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

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All


healyje


May 14, 2007, 11:56 AM
Post #76 of 147 (5935 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 (5929 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 (5867 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 (5856 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 (5814 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 (5804 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 (5779 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 (5765 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 (5726 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 (5710 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 (5621 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 (5565 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 (5442 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 (5438 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 (5400 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 (5168 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 (5158 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4856

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 (5156 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3346

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 (5152 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4856

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 (5131 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 (5093 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 (5034 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 (5027 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 (5015 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 (5011 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)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : The Lab

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook