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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

What is this thing you call a "book".

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.