle component of Strong,
in that by equalization one has halved the strong-enough threshold
--unless an anchor fails (and the other now must be strong enough alone)!

No-(/limited-)Extension was envisioned to also assist Strong, by lowering
a possible force surge upon an anchor failure. Fortunately, it appears that
the feared surge is unrealistic.

Absent from SRENE but in ERNEST is "timely", which seems to be on the
minds in discussion--some of the proposed structures mused as needing
an assembly team & special training/certification.

-------
But let's look at where any such compromises of the above qualities for one
another have actually occurred. And what field failures have occurred that
can put weight on any of these enumerated factors? --case histories?

In the simple case of the Sliding-X vs. S-X+limiters, one can suppose that
the limiter knots reduce Strength; but is it still strong enough?
Equalization is reduced in the X-clipping for the sake of redundancy;
but for the SXL structure, one could clip just one strand (and, the other strand
could be made a short, "connecting" strand to form an ELET). Now, many would
balk "then it's not Redundant, if that strand is cut ...", which is true also
of the original S-X. --and is true of the climbing rope, unless twin, in which
case though (unless Beal Joker or ...) one might challenge this coupled with
Strength if two strands are req'd for UIAA conformity.

*kN*, building finger strength through keystrokes


moose_droppings


Apr 27, 2008, 1:56 PM
Post #141 of 147 (6915 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3356

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

knudenoggin wrote:
the little-known "Foundation Using Cord for Kinetic Energy
Dispersal for Uber Protection" never left the publisher;

I've heard that acronym used many times,
just never new what it stood for.

LaughLaughLaugh


spikeddem


May 29, 2008, 1:48 PM
Post #142 of 147 (6667 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [moose_droppings] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Here's an equalette with a 4 strand powerpoint, and just two knots. Additionally, the knots are standard, tested double fishermans. It eats up a bit of the cordelette, but if one really wanted some more, just buy longer cordelette (the two pictured are each 21 feet long).

Left: The setup before the knots are added (ignore the un-joined ends, I was lazy).
Right: Setup with double fisherman's knots. Clip the bottom four strands with a biner and voila.



The DB fisherman's knots do not join together when the four strands are loaded, because pulling on the four strands pulls them together and apart at the same time.

Now, I just made this up about twenty minutes ago, so it hasn't been tested in any true way, but it passes a good foot-and-hands tug test. I originally sat down to create a trenchelette, but I got side-tracked and made this Laugh. The only way it is better, that I see, than the trenchelette is that it avoids a made-up, un-tested (although probably secure) knot, and is composed of half as many knots. (Edit: I just remembered that it was, in-fact, tested by the pull-tester. However, it hasn't been tested by time Sly)

What do you think?

Edit 2: Oops, I have no clue what would happen if a strand of the powerpoint was cut. Perhaps death. Someone else that thinks better in 3D could answer this. (No, I'm not testing it experimentally Sly)


(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 29, 2008, 1:56 PM)


spikeddem


May 30, 2008, 8:58 AM
Post #143 of 147 (6596 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [spikeddem] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Apparently, if just one of the four strands is cut, it behaves no differently. If two of the strands are cut, then the double fisherman's knots join together, and the self-equalization properties are lost. Then again, if two of the strands are cut on the equalette or trenchelette, the anchor fails overall, so I'd consider the loss of self-equalization acceptable. Sly

(Edit: Added "self")


(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 30, 2008, 9:09 AM)


morse8000


Jul 6, 2008, 6:41 PM
Post #144 of 147 (6108 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2007
Posts: 7

Re: [trenchdigger] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Trenchdigger,

I have been fooling around with something sort of like what you are talking about. Basically, I take a 10-12 foot section of 7mm or 8mm. On one side, I tie a FROST KNOT. On the other side I tie an OVERHAND KNOT. So the main difference from your diagram is that both tails of the cord are on the side where the FROST KNOT is.

The origin of this idea was trying to make a super-clean, pre-rigged, 2-point anchor for wall climbing. It can be used in 3 different modes.

Mode 1 Frost Knot only at the powerpoint non-extending, but imperfect equalization. In this mode you are eliminating the double fishermans knot that you see in most cordalettes. But to achieve okay equalization you have to take up excess slack by making extra turns in the cord around one of the biners in the anchor.

Mode 2 Frost Knot on one anchor loops on the other anchor to make a redundant sliding x with limited extension on one side only.

Mode 3 Frost Knot on one anchor overhand knot on the other anchor. good equalization, limited extension on each anchor.

I don't really use the set-up that much, though. Mostly, I use the rope with clove hitches whenever possible and 60/120 cm slings or cordalette/webolette when more equalization is required.


ja1484


Jul 9, 2008, 3:54 PM
Post #145 of 147 (6014 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [knudenoggin] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
Hell of a chunk o bait you got there kN.

I basically agree with John Long's assertion in the second anchors volume that trying to determine absolutes (even in the form of definitions) in climbing safety systems is a fool's errand.

I'll simplify things even more, and feel free to analyze this however you'd like:

Build it so it won't fail.


LamontagnedeGatineau


Nov 20, 2008, 10:14 AM
Post #146 of 147 (5457 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2008
Posts: 17

Re: [ja1484] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

OK, I have been trying to remain awake while reading through all this "equalette" stuff. Quite frankly, all this is WAY to complex for my simple mind. However, I do see three major flaws in all the complex cordelette systems being discussed:

1. If you use this system, BRING A KNIFE! All these knots will have to be untied once climbers leave a hanging belay. Anybody who's had to untie a double fisheman's knot after hanging and bouncing around on it for an hour or so knows that this can be time consuming to do at best, and downright impossible at most other times. This is not an option on multipitch climbs where efficiency and speed are important, nor is it much fun for climbers who mainly want to ENJOY their climb, while remaining reasonably safe.

2. I think the Equalization/extension idea is bunk on set-ups which go down by 2 feet long or so. I would say that Equalization beats Extension worries hands down and here is why: I expect a good jump on a belay will provoke about the same shock load as a 2 foot slide on a slider X setup (someone else can calculate that for me). If one of the anchors can't handle even that kind of load, the redundancy principle is compromised from the start anyway. Furthermore, at a 20 degree angle on an equalized anchor, the load si basically split 50%/50% BUT, in all cases where the load is not PERFECTLY lined up between the anchor, the knot and the shock-load, the initial shock of a non sliding X set-up will go 100% on one of the anchors: BAD KARMA THERE MAN.

3. Knots on cordelettes will reduce their strength by up to 50%. Why weaken the system in the first place?

In conclusion: I remain convinced that the good ol' sliding X solution, particularly with sown webbing is, by far, the simplest, quickest, cleanest and safest approach to setting-up multi-point belays.

(This post was edited by LamontagnedeGatineau on Nov 20, 2008, 11:20 AM)


Partner rgold


Nov 21, 2008, 12:02 AM
Post #147 of 147 (5409 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1801

Re: [LamontagnedeGatineau] Yet another Improved(?) Equalette idea... [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 climbing community needs to get over extension. The tests by Jim Ewing at Sterling have basically shown it to be a non-issue in terms of load multiplication as long as the climbing rope is in the system.

It seems to be my fate to periodically reissue the same remarks that the conclusion about extension being a non-issue is premature. (Oh well, it took several years before folks started to believe that tied cordalettes might not equalize...)

Jim's tests were done in such a way that the minimal effect of extension was (at least in retrospect) a foregone conclusion---there was too much rope in the system relative to the extension allowed for their to be much effect; the change in fall factor due to extension was small.

I'm going to go out on a limb, if for no other reason than to at least mitigate the complacency that these tests seem to be inspiring, and suggest that if extensions are tested in realistic scenarios, in which the rope connecting the weight to the anchor is not very long compared to the extension, then the result will be that extension can be a serious condition leading to very high anchor loads.

In the meantime, people tying in to potentially extending systems should, first, absolutely insist that their load-absorbing connection to the anchor be the climbing rope and not some low-stretch tether, and second, should endeavor to make their rope tie-in as long as is feasible given the constraints of their stance.


Forums : Climbing Information : The Lab

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$44.96 (10% off)
$6.75 (10% off)
$44.96 (10% off)
$45.99 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook