Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Trad Climbing:
An anchor to analyze
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Trad Climbing

Premier Sponsor:

 


jt512


Nov 9, 2009, 1:02 PM
Post #1 of 159 (7628 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

An anchor to analyze
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

We haven't had a good anchor analysis thread in a while. I saw this one at New Jack City (of all places) this weekend, and thought it might make for some interesting discussion. A climber had rigged this as a TR anchor for his kids. What do you guys think? (Click images to enlarge.)

Overview



Detail






Attachments: overview.jpg (146 KB)
  nut.jpg (132 KB)
  middle2.jpg (113 KB)
  bottom2.jpg (106 KB)


swoopee


Nov 9, 2009, 1:13 PM
Post #2 of 159 (7605 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Posts: 560

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

No AToD, no rope or slings through bolt hangers, no rotten, termite ridden tree stumps. I would say that it is "good enough". Wink


kylekienitz


Nov 9, 2009, 1:21 PM
Post #3 of 159 (7588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 256

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup. Considering the two pieces were totally bomber and perfectly equalized, it would be alright. However, as it is, if the quickdraws aren't equalized under load then the weight is only on one piece.

I would equalize at least two of those with a sling and then go for it.


TarHeelEMT


Nov 9, 2009, 1:23 PM
Post #4 of 159 (7580 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Nothing but quickdraws. Intersting. That certainly gives you no mechanism for equalization, save for moving the primary placements until it's equalized. He's weighting nothing but one piece at a time, and that second draw in the chain coming from the top nut would have a good chance to open right up if the (loaded) piece below it failed - the whole force of it would come down on the gate in an orientation to open it (not to mention shock loading that piece even if the gate doesn't open).

Did you talk to the guy?


(This post was edited by TarHeelEMT on Nov 9, 2009, 1:24 PM)


raingod


Nov 9, 2009, 1:27 PM
Post #5 of 159 (7573 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 118

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just quickly
The rope end biners are neither opposite or opposed.
One of the 3 pieces is so out of equalization that it will only be weighted if the other fails.
A couple of the biners higher up look to be held gateside to the rock, possibly allowing the gates to be forced open.
I'm not fond of biner to biner chains in this application


budman


Nov 9, 2009, 1:29 PM
Post #6 of 159 (7568 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 165

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Equalization? Metal to Metal? Opposed biners? It's just Natural Selection at it's Finest. Too bad the kids see this as the what to do it. But for a top rope it will more than likely suffice.


madscientist


Nov 9, 2009, 1:29 PM
Post #7 of 159 (7568 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2002
Posts: 159

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Cannot really tell if the pieces are placed correctly, so I won't comment on them.

The draws present several problems. The one attached to the nut is close to an edge that may open it and loading the anchor might introduce some forces in a unusual and unwanted directions.

All the black draws clipped to the left anchor has many issues regarding equalization and gate position. The upper nut is not equalized, and failure of the upper cam could result in unclipping of the upper nut. Could of solved the unclipping issue just by clipping into the lower draw, but this still would not make a great anchor.

Not good enough if my kid was climbing on it.


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 1:32 PM
Post #8 of 159 (7557 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

U Stem Camalot
Old as dirt nylon slings
Wiregate carabiner clipped to another carabiner
Non existent Equalization
C+/B-


dagibbs


Nov 9, 2009, 2:18 PM
Post #9 of 159 (7486 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 880

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Also, how solid is the rock these are in?

I seem to see a second crack coming down from a point a short distance above the upper part of the placement -- is this a flake? How solid/detached is teh flake?


dolphja


Nov 9, 2009, 2:24 PM
Post #10 of 159 (7477 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 18, 2001
Posts: 298

Re: [madscientist] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

madscientist wrote:
Cannot really tell if the pieces are placed correctly, so I won't comment on them.

The draws present several problems. The one attached to the nut is close to an edge that may open it and loading the anchor might introduce some forces in a unusual and unwanted directions.

All the black draws clipped to the left anchor has many issues regarding equalization and gate position. The upper nut is not equalized, and failure of the upper cam could result in unclipping of the upper nut. Could of solved the unclipping issue just by clipping into the lower draw, but this still would not make a great anchor.

Not good enough if my kid was climbing on it.

i'll totally agree with the madscientist on this one about where the biners are facing, questionable placement and equalization. i'm also kinda wondering where the locker is on this anchor, cause i don't see one.


IsayAutumn


Nov 9, 2009, 2:45 PM
Post #11 of 159 (7439 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Bomber.


justroberto


Nov 9, 2009, 3:06 PM
Post #12 of 159 (7415 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [budman] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 3:08 PM
Post #13 of 159 (7409 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?

Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves.


TarHeelEMT


Nov 9, 2009, 3:12 PM
Post #14 of 159 (7403 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?

As I understand it, the issue isn't metal on metal, but rather biner on biner - if they get twisted, the gates can press against the other biner and open - a problem that's alleviated by connecting via a sling.


justroberto


Nov 9, 2009, 3:12 PM
Post #15 of 159 (7401 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [TarHeelEMT] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

TarHeelEMT wrote:
Did you talk to the guy?
Doubtful. My guess is it's something Jay rigged up and took pictures of to get all the tardies in a tizzy. Now he's sitting back, enjoying the carnage.


shockabuku


Nov 9, 2009, 3:13 PM
Post #16 of 159 (7399 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4856

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think it looks like shit.

If I was building a TR anchor for the typical kid I would probably incorporate a sliding-x/equallette design because most kids that TR don't seem to stay on route. That would probably solve most of the problems here since, other than the placements, it would be a totally different anchor.

I think the main problem is that he didn't make his kids lead it.

Wait, isn't New Jack City a sport crag? Aren't there top anchors already?


sittingduck


Nov 9, 2009, 3:18 PM
Post #17 of 159 (7386 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If the direction of pull changes, then one of the legs in the anchor would take no load. If the rope now twist those carabiners 180 degrees, so that the loaded carabiner gets the unloaded quickdraw between itself and the rock, the gate on the loaded carabiner could get forced open.

In that case the anchor would suddenly be somewhat scary since they would be top-roping from one open carabiner, backed up by another carabiner that would have the gate facing the rock.


bennydh


Nov 9, 2009, 3:18 PM
Post #18 of 159 (7383 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 1, 2005
Posts: 368

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
TarHeelEMT wrote:
Did you talk to the guy?
Doubtful. My guess is it's something Jay rigged up and took pictures of to get all the tardies in a tizzy. Now he's sitting back, enjoying the carnage.

I hope that is the case, and that he didn't just mutter ::plonk:: as he snapped photos then continued on his way. Unsure

Anyway... that thing is shit.


healyje


Nov 9, 2009, 3:20 PM
Post #19 of 159 (7377 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

You can quibble on all details of the pro and rigging, but it's all just that compared to the real problem here (as a TR setup), which is the lack of opposing gates on rope.


justroberto


Nov 9, 2009, 3:21 PM
Post #20 of 159 (7375 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
justroberto wrote:
budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?

Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves.
"Tendency" isn't the word you're looking for. "Minute possibility" is more like it. It would be way down on the list of concerns for the instance above.


budman


Nov 9, 2009, 3:32 PM
Post #21 of 159 (7357 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 165

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

In the olden days, and yes I'm old, the term metal to metal denoted 2 biners clipped together. As someone mentioned they have a tendency to unclip in certain situations. I will be more diligent in the future with my wording. I suggest you climb with a few crusty old dudes and dudettes so as not to let these things fade away. I surely suffer in the writing department as Sister Mary Agony beat it out of me. And yes I came from a time when that not only was legal but encouraged.


dingus


Nov 9, 2009, 3:51 PM
Post #22 of 159 (7316 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [kylekienitz] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

kylekienitz wrote:
In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup.

Otherwise known as a 3-piece anchor.

DMT


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 4:03 PM
Post #23 of 159 (7294 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
johnwesely wrote:
justroberto wrote:
budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?

Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves.
"Tendency" isn't the word you're looking for. "Minute possibility" is more like it. It would be way down on the list of concerns for the instance above.

It may be a minute possibility, but so what? Why use a locking carabiner for belaying. It is a minute possibility that it will come undone. It is a top rope anchor. If the route wanders, the thing will jiggle around, and the biners could unclip. I agree with you that it is not the biggest issue with the anchor. The biggest issue is that Jay probably set the thing up himself.


vegastradguy


Nov 9, 2009, 4:13 PM
Post #24 of 159 (7281 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cam looks good.

the other side of the anchor (nut and cam) is fine, but the nose of more than one carabiner facing the rock on that arm is worrisome. those two pieces could have been clipped together at the end of the draw on the nut for pretty good equalization- then slung down to the power point for a less cluttered arm.

as for the non-opposed- i'd rather have the gates facing away from the rock in this instance. i'd have also put a locker or two in there, depending on my mood.

of course, as a TR anchor...the gates against the rock is somewhat worrisome, but in all reality, probably not that big of a deal as even open gate, the forces on the anchor arent going to touch the open gate strengths anyway. and you'd have to really get bouncing on that thing to worry about the biner to biner connections...meh, it works. easy enough to clean it up and make it worry free, though.


jt512


Nov 9, 2009, 4:25 PM
Post #25 of 159 (7259 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
The biggest issue is that Jay probably set the thing up himself.

I didn't set the anchor up. It was an actual top rope anchor set up by another climber, as I wrote in the OP.

Jay


dingus


Nov 9, 2009, 4:26 PM
Post #26 of 159 (3194 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [vegastradguy] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

LOL I've belayed my kids off worse than that haha.

If they climbed on Malcom in the Middle it would be like my family!

DMT


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 4:36 PM
Post #27 of 159 (3184 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
johnwesely wrote:
The biggest issue is that Jay probably set the thing up himself.

I didn't set the anchor up. It was an actual top rope anchor set up by another climber, as I wrote in the OP.

Jay

I know that. I could tell you weren't trolling because none of the draws are Petzl Spirits.


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 4:37 PM
Post #28 of 159 (3183 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
LOL I've belayed my kids off worse than that haha.

If they climbed on Malcom in the Middle it would be like my family!

DMT

If you had to pick either Dewey, Reese or Francis to set an anchor for you, who would you pick and why?


dugl33


Nov 9, 2009, 4:56 PM
Post #29 of 159 (3170 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Not textbook, but adequate...

pros:
1.) individual placements look solid. (Parallel cracks and cams at mid expansion range or better, in direction of pull)
2.) rock looks solid
3.) not really equalized, but not major shock-loading if a piece fails

cons:
1.) equalization could obviously be better
2.) no opposed biners or locker at rope
3.) nose of black draw pushing into the rock
4.) gear is old -- old style .75 camalot, rigid stem friend.
5.) biner on biner chains, not ideal, but not the end of the world.

easy minor improvement would be to clip the draw from the chain of draws connecting to the nut straight into the draw with the green gate.

I'd be happier with a cordellete (despite its imperfect equalization) with opposed biners, but this anchor wouldn't freak me out upon arrival. I've seen much worse.

Side note, I've seen a biner unclip from a bolt, of its own accord, once. Of course this is once in many years of climbing, but hey, shit happens.

Also, recently, witnessed a euro climber routinely clip his draws to his cams racking biners while on lead. He could have easily clipped the cam sling, but didn't. This was not a one time occurence. Somehow it was like fingernails on a chalkboard to watch...


TradEddie


Nov 9, 2009, 5:19 PM
Post #30 of 159 (3143 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Posts: 164

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

My 6yo could easily try unclipping a biner or two - just to see what happens...
Even opposite and opposed just isn't enough deterrent. Lockers, everywhere.

TE


west_by_god_virginia


Nov 9, 2009, 5:31 PM
Post #31 of 159 (3133 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 4, 2009
Posts: 104

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

THIS LOOKS LIKE SHIT. I would never climb with anyone who deemed this even remotely safe, much less SERENE enough top put his fucking children on it.


GO DARWIN!Angelic


dugl33


Nov 9, 2009, 5:35 PM
Post #32 of 159 (3130 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [west_by_god_virginia] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

west_by_god_virginia wrote:
THIS LOOKS LIKE SHIT. I would never climb with anyone who deemed this even remotely safe, much less SERENE enough top put his fucking children on it.


GO DARWIN!Angelic

Yeah, sure, but you were worried about using a full strength biner just because it had held your keys for a spell.


code08


Nov 9, 2009, 5:46 PM
Post #33 of 159 (3108 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2009
Posts: 41

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
dingus wrote:
LOL I've belayed my kids off worse than that haha.

If they climbed on Malcom in the Middle it would be like my family!

DMT

If you had to pick either Dewey, Reese or Francis to set an anchor for you, who would you pick and why?

I would pick Dewey because he probably is the nicest, probably not the smartest but he would put something together that would hold I'm sure. Reese would just mess things up and Francis is kind of a wild card. Malcom would probably be the best although he might over engineer the anchor making it way to complex and annoying to take down plus he wasn't one of your options.


Partner epoch
Moderator

Nov 9, 2009, 5:53 PM
Post #34 of 159 (3097 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 32055

Re: [west_by_god_virginia] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

west_by_god_virginia wrote:
GO DARWIN!Angelic

I've made worse...


west_by_god_virginia


Nov 9, 2009, 5:54 PM
Post #35 of 159 (3094 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 4, 2009
Posts: 104

Re: [epoch] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

im sure you have. but with children? im fine with people hurting themselves, but kids?


(This post was edited by west_by_god_virginia on Nov 9, 2009, 5:55 PM)


kylekienitz


Nov 9, 2009, 5:59 PM
Post #36 of 159 (3083 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 256

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup.

Otherwise known as a 3-piece anchor.

DMT

Well, yeah that's true. However, usually when I think of a three piece anchor all three pieces play a role in absorbing the load.


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 6:02 PM
Post #37 of 159 (3078 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [west_by_god_virginia] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

west_by_god_virginia wrote:
im sure you have. but with children? im fine with people hurting themselves, but kids?

You were just excited at the prospect of the child being a candidate for a Darwin award.


notapplicable


Nov 9, 2009, 6:10 PM
Post #38 of 159 (3066 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17763

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup.

Otherwise known as a 3-piece anchor.

DMT

I feel bad giving a pittance of 5 stars for a trophy worthy post but alas, it is all I have.


dugl33


Nov 9, 2009, 6:13 PM
Post #39 of 159 (3061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [west_by_god_virginia] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

west_by_god_virginia wrote:
im sure you have. but with children? im fine with people hurting themselves, but kids?

Under exactly what scenario or scenarios do you foresee this anchor resulting in catastrophic failure?

I'm just not seeing it....


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 6:24 PM
Post #40 of 159 (3040 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
west_by_god_virginia wrote:
im sure you have. but with children? im fine with people hurting themselves, but kids?

Under exactly what scenario or scenarios do you foresee this anchor resulting in catastrophic failure?

I'm just not seeing it....

Ok, it's a stretch, but bear with me. The kid is backclipped and decides to climb above the anchor. He slips and the draw comes unclipped for the non opposed carabiners. He lands in a bush and his fine. His dad thinks the whole thing is an unlikely coincidence and sets up another similar anchor on another climb. However, the kid does not want to climb anymore, and the gear is put on Ebay where the owner says that it has taken no lead falls. West_By_God_Virginia purchases the gear for twenty dollars. In transit the gear is exposed to battery acid. West_By_God_Virginia uses the gear to go spelunking, and it fails. He gets stuck in the cave.


west_by_god_virginia


Nov 9, 2009, 6:29 PM
Post #41 of 159 (3037 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 4, 2009
Posts: 104

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

who knows, why not build something bomb-proof?


dugl33


Nov 9, 2009, 6:31 PM
Post #42 of 159 (3035 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
dugl33 wrote:
west_by_god_virginia wrote:
im sure you have. but with children? im fine with people hurting themselves, but kids?

Under exactly what scenario or scenarios do you foresee this anchor resulting in catastrophic failure?

I'm just not seeing it....

Ok, it's a stretch, but bear with me. The kid is backclipped and decides to climb above the anchor. He slips and the draw comes unclipped for the non opposed carabiners. He lands in a bush and his fine. His dad thinks the whole thing is an unlikely coincidence and sets up another similar anchor on another climb. However, the kid does not want to climb anymore, and the gear is put on Ebay where the owner says that it has taken no lead falls. West_By_God_Virginia purchases the gear for twenty dollars. In transit the gear is exposed to battery acid. West_By_God_Virginia uses the gear to go spelunking, and it fails. He gets stuck in the cave.

+2

Absolutely, kid climbs on right hand rope, runs it out above the anchor, dives off to the left, rope unclips both draws.

The only way out of the cave is to make use of the biner holding her keys, via a bachmann. This is deemed too dangerous, and a rescue team is called. Unfortunately, the rescue team is too hammered on West Virginia moonshine to respond until the following morning, which, luckily, is a sunday.


west_by_god_virginia


Nov 9, 2009, 6:44 PM
Post #43 of 159 (3010 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 4, 2009
Posts: 104

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
The only way out of the cave is to make use of the biner holding her keys, via a bachmann. This is deemed too dangerous, and a rescue team is called. Unfortunately, the rescue team is too hammered on West Virginia moonshine to respond until the following morning, which, luckily, is a sunday.

there are so many other ways out of a cave.


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 6:53 PM
Post #44 of 159 (2998 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [west_by_god_virginia] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

west_by_god_virginia wrote:
dugl33 wrote:
The only way out of the cave is to make use of the biner holding her keys, via a bachmann. This is deemed too dangerous, and a rescue team is called. Unfortunately, the rescue team is too hammered on West Virginia moonshine to respond until the following morning, which, luckily, is a sunday.

there are so many other ways out of a cave.

O RLY? The cave in my story was actually hell. There is no way out!!!


dugl33


Nov 9, 2009, 6:54 PM
Post #45 of 159 (2997 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [west_by_god_virginia] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

west_by_god_virginia wrote:
dugl33 wrote:
The only way out of the cave is to make use of the biner holding her keys, via a bachmann. This is deemed too dangerous, and a rescue team is called. Unfortunately, the rescue team is too hammered on West Virginia moonshine to respond until the following morning, which, luckily, is a sunday.

there are so many other ways out of a cave.

If you're Gollum...




reno


Nov 9, 2009, 6:56 PM
Post #46 of 159 (2990 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [epoch] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

epoch wrote:
west_by_god_virginia wrote:
GO DARWIN!Angelic

I've made worse...

I've FALLEN on worse.

Not ideal, not a death trap (given what we can see regarding the piece placements.)


sauce


Nov 9, 2009, 7:05 PM
Post #47 of 159 (2977 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 28, 2005
Posts: 4

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Seriously??

This is an absolute pile of crap.

I can't imagine putting my child on an "anchor" like that EVER, but then again I care very deeply for my son.

Personally, I would have felt obligated to offer some sort of assistance.


dingus


Nov 9, 2009, 7:18 PM
Post #48 of 159 (2943 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
dingus wrote:
LOL I've belayed my kids off worse than that haha.

If they climbed on Malcom in the Middle it would be like my family!

DMT

If you had to pick either Dewey, Reese or Francis to set an anchor for you, who would you pick and why?

I'd pick the Mom. Her anchors never fail and she's the toughest one of the bunch. I never watched a whole episode not even in rerruns but the Burning Man one. And that was legendary!

DMT


dingus


Nov 9, 2009, 7:19 PM
Post #49 of 159 (2943 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [west_by_god_virginia] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

west_by_god_virginia wrote:
THIS LOOKS LIKE SHIT. I would never climb with anyone who deemed this even remotely safe, much less SERENE enough top put his fucking children on it.


GO DARWIN!Angelic

His fucking children says the little man from the safety of the internet.

DMT


dingus


Nov 9, 2009, 7:20 PM
Post #50 of 159 (2940 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [kylekienitz] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kylekienitz wrote:
dingus wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup.

Otherwise known as a 3-piece anchor.

DMT

Well, yeah that's true. However, usually when I think of a three piece anchor all three pieces play a role in absorbing the load.

That is an illusion I assure you.

DMT


Rudmin


Nov 9, 2009, 7:27 PM
Post #51 of 159 (2893 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think everyone can agree that it is more likely than not safe enough, but not great. Anybody have any idea what the level of risk of the anchor failing under climbing use is? I would be pretty sure that the chance of failure is less than 20% over the course of a day's use, but maybe higher than 1%

What amount of risk does each little "mistake" add? Like a biner on biner connection coming unclipped? Probably 1/100 chance of that happening. A gate being forced open + having enough force to break the open gated biner? Probably almost nil when top roping kids.


altelis


Nov 9, 2009, 7:43 PM
Post #52 of 159 (2875 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [Rudmin] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Rudmin wrote:
I think everyone can agree that it is more likely than not safe enough, but not great. Anybody have any idea what the level of risk of the anchor failing under climbing use is? I would be pretty sure that the chance of failure is less than 20% over the course of a day's use, but maybe higher than 1%

What amount of risk does each little "mistake" add? Like a biner on biner connection coming unclipped? Probably 1/100 chance of that happening. A gate being forced open + having enough force to break the open gated biner? Probably almost nil when top roping kids.

And were you aware that you have a 6/45 chance that some random person on the webz will "cite" made up statics 85.7% of the time, every time?


reno


Nov 9, 2009, 7:50 PM
Post #53 of 159 (2866 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [altelis] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
Rudmin wrote:
I think everyone can agree that it is more likely than not safe enough, but not great. Anybody have any idea what the level of risk of the anchor failing under climbing use is? I would be pretty sure that the chance of failure is less than 20% over the course of a day's use, but maybe higher than 1%

What amount of risk does each little "mistake" add? Like a biner on biner connection coming unclipped? Probably 1/100 chance of that happening. A gate being forced open + having enough force to break the open gated biner? Probably almost nil when top roping kids.

And were you aware that you have a 6/45 chance that some random person on the webz will "cite" made up statics 85.7% of the time, every time?

The funny statistics reference notwithstanding, the other question to ask is "What percentage of risk am I, personally, willing to accept?"

Trite though it may sound, a 10% risk of total failure might be acceptable to one person, and 10 times too high for another. 20% is too high for you... I'm OK taking the 1 in 5 chance.

Each... his own... something like that.


dugl33


Nov 9, 2009, 8:02 PM
Post #54 of 159 (2861 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [Rudmin] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In my opinion, odds of failure would be very low if we are assuming the pieces are solid.

My failure scenario would be as follows.

Dad is taking his kids to fat camp, but pulls off to toprope a scruffy bluff at New Jack City. Dad notices a hot sport climber in prana shorts and sports bra, and fails to notice his rather jumbo child has moved upward developing seven feet of slack. The kid has also wandered to the right a bit. Kid breaks a hold, pops off, and all the load goes to the rigid stem friend at the top. The rock, despite looking good, is loose and friable, and the cam pulls. The load drops to the nut, shock loading it, and it pulls. Finally the load swings to the .75 old school camalot, which, despite its apparantly bomber appearance, also pulls, with no apparent benefit from the load already reduced by the failure of the upper pieces.

Or, the kid just manages to unclip the rope when arriving at the top, and peels to the desert dust-pile, amid the beer cans and shotgun shells.

(Of course, my own anchor set-up would look like it was straight from the AMGA guidebook)


kylekienitz


Nov 9, 2009, 8:23 PM
Post #55 of 159 (2835 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 256

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
dingus wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup.

Otherwise known as a 3-piece anchor.

DMT

Well, yeah that's true. However, usually when I think of a three piece anchor all three pieces play a role in absorbing the load.

That is an illusion I assure you.

DMT

HAHA Well thank you Dingus, I feel greatly assured.


kylekienitz


Nov 9, 2009, 8:34 PM
Post #56 of 159 (2819 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 256

Re: [reno] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
"What percentage of risk am I, personally, willing to accept?"

Personally I don't see much reason to risk it for TR. If you have the means to make a bomber anchor, why not? Multipitch- sure things might get a bit dicey, you might have to get a bit creative with the anchors, the risk factor might rise. Not because you don't know how to make good anchors, but because the situation demands it. TR, not much demand for risk there... most of the time anyway.


reno


Nov 9, 2009, 8:41 PM
Post #57 of 159 (2814 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [kylekienitz] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kylekienitz wrote:
reno wrote:
"What percentage of risk am I, personally, willing to accept?"

Personally I don't see much reason to risk it for TR.

That's the rub, though... Risk WHAT?

Would you accept a TR anchor with a 1% chance of total failure? A 2% chance? 3? Where is your line?

That's the question. There is no answer that fits all.


kylekienitz


Nov 9, 2009, 8:54 PM
Post #58 of 159 (2804 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 256

Re: [reno] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
reno wrote:
"What percentage of risk am I, personally, willing to accept?"

Personally I don't see much reason to risk it for TR.

That's the rub, though... Risk WHAT?

Would you accept a TR anchor with a 1% chance of total failure? A 2% chance? 3? Where is your line?

That's the question. There is no answer that fits all.

It is strange to really think about it in percentages like that. It gives me the shivers.

I'll just go back to my 'safe as possible in the particular situation' ideal.


(This post was edited by kylekienitz on Nov 9, 2009, 8:55 PM)


jt512


Nov 9, 2009, 9:00 PM
Post #59 of 159 (2791 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [reno] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
reno wrote:
"What percentage of risk am I, personally, willing to accept?"

Personally I don't see much reason to risk it for TR.

That's the rub, though... Risk WHAT?

Would you accept a TR anchor with a 1% chance of total failure? A 2% chance? 3? Where is your line?

That's the question. There is no answer that fits all.

While risk is a personal matter, you guys are off of what is rationally acceptable by several orders of magnitude. It would be insane to accept a 1% chance of a TR anchor failure. That would more-or-less guarantee that practically every climber who TRs on a regular basis would die or be critically injured due to TR failure during his TR career. For comparison, sport parachutes have a failure rate of about 1/1000, and you carry two of them; so your chances of dying on any given jump are on the order of one chance in 1 million.

Jay


bennydh


Nov 9, 2009, 9:16 PM
Post #60 of 159 (2785 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 1, 2005
Posts: 368

Re: [kylekienitz] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

kylekienitz wrote:
reno wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
reno wrote:
"What percentage of risk am I, personally, willing to accept?"

Personally I don't see much reason to risk it for TR.

That's the rub, though... Risk WHAT?

Would you accept a TR anchor with a 1% chance of total failure? A 2% chance? 3? Where is your line?

That's the question. There is no answer that fits all.

It is strange to really think about it in percentages like that. It gives me the shivers.

I'll just go back to my 'safe as possible in the particular situation' ideal.

Percentages whaaaa? All this thinking inside the box with narrow minded logic. Why not try to will the safety margins in your favor. If you will the send to happen, and your sending chi is centered, you eliminate all risk.

...and what does it mean to fail anyway... death maybe, but death is a new beginning; you can come back as an eagle... or a dragon!


Partner robdotcalm


Nov 9, 2009, 9:27 PM
Post #61 of 159 (2777 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
While risk is a personal matter, you guys are off of what is rationally acceptable by several orders of magnitude. It would be insane to accept a 1% chance of a TR anchor failure. That would more-or-less guarantee that practically every climber who TRs on a regular basis would die or be critically injured due to TR failure during his TR career. For comparison, sport parachutes have a failure rate of about 1/1000, and you carry two of them; so your chances of dying on any given jump are on the order of one chance in 1 million.

Jay

That assumes the failure of the second parachute is independent of the failure of the first? Is this the case? I've seen videos of one parachute not deploying properly and when the 2nd parachute is opened it entangled with the first. That's why I'm asking the question.

Cheers,
Rob.calm


kylekienitz


Nov 9, 2009, 9:28 PM
Post #62 of 159 (2777 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 256

Re: [bennydh] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Obviously percentages are bogus, considering the huge gray areas concerning rock quality, equipment, and the hundreds of things outside our control. Who knows how high they get? I bet we have all, in certain situations, operated under 'risk percentages' much higher than anyone would be comfortable with if it was expressed as a number.

Kind of one of those 'how close have you come to dying how many times' kind of questions. Kind of creepy to think about, most of the time we don't.


Rudmin


Nov 9, 2009, 9:39 PM
Post #63 of 159 (2772 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
In my opinion, odds of failure would be very low if we are assuming the pieces are solid.

My failure scenario would be as follows.

Dad is taking his kids to fat camp, but pulls off to toprope a scruffy bluff at New Jack City. Dad notices a hot sport climber in prana shorts and sports bra, and fails to notice his rather jumbo child has moved upward developing seven feet of slack. The kid has also wandered to the right a bit. Kid breaks a hold, pops off, and all the load goes to the rigid stem friend at the top. The rock, despite looking good, is loose and friable, and the cam pulls. The load drops to the nut, shock loading it, and it pulls. Finally the load swings to the .75 old school camalot, which, despite its apparantly bomber appearance, also pulls, with no apparent benefit from the load already reduced by the failure of the upper pieces.

Or, the kid just manages to unclip the rope when arriving at the top, and peels to the desert dust-pile, amid the beer cans and shotgun shells.

(Of course, my own anchor set-up would look like it was straight from the AMGA guidebook)

What would be much more feasible than each piece consecutively blowing out is that the climber gets to the top, stands up above the anchor with the ropes tight and then sits back down. The rope pulls across both gates and unclips itself. Even that would be a hard move to pull off, but it only needs one thing to go wrong.


curt


Nov 9, 2009, 9:58 PM
Post #64 of 159 (2763 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18227

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
justroberto wrote:
budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?

Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves.

I hate that and keep telling them to not do that.

Curt


curt


Nov 9, 2009, 10:11 PM
Post #65 of 159 (2758 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18227

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

It's ugly for sure, but, assuming the rock is good, the only real issue I would have (as others have pointed out) is with the two MP biners not being opposed.

Curt


jt512


Nov 9, 2009, 10:24 PM
Post #66 of 159 (2751 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [robdotcalm] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

robdotcalm wrote:
jt512 wrote:
While risk is a personal matter, you guys are off of what is rationally acceptable by several orders of magnitude. It would be insane to accept a 1% chance of a TR anchor failure. That would more-or-less guarantee that practically every climber who TRs on a regular basis would die or be critically injured due to TR failure during his TR career. For comparison, sport parachutes have a failure rate of about 1/1000, and you carry two of them; so your chances of dying on any given jump are on the order of one chance in 1 million.

Jay

That assumes the failure of the second parachute is independent of the failure of the first? Is this the case? I've seen videos of one parachute not deploying properly and when the 2nd parachute is opened it entangled with the first. That's why I'm asking the question.

The first parachute is supposed to be jettisoned before the reserve is deployed. With some systems this is automatic; with others, it must be done manually. Either way, if there is a failure to jettison the first chute, then failure of the reserve, due to entanglement with the main parachute, is almost guaranteed.

Jay


johnwesely


Nov 10, 2009, 5:32 AM
Post #67 of 159 (2691 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
While risk is a personal matter, you guys are off of what is rationally acceptable by several orders of magnitude. It would be insane to accept a 1% chance of a TR anchor failure. That would more-or-less guarantee that practically every climber who TRs on a regular basis would die or be critically injured due to TR failure during his TR career.
Jay

I think you are forgetting that top ropers are a radical bunch who like to live life on the edge.


hansundfritz


Nov 10, 2009, 6:09 AM
Post #68 of 159 (2678 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 139

Re: [bennydh] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

bennydh wrote:
...and what does it mean to fail anyway... death maybe, but death is a new beginning; you can come back as an eagle... or a dragon!

Sounds like something a belayer should never shout up as encouragement to the cruxed-out leader.


LostinMaine


Nov 10, 2009, 6:12 AM
Post #69 of 159 (2674 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

My first rule of anchor building is always sound placement of individual anchor pieces. We can't really tell that from the photos, but they look sound enough.

Years ago, people didn't always equalize anchors, but catastrophic failures were rare because the individual placements were sound, or high FF falls were rare. It is only recently that we have gotten caught up in the SRENE analysis technique (which isn't a bad thing). There is a reason that the "S" comes first.

Opposite and opposed 'biners would be quite helpful for this setup, though.

So Jay, did the anchor take falls and lowering? Was anyone hurt by this setup?


kappydane


Nov 10, 2009, 6:18 AM
Post #70 of 159 (2670 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 119

Re: [reno] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In the situation, the size of the kids and how the anchor were tested would seem relevant. If the kids are small and you are a normal sized adult and you load tested the anchor with your body weight, the risk goes way down. If an anchor can hold a jump loaded 170lb adult, I would trust a 70lb kid climbing on it on top rope.


kachoong


Nov 10, 2009, 6:36 AM
Post #71 of 159 (2658 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
4.) gear is old -- old style .75 camalot, rigid stem friend.

dugl33 wrote:
Finally the load swings to the .75 old school camalot, which, despite its apparantly bomber appearance, also pulls, with no apparent benefit from the load already reduced by the failure of the upper pieces.

Why you hatez on the U-stem? Whyz? I have one and use it in anchors.


madscientist


Nov 10, 2009, 6:43 AM
Post #72 of 159 (2651 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2002
Posts: 159

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

One of the reasons this anchor is "bad" is that it can be easily improved considerably with the gear already there. Reverse the anchor biners and clip the nut to the lower draw. Reverse the biner clipped to the nut. No more gear (possibly less since you might remove some biners), better equalized, and should take less than a minute.

I personally have climbed an anchors like this, but this one is just too easy to make much better.


Partner j_ung


Nov 10, 2009, 7:47 AM
Post #73 of 159 (2615 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

It's not a certain death sentence, but they guy who built it is running more on luck than skill.


qtm


Nov 10, 2009, 9:34 AM
Post #74 of 159 (2566 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548

Re: [j_ung] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Looks like if the forged friend fails, that biner is going to fall across the gate of the other and unclip the "backup".

Would have been simple to clip the backup to the draw holding the rope.


johnwesely


Nov 10, 2009, 9:45 AM
Post #75 of 159 (2560 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [hansundfritz] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

hansundfritz wrote:
bennydh wrote:
...and what does it mean to fail anyway... death maybe, but death is a new beginning; you can come back as an eagle... or a dragon!

Sounds like something a belayer should never shout up as encouragement to the cruxed-out leader.

I was climbing an R/X rated route once, and about half way up, my belayer yelled up, "If you fall here you are seriously going to die". I yelled back down, "I know that, but thanks for breaking my concentration". He knew from the outset that there was no pro on the route.


dingus


Nov 10, 2009, 9:52 AM
Post #76 of 159 (3408 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
hansundfritz wrote:
bennydh wrote:
...and what does it mean to fail anyway... death maybe, but death is a new beginning; you can come back as an eagle... or a dragon!

Sounds like something a belayer should never shout up as encouragement to the cruxed-out leader.

I was climbing an R/X rated route once, and about half way up, my belayer yelled up, "If you fall here you are seriously going to die". I yelled back down, "I know that, but thanks for breaking my concentration". He knew from the outset that there was no pro on the route.

I want to know if I am leading and I feel compelled to tell, if partner is leading, when the X-threshold is crossed.

DMT


dugl33


Nov 10, 2009, 9:57 AM
Post #77 of 159 (3400 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [kachoong] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
dugl33 wrote:
4.) gear is old -- old style .75 camalot, rigid stem friend.

dugl33 wrote:
Finally the load swings to the .75 old school camalot, which, despite its apparantly bomber appearance, also pulls, with no apparent benefit from the load already reduced by the failure of the upper pieces.

Why you hatez on the U-stem? Whyz? I have one and use it in anchors.

Got nUtthin bUt lUv for the U stems!





Of course, zee U stems are semi retired...



Yet if I really needed three in a given size...



I wouldn't hesitate to pull the u-stems out of the misc. extra crap bag, put it on the rack, climb above it, and lob onto it ... yippee.

Of course, if its the only thing keeping me off the deck, I'd go for the newer one first.

Cool
Attachments: u_stems.JPG (113 KB)
  three_gens_1.JPG (123 KB)
  three_gens_2.JPG (124 KB)


johnwesely


Nov 10, 2009, 10:05 AM
Post #78 of 159 (3387 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The U stem Camalots have to be the ugliest cams ever made. That probably has something to do with the stigma.


johnwesely


Nov 10, 2009, 10:09 AM
Post #79 of 159 (3383 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:

I want to know if I am leading and I feel compelled to tell, if partner is leading, when the X-threshold is crossed.

DMT

It usually distracts me and breaks my focus, but I usually try to avoid routes like that unless I can climb then with a swarm of yellow jackets in my face.


dingus


Nov 10, 2009, 10:10 AM
Post #80 of 159 (3381 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Well if you know what you're about I can respect that! Sometimes a bloke gets into those things unawares though....

Cheers
DMT


johnwesely


Nov 10, 2009, 10:14 AM
Post #81 of 159 (3387 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
Well if you know what you're about I can respect that! Sometimes a bloke gets into those things unawares though....

Cheers
DMT

That is when it is nice to pretend you are not in those situations.


kachoong


Nov 10, 2009, 10:35 AM
Post #82 of 159 (3370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
dingus wrote:

I want to know if I am leading and I feel compelled to tell, if partner is leading, when the X-threshold is crossed.

DMT

It usually distracts me and breaks my focus, but I usually try to avoid routes like that unless I can climb then with a swarm of yellow jackets in my face.

Heh... litmus yellow jacket test.


evanwish


Nov 10, 2009, 10:58 AM
Post #83 of 159 (3346 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 22, 2007
Posts: 1040

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
johnwesely wrote:
The biggest issue is that Jay probably set the thing up himself.

I didn't set the anchor up. It was an actual top rope anchor set up by another climber, as I wrote in the OP.

Jay

you know these types of posts get flamed a lot, but i really like them.



but anyway i'd say does not meet the SRENE standards (if that's what you use)
Solid: probably
Redundant: Only in one crack feature (eh whatever, not bad) and the gates are not in opposition.
Equalized: NO.
Non Extension: it will shock load the biners and especially the one going to the top nut.

someone needs to just go buy some slings


(This post was edited by evanwish on Nov 10, 2009, 11:04 AM)


subantz


Nov 10, 2009, 11:07 AM
Post #84 of 159 (3342 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I see two draws clipped together big NO NO. I believe they could be equalized better also. But the quikdraws linked together from the biners. I would have not jumped on that. Also the gates on the rope end are not opposing. So no I give this set up a F for fucked up!


seatbeltpants


Nov 10, 2009, 11:30 AM
Post #85 of 159 (3326 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 9, 2008
Posts: 581

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
reno wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
reno wrote:
"What percentage of risk am I, personally, willing to accept?"

Personally I don't see much reason to risk it for TR.

That's the rub, though... Risk WHAT?

Would you accept a TR anchor with a 1% chance of total failure? A 2% chance? 3? Where is your line?

That's the question. There is no answer that fits all.

While risk is a personal matter, you guys are off of what is rationally acceptable by several orders of magnitude. It would be insane to accept a 1% chance of a TR anchor failure. That would more-or-less guarantee that practically every climber who TRs on a regular basis would die or be critically injured due to TR failure during his TR career. For comparison, sport parachutes have a failure rate of about 1/1000, and you carry two of them; so your chances of dying on any given jump are on the order of one chance in 1 million.

Jay

YES.

screw climbing on an anchor that has a 1% chance of blowing - but i'm terrified that some posters seem to have no worries climbing on an anchor that has a 1 in 5 chance of blowing?! russian roulette, anyone?

steve


dugl33


Nov 10, 2009, 12:49 PM
Post #86 of 159 (3297 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [subantz] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Acceptable, but not perfect. Equalization not perfect, but no shock loading. And of course, 2 biners, opposed at the master point.



Better (although not really redundant, unless done with two equal sized slings, and 2 biners, opposed, at the master point. Note the knot to limit shock loading extension.




Another good alternative. No shockloading, perfectly equalizing within a reasonable range of pull angles.




(This post was edited by dugl33 on Nov 10, 2009, 12:54 PM)
Attachments: climbing_anchors_unequal_cordellete.jpg (54.5 KB)
  sliding_anchor1.jpg (22.0 KB)
  sliding_anchor2.jpg (16.5 KB)
  sliding_anchor3.jpg (16.0 KB)
  equalette.jpg (26.6 KB)


glytch


Nov 10, 2009, 1:08 PM
Post #87 of 159 (3276 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2006
Posts: 194

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
Acceptable, but not perfect. Equalization not perfect, but no shock loading. And of course, 2 biners, opposed at the master point.

[Inline climbing_anchors_unequal_cordellete.jpg]

I don't know where this diagram came from, but, unfortunately, there just isn't anything true about it. The loads on pieces connected via a knotted cordalette are not inversely proportional to their strand lengths.

I don't see the need to rehash the hundreds of pages of discussion rc.com has seen on the topic of equalized (or non-equalized) anchors, but thinking of cordalettes in the way represented by the above diagram is misleading. Cordalettes tied in that way, in the real world, load exactly one piece at a time unless the direction of pull is perfectly, perfectly aligned in such a way as to weight two pieces. Weighting all three simultaneously, is, I reckon, well nigh impossible.


(This post was edited by glytch on Nov 10, 2009, 1:09 PM)


boku


Nov 10, 2009, 2:07 PM
Post #88 of 159 (3246 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278

Re: [glytch] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

glytch wrote:
...I don't know where this diagram came from, but, unfortunately, there just isn't anything true about it...

I believe that the diagram came from a later edition of Largo's (John Long's) book on climbing anchors. It is the result of tests of forces distributed through real-world climbing anchors. Largo, I know that there are huge threads about this methodology reassessment, can you please chime in here?

At issue is that everything bends, everything stretches. Nothing, not even diamond or carbon nanotubes, is perfectly stiff. Any mechanical engineer worth their pay knows that the largest, strongest bolt is nothing but a very tightly wound spring.

Given two springs that differ only in length (same materials, same coil OD, same number of coils per inch), the shorter spring is always stiffer (deflects less under the same load) than the longer spring.

In reply to:
...Cordalettes tied in that way, in the real world, load exactly one piece at a time unless the direction of pull is perfectly, perfectly aligned in such a way as to weight two pieces...

Glytch, that statement is true only for completely inelastic cordage. If you have some of that, can you please send it to me or Aric for pull testing?

You can easily replicate the effect demonstrated in the diagram with different lengths of lightweight bungee cord. The shorter pieces of bungee will be stiffer than the longer pieces, and will therefore transmit more force to their respective anchors.

Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K.


(This post was edited by boku on Nov 10, 2009, 2:16 PM)


dugl33


Nov 10, 2009, 2:14 PM
Post #89 of 159 (3235 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [glytch] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

glytch wrote:
I don't know where this diagram came from, but, unfortunately, there just isn't anything true about it. The loads on pieces connected via a knotted cordalette are not inversely proportional to their strand lengths.

Well, this all getting a bit academic, no doubt, but I believe there was some load testing done with cordelletes which show exactly this tendency.

Under heavy loads, even static cord will stretch some. Longer cord stretches a greater overall distance than shorter cord, with the overall effect being more load is taken on the pieces with the shorter loops.

(put your jugs on 200 feet of rope and pull the slack out until it takes your weight, and compare this to the slack you take out when on 100 feet of rope, if you're bored or whatever)

Yes, we're assuming the load is in line with the resultant vector algebra of the dealy-hoo.

At the end of the day, if the pieces are solid, I'm totally comfortable with the cordellete method. Just thought I'd throw some visuals in the action, as everyone is worked up by the scandalous equalization / redundancy issues of the exhibit.


mojomonkey


Nov 10, 2009, 2:18 PM
Post #90 of 159 (3227 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 841

Re: [boku] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

That anchor needs a tire.

(This thread made me wonder how Majid is doing...)


glytch


Nov 10, 2009, 2:28 PM
Post #91 of 159 (3218 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2006
Posts: 194

Re: [boku] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

boku wrote:
glytch wrote:
...I don't know where this diagram came from, but, unfortunately, there just isn't anything true about it...

I believe that the diagram came from a later edition of Largo's (John Long's) book on climbing anchors. It is the result of tests of forces distributed through real-world climbing anchors. Largo, I know that there are huge threads about this methodology reassessment, can you please chime in here?

At issue is that everything bends, everything stretches. Nothing, not even diamond or carbon nanotubes, is perfectly stiff. Any mechanical engineer worth their pay knows that the largest, strongest bolt is nothing but a very tightly wound spring.

Given two springs that differ only in length (same materials, same coil OD, same number of coils per inch), the shorter spring is always stiffer (deflects less under the same load) than the longer spring.

You can easily replicate the effect demonstrated in the diagram with different lengths of lightweight bungee cord. The shorter pieces of bungee will be stiffer than the longer pieces, and will therefore transmit more force to their respective anchors.

Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K.

I don't have a copy of the most recent climbing anchors - my understanding was that Largo's most recent tests demonstrated that any static "equalization," in reality, wasn't equalized.

Your point about the ability of any material to stretch/deform is well taken and absolutely correct. The diagram as presented makes sense, in that context, if the loading force is exactly in the direction which loads each strand of the cordalette. My objection centers on those cases in which the the direction of pull does not engage all of the strands at the outset of the fall/whatever. In such a case, any equalization happens only through the stretch of the cordalette, and unless the angle of pull is within a still narrow range, the full force of the fall will be held by the first piece to load. The less stretchy the material, the wider the range of single-piece-taking-the-whole-fall is.

But, I think we're in agreement about this! Thanks for the thoughtful post...


glytch


Nov 10, 2009, 2:36 PM
Post #92 of 159 (3210 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2006
Posts: 194

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
Yes, we're assuming the load is in line with the resultant vector algebra of the dealy-hoo.

Post timing overlap! The post I just made notes that this is where the issue with a cordalette lies - any load sharing is critically dependent on a combination of stretchy cord and having a load in line with the resultant vector dealy-hoo. Essentially, the cordalette only distributes loads between pieces when loaded at a very specific range of angles.

Like you, I still use knotted cordalettes with some frequency, most often because I have directional pieces which are happiest when pulled in a certain direction... and I believe that bomber pieces are the key to a safe anchor no matter what.

Sorry for the unnecessarily strong reaction to your original post - I thought you were implying that a cordalette dynamically equalizes among pieces, and that's evidently not what you were implying.


dugl33


Nov 10, 2009, 3:13 PM
Post #93 of 159 (3182 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [glytch] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

glytch wrote:
Sorry for the unnecessarily strong reaction to your original post - I thought you were implying that a cordalette dynamically equalizes among pieces, and that's evidently not what you were implying.

Hey, no worries. This is all in the realm of thought experiments (which sounds more noble than cyberslacking)...

Regarding angles of pull, with a TR anchor 100' above the ground, even standing 10' to one side of the plumb line, the angle between strands is only about 6 degrees when the climber hangs on the rope. The vector load on the anchor's master point being halfway between the top rope strands in this case is therefore, only 3 degrees. So, for most TR, imperfect directional loading is of minor consequence, if the cordellete is simply tied in line with an imaginary plumb line. At least gravity is predictable Cool


(This post was edited by dugl33 on Nov 10, 2009, 3:24 PM)


reno


Nov 10, 2009, 8:25 PM
Post #94 of 159 (3098 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [seatbeltpants] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

seatbeltpants wrote:
screw climbing on an anchor that has a 1% chance of blowing - but i'm terrified that some posters seem to have no worries climbing on an anchor that has a 1 in 5 chance of blowing?! russian roulette, anyone?

It must be comforting to do all your climbing on rock that is 100% solid, with all the gear you could possibly need to construct an anchor that is 100% safe from any possible chance of failure.

That sort of climbing has nothing in common with the kind of rock/ice/alpine/mountain climbing I've ever seen and done.

Maybe it's just me, but every anchor I've ever seen has potential to fail. Some have more potential than others.


(This post was edited by reno on Nov 10, 2009, 8:28 PM)


the_leech


Nov 10, 2009, 8:36 PM
Post #95 of 159 (3092 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 7, 2007
Posts: 392

Re: [bennydh] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bennydh wrote:

Percentages whaaaa? All this thinking inside the box with narrow minded logic. Why not try to will the safety margins in your favor. If you will the send to happen, and your sending chi is centered, you eliminate all risk.

...and what does it mean to fail anyway... death maybe, but death is a new beginning; you can come back as an eagle... or a dragon!

Eagles are kewl.

Dragons are kewler.

Even dingus's fucking kids would agree.


jt512


Nov 10, 2009, 8:53 PM
Post #96 of 159 (3083 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [reno] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
seatbeltpants wrote:
screw climbing on an anchor that has a 1% chance of blowing - but i'm terrified that some posters seem to have no worries climbing on an anchor that has a 1 in 5 chance of blowing?! russian roulette, anyone?

It must be comforting to do all your climbing on rock that is 100% solid, with all the gear you could possibly need to construct an anchor that is 100% safe from any possible chance of failure.

That sort of climbing has nothing in common with the kind of rock/ice/alpine/mountain climbing I've ever seen and done.

Maybe it's just me, but every anchor I've ever seen has potential to fail. Some have more potential than others.

I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Nov 10, 2009, 8:55 PM)


Partner robdotcalm


Nov 10, 2009, 8:54 PM
Post #97 of 159 (3080 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
kachoong wrote:
dugl33 wrote:
4.) gear is old -- old style .75 camalot, rigid stem friend.

dugl33 wrote:
Finally the load swings to the .75 old school camalot, which, despite its apparantly bomber appearance, also pulls, with no apparent benefit from the load already reduced by the failure of the upper pieces.

Why you hatez on the U-stem? Whyz? I have one and use it in anchors.

Got nUtthin bUt lUv for the U stems!





Of course, zee U stems are semi retired...



Yet if I really needed three in a given size...



I wouldn't hesitate to pull the u-stems out of the misc. extra crap bag, put it on the rack, climb above it, and lob onto it ... yippee.

Of course, if its the only thing keeping me off the deck, I'd go for the newer one first.

Cool

The problem with u-stem Camalots is that they fail below their rated strength. It's not a matter of esthetics.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ring=u-stem;#2023370

Cheers,
Rob.calm


dingus


Nov 11, 2009, 10:41 AM
Post #98 of 159 (3013 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [seatbeltpants] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

seatbeltpants wrote:
jt512 wrote:
reno wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
reno wrote:
"What percentage of risk am I, personally, willing to accept?"

Personally I don't see much reason to risk it for TR.

That's the rub, though... Risk WHAT?

Would you accept a TR anchor with a 1% chance of total failure? A 2% chance? 3? Where is your line?

That's the question. There is no answer that fits all.

While risk is a personal matter, you guys are off of what is rationally acceptable by several orders of magnitude. It would be insane to accept a 1% chance of a TR anchor failure. That would more-or-less guarantee that practically every climber who TRs on a regular basis would die or be critically injured due to TR failure during his TR career. For comparison, sport parachutes have a failure rate of about 1/1000, and you carry two of them; so your chances of dying on any given jump are on the order of one chance in 1 million.

Jay

YES.

screw climbing on an anchor that has a 1% chance of blowing - but i'm terrified that some posters seem to have no worries climbing on an anchor that has a 1 in 5 chance of blowing?! russian roulette, anyone?

steve

There is no valid number you can assign to that anchor or any other anchor. Probability of failure is a guessing game in the extreme and mostly pointless.

Better to express as a feeling, than a number. Whether its 1 in a hundred or 1 in 10,000 or 1 in a million its really nothing more than a feeling expressed as a number by folks who J delights in pointing out have no real knowledge of stats anyway.

Based on what I see in that pic? That anchor has virtually nil chances of failing, despite all the 'best practices' cited here to convince me otherwise.

Almost no chance at all. What's that... 1 in a million Doc? 1 in ten million???

DMT


dingus


Nov 11, 2009, 10:44 AM
Post #99 of 159 (3010 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT


dugl33


Nov 11, 2009, 10:59 AM
Post #100 of 159 (2997 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [robdotcalm] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

robdotcalm wrote:
The problem with u-stem Camalots is that they fail below their rated strength. It's not a matter of esthetics.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ring=u-stem;#2023370

Cheers,
Rob.calm

First off, thanks for the redirect. I hadn't seen this thread and its pretty interesting stuff...

A few thoughts, though:

First, yes the specific units tested failed below the rated strength. But is this due to:

1.) passage of time and weakening of materials?

2.) different test methodology?
a. different load duration and conditions?
b. different coefficient of friction on the plates?
c. smaller test sample
d. different chosen expansion point (crack width)
e. strain gauge calibration?
d. some other difference...

Not saying the testing is invalid at all, just saying we can't time machine that gear back to the exact same test conditions.

It is interesting to note that some of the units simply slid out, without mechanical failure, yet still held 1000 lbs + before doing so. This is actually reassuring to me. Ultimately it is friction counteracting the load. Metal plate seems slicker than snot compared to the friction of most sandstone or granite.

I have seen people pull gear somewhere around 8 or 9 times. I can't think of a single one of these times where the gear itself was broken upon inspection. Not saying it hasn't happened, just saying I haven't witnessed it.

Of the badly mangled gear I've seen, it held the fall in question, and was usually placed in a funky manner such as perpendicular to the angle of the fall. I guess it had to hold enough force to mangle itself.

Unplaced gear holds precisely 0 KN

9 - 10KN is not an insignificant amount of holding power. Stoppers, I believe, are rated around this level. Something squirrely is going on if you are generating 9 KN on your top rope anchor. Perhaps you are using static line and there is slack in the line when the climber drops?

As mentioned, these pieces for me are on the B team, and spend most of their time on the bench. It is dangerous to put too much faith in any one piece of the chain anyway. The consequences of anchor failure are so severe that most of us face it by being as bomber as possible.

Jay is right, several orders of magnitude to the safe side is appropriate rather than a ludicrous 20% russian roulette anchor. We've mostly all been in dicey situations, realized it was dicey, and did our best not to test our luck by falling on it... but it would be very hard to justify a dicey TR anchor.

camalot info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ivM-qoQDlM


(This post was edited by dugl33 on Nov 11, 2009, 5:32 PM)


csproul


Nov 11, 2009, 11:05 AM
Post #101 of 159 (2735 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1767

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT
For such low probabilities, that is true. However, if we are talking about a toprope anchor with a 1 in 10 failure rate, then it wouldn't take too long to confirm this as more than opinion! Hell, even with 1 in 100 odds, it wouldn't take all that long for a group of top-ropers to accumulate enough falls to have a good chance at anchor failure.


dingus


Nov 11, 2009, 11:12 AM
Post #102 of 159 (2727 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [csproul] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

csproul wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT
For such low probabilities, that is true. However, if we are talking about a toprope anchor with a 1 in 10 failure rate, then it wouldn't take too long to confirm this as more than opinion! Hell, even with 1 in 100 odds, it wouldn't take all that long for a group of top-ropers to accumulate enough falls to have a good chance at anchor failure.

I have never witnessed such an anchor, personally.

The one that spawned this thread isn't even in the same universe.

DMT


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 11:13 AM
Post #103 of 159 (2726 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT

Well, we know that the probability of failure of a randomly selected anchor in a randomly selected fall (including TR falls, the subject of the thread) is much less than 1% because, while there are thousands upon thousands of such falls every year, the number of total failures is on the order of one. Of course, individual anchors will vary in quality, but "probability of failure" of an individual anchor, as used in this thread, is ill defined. After all, once the forces of the fall are specified, a given anchor will either fail or it won't. The probability of the anchor failing is just the probability of a fall occurring that exceeds the anchor's failure threshold.

Jay


csproul


Nov 11, 2009, 11:13 AM
Post #104 of 159 (2724 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1767

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
csproul wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT
For such low probabilities, that is true. However, if we are talking about a toprope anchor with a 1 in 10 failure rate, then it wouldn't take too long to confirm this as more than opinion! Hell, even with 1 in 100 odds, it wouldn't take all that long for a group of top-ropers to accumulate enough falls to have a good chance at anchor failure.

I have never witnessed such an anchor, personally.

The one that spawned this thread isn't even in the same universe.

DMT
Agreed, and I think that was kind of Jay's point too.


dingus


Nov 11, 2009, 11:33 AM
Post #105 of 159 (2707 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT

Well, we know that the probability of failure of a randomly selected anchor in a randomly selected fall (including TR falls, the subject of the thread) is much less than 1% because, while there are thousands upon thousands of such falls every year, the number of total failures is on the order of one. Of course, individual anchors will vary in quality, but "probability of failure" of an individual anchor, as used in this thread, is ill defined. After all, once the forces of the fall are specified, a given anchor will either fail or it won't. The probability of the anchor failing is just the probability of a fall occurring that exceeds the anchor's failure threshold.

Jay

Yes but the probability of a given anchor failing has no correlation to the statement of opinion expressed as a probability by climbers and passersby.

Hence my post.

DMT


seatbeltpants


Nov 11, 2009, 11:37 AM
Post #106 of 159 (2702 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 9, 2008
Posts: 581

Re: [reno] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
seatbeltpants wrote:
screw climbing on an anchor that has a 1% chance of blowing - but i'm terrified that some posters seem to have no worries climbing on an anchor that has a 1 in 5 chance of blowing?! russian roulette, anyone?

It must be comforting to do all your climbing on rock that is 100% solid, with all the gear you could possibly need to construct an anchor that is 100% safe from any possible chance of failure.

That sort of climbing has nothing in common with the kind of rock/ice/alpine/mountain climbing I've ever seen and done.

Maybe it's just me, but every anchor I've ever seen has potential to fail. Some have more potential than others.

for sure, and i expect we're probably on much the same page - god knows the rock in my neck of the woods can be chossy as hell and i'd never try to fool myself into thinking any placement is bombproof.

as dingus et al said above any numbers about chance of failure are pulled out of our arses so it's all just theoretical, but i'm pretty sure that if my partner built an anchor and reported that it had a 20% chance of failing i wouldn't climb on it. sometimes, for sure, you need to make the most of what's available and suck it up, hope for the best, and carry on.

i have a pretty low tolerance for that, though - i'm way too much of a pussy to climb ice or alpine.

your last line - "Maybe it's just me, but every anchor I've ever seen has potential to fail. Some have more potential than others." - is gospel in my book. someone who thinks that any anchor is completely incapable of failing needs their head checked.

steve


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 11:38 AM
Post #107 of 159 (2701 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT

Well, we know that the probability of failure of a randomly selected anchor in a randomly selected fall (including TR falls, the subject of the thread) is much less than 1% because, while there are thousands upon thousands of such falls every year, the number of total failures is on the order of one. Of course, individual anchors will vary in quality, but "probability of failure" of an individual anchor, as used in this thread, is ill defined. After all, once the forces of the fall are specified, a given anchor will either fail or it won't. The probability of the anchor failing is just the probability of a fall occurring that exceeds the anchor's failure threshold.

Jay

Yes but the probability of a given anchor failing has no correlation to the statement of opinion expressed as a probability by climbers and passersby.

Hence my post.

DMT

My point is that until someone carefully defines what they mean by the probability of an individual anchor failing, there is nothing to talk about. The way "probability" is being used in this thread is meaningless.

Jay


LostinMaine


Nov 11, 2009, 11:57 AM
Post #108 of 159 (2686 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT

Well, we know that the probability of failure of a randomly selected anchor in a randomly selected fall (including TR falls, the subject of the thread) is much less than 1% because, while there are thousands upon thousands of such falls every year, the number of total failures is on the order of one. Of course, individual anchors will vary in quality, but "probability of failure" of an individual anchor, as used in this thread, is ill defined. After all, once the forces of the fall are specified, a given anchor will either fail or it won't. The probability of the anchor failing is just the probability of a fall occurring that exceeds the anchor's failure threshold.

Jay

Yes but the probability of a given anchor failing has no correlation to the statement of opinion expressed as a probability by climbers and passersby.

Hence my post.

DMT

My point is that until someone carefully defines what they mean by the probability of an individual anchor failing, there is nothing to talk about. The way "probability" is being used in this thread is meaningless.

Jay

I just want a p-value or an ANOVA table to tell me if this anchor will hold!


I think the real "problem" is that we are trying to force quantitative measures on a qualitative analysis.


dugl33


Nov 11, 2009, 12:51 PM
Post #109 of 159 (2661 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
My point is that until someone carefully defines what they mean by the probability of an individual anchor failing, there is nothing to talk about. The way "probability" is being used in this thread is meaningless.
Jay

Agreed, this sort of thinking implies that anchor failure is random chance, like picking the right number for the lottery.

Perhaps it's more on the mark to ask what is a reasonable margin of safety, and how do we get there. I would guess an engineer would look at test data, do some calculations, and then design something 5 times stronger (at least theoretically 5 times stronger) or whatever safety factor one chooses.

If you actually pull tested it, you would most likely not generate enough force to pull out the one lonely .75 camalot with one lonely biner, in a typical top-rope quantity of force.

Of course, this wouldn't meet our margin of safety, shit happens, standards.


sittingduck


Nov 11, 2009, 1:13 PM
Post #110 of 159 (2636 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT

Well, we know that the probability of failure of a randomly selected anchor in a randomly selected fall (including TR falls, the subject of the thread) is much less than 1% because, while there are thousands upon thousands of such falls every year, the number of total failures is on the order of one. Of course, individual anchors will vary in quality, but "probability of failure" of an individual anchor, as used in this thread, is ill defined. After all, once the forces of the fall are specified, a given anchor will either fail or it won't. The probability of the anchor failing is just the probability of a fall occurring that exceeds the anchor's failure threshold.

Jay

Yes but the probability of a given anchor failing has no correlation to the statement of opinion expressed as a probability by climbers and passersby.

Hence my post.

DMT

My point is that until someone carefully defines what they mean by the probability of an individual anchor failing, there is nothing to talk about. The way "probability" is being used in this thread is meaningless.

Jay

If the probability of failure is undefinable, maybe the climber should consider rigging the anchor in a way that changes said probability closer to zero?


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 1:32 PM
Post #111 of 159 (2622 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [sittingduck] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

sittingduck wrote:
jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT

Well, we know that the probability of failure of a randomly selected anchor in a randomly selected fall (including TR falls, the subject of the thread) is much less than 1% because, while there are thousands upon thousands of such falls every year, the number of total failures is on the order of one. Of course, individual anchors will vary in quality, but "probability of failure" of an individual anchor, as used in this thread, is ill defined. After all, once the forces of the fall are specified, a given anchor will either fail or it won't. The probability of the anchor failing is just the probability of a fall occurring that exceeds the anchor's failure threshold.

Jay

Yes but the probability of a given anchor failing has no correlation to the statement of opinion expressed as a probability by climbers and passersby.

Hence my post.

DMT

My point is that until someone carefully defines what they mean by the probability of an individual anchor failing, there is nothing to talk about. The way "probability" is being used in this thread is meaningless.

Jay

If the probability of failure is undefinable, maybe the climber should consider rigging the anchor in a way that changes said probability closer to zero?

Huh?

Jay


aspiringloser


Nov 11, 2009, 1:48 PM
Post #112 of 159 (2606 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2009
Posts: 12

Re: [robdotcalm] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You should always jump with a hook knife. Some people who do CRW jump with more than one. If you're entangled with your main and you have time, you cut lines until you're free then you deploy the reserve. If you don't have time to cut yourself free you fire your reserve and hope for the best.


sittingduck


Nov 11, 2009, 1:51 PM
Post #113 of 159 (2606 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
sittingduck wrote:
jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT

Well, we know that the probability of failure of a randomly selected anchor in a randomly selected fall (including TR falls, the subject of the thread) is much less than 1% because, while there are thousands upon thousands of such falls every year, the number of total failures is on the order of one. Of course, individual anchors will vary in quality, but "probability of failure" of an individual anchor, as used in this thread, is ill defined. After all, once the forces of the fall are specified, a given anchor will either fail or it won't. The probability of the anchor failing is just the probability of a fall occurring that exceeds the anchor's failure threshold.

Jay

Yes but the probability of a given anchor failing has no correlation to the statement of opinion expressed as a probability by climbers and passersby.

Hence my post.

DMT

My point is that until someone carefully defines what they mean by the probability of an individual anchor failing, there is nothing to talk about. The way "probability" is being used in this thread is meaningless.

Jay

If the probability of failure is undefinable, maybe the climber should consider rigging the anchor in a way that changes said probability closer to zero?

Huh?

Jay

The definition of the probability of failure in the anchor you captured, is that it is most likely not 0 (zero).
If the climber rigged that anchor with opposed and opposite carabiners at the masterpoint, he would change the probability of failure closer to zero.


dugl33


Nov 11, 2009, 2:03 PM
Post #114 of 159 (2598 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [sittingduck] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

To no one in particular, I know I'm new here, but what's up with the massive quote within a quote text strings?

Is it so hard to pick out the specific text you are responding to?

Maybe I'll feel differently when I've broken the 10,000 posts threshold. Unsure


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 2:15 PM
Post #115 of 159 (2588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
To no one in particular, I know I'm new here, but what's up with the massive quote within a quote text strings?

Is it so hard to pick out the specific text you are responding to?

Uh oh.

Jay


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 2:20 PM
Post #116 of 159 (2583 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [sittingduck] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sittingduck wrote:
jt512 wrote:
sittingduck wrote:
jt512 wrote:
My point is that until someone carefully defines what they mean by the probability of an individual anchor failing, there is nothing to talk about. The way "probability" is being used in this thread is meaningless.

Jay

If the probability of failure is undefinable, maybe the climber should consider rigging the anchor in a way that changes said probability closer to zero?

Huh?

Jay

The definition of the probability of failure in the anchor you captured, is that it is most likely not 0 (zero).
If the climber rigged that anchor with opposed and opposite carabiners at the masterpoint, he would change the probability of failure closer to zero.

You are confusing definition of probability with estimate of probability. My point was that no one has come up with what "probability" means in this context; therefore, it is meaningless to attempt to estimate a value of that probability.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Nov 11, 2009, 2:23 PM)


dugl33


Nov 11, 2009, 2:38 PM
Post #117 of 159 (2571 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:

You are confusing definition of probability with estimate of probability. My point was that no one has come up with what "probability" means in this context; therefore, it is meaningless to attempt to estimate a value of that probability.
Jay

Top rope it 10,000 times. Record the number of failures, divide by 10,000. There you go -- probability of failure.


reno


Nov 11, 2009, 2:47 PM
Post #118 of 159 (2560 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [seatbeltpants] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

seatbeltpants wrote:
reno wrote:
seatbeltpants wrote:
screw climbing on an anchor that has a 1% chance of blowing - but i'm terrified that some posters seem to have no worries climbing on an anchor that has a 1 in 5 chance of blowing?! russian roulette, anyone?

It must be comforting to do all your climbing on rock that is 100% solid, with all the gear you could possibly need to construct an anchor that is 100% safe from any possible chance of failure.

That sort of climbing has nothing in common with the kind of rock/ice/alpine/mountain climbing I've ever seen and done.

Maybe it's just me, but every anchor I've ever seen has potential to fail. Some have more potential than others.

for sure, and i expect we're probably on much the same page -

**SNIP**

your last line - "Maybe it's just me, but every anchor I've ever seen has potential to fail. Some have more potential than others." - is gospel in my book. someone who thinks that any anchor is completely incapable of failing needs their head checked.

Yep, we are on the same page, we just didn't know it. Cheers, dude.


Rudmin


Nov 11, 2009, 3:00 PM
Post #119 of 159 (2547 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Jay

I'd dare say you've never climbed on any anchor where the probability of failure was more than opinion. Now I would accept your opinion as a matter of faith... and even be willing to stake my life on it (If you tell me your anchor is good I would believe it face value (and still inspect it when I got there hehe)).

But expressing it as a number is just a way of stating opinion, nothing more.

DMT

Well, we know that the probability of failure of a randomly selected anchor in a randomly selected fall (including TR falls, the subject of the thread) is much less than 1% because, while there are thousands upon thousands of such falls every year, the number of total failures is on the order of one. Of course, individual anchors will vary in quality, but "probability of failure" of an individual anchor, as used in this thread, is ill defined. After all, once the forces of the fall are specified, a given anchor will either fail or it won't. The probability of the anchor failing is just the probability of a fall occurring that exceeds the anchor's failure threshold.

Jay

I clearly defined the probability of failure to be measured over the one day use of an anchor, as in between set up and take down. When I brought up the subject of probability. I think this makes the most sense in defining failure rather than a certain chance each time you fall on it.


Partner drector


Nov 11, 2009, 3:02 PM
Post #120 of 159 (2546 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
jt512 wrote:

You are confusing definition of probability with estimate of probability. My point was that no one has come up with what "probability" means in this context; therefore, it is meaningless to attempt to estimate a value of that probability.
Jay

Top rope it 10,000 times. Record the number of failures, divide by 10,000. There you go -- probability of failure.

Wouldn't it be better to fall on the anchor 10,000 times and record the number of failures? What does "top rope it..." mean? Once you explain that very clearly and with some charts and equations, we can then get to worrying about probabilities. Please include the dynamic properties of the rope and the weight of the belayer in the definition. Direction of the any fall is also important since the anchor may fail every time if the direction of pull it up while it may never fail if the direction of pull is exactly as the anchor is configured to allow.

Dave


swoopee


Nov 11, 2009, 3:08 PM
Post #121 of 159 (2549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Posts: 560

Re: [drector] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Okey everyone, just shut up and climb.


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 3:22 PM
Post #122 of 159 (2543 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
jt512 wrote:

You are confusing definition of probability with estimate of probability. My point was that no one has come up with what "probability" means in this context; therefore, it is meaningless to attempt to estimate a value of that probability.
Jay

Top rope it 10,000 times. Record the number of failures, divide by 10,000. There you go -- probability of failure.

Shouldn't the definition depend on the anchor being weighted? Or fallen on?

Edit: Oops...GUed by drector.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Nov 11, 2009, 3:24 PM)


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 3:25 PM
Post #123 of 159 (2539 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [Rudmin] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Rudmin wrote:
I clearly defined the probability of failure to be measured over the one day use of an anchor, as in between set up and take down. When I brought up the subject of probability. I think this makes the most sense in defining failure rather than a certain chance each time you fall on it.

Then that makes of one of us who thinks that.

Jay


sittingduck


Nov 11, 2009, 3:44 PM
Post #124 of 159 (2524 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
sittingduck wrote:
jt512 wrote:
sittingduck wrote:
jt512 wrote:
My point is that until someone carefully defines what they mean by the probability of an individual anchor failing, there is nothing to talk about. The way "probability" is being used in this thread is meaningless.

Jay

If the probability of failure is undefinable, maybe the climber should consider rigging the anchor in a way that changes said probability closer to zero?

Huh?

Jay

The definition of the probability of failure in the anchor you captured, is that it is most likely not 0 (zero).
If the climber rigged that anchor with opposed and opposite carabiners at the masterpoint, he would change the probability of failure closer to zero.

You are confusing definition of probability with estimate of probability. My point was that no one has come up with what "probability" means in this context; therefore, it is meaningless to attempt to estimate a value of that probability.

Jay

So what? The value of probability of that anchor failing was high enough to catch your attention and post pictures of it here, right?


dugl33


Nov 11, 2009, 3:48 PM
Post #125 of 159 (2522 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [drector] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

drector wrote:
dugl33 wrote:
jt512 wrote:

You are confusing definition of probability with estimate of probability. My point was that no one has come up with what "probability" means in this context; therefore, it is meaningless to attempt to estimate a value of that probability.
Jay

Top rope it 10,000 times. Record the number of failures, divide by 10,000. There you go -- probability of failure.

Wouldn't it be better to fall on the anchor 10,000 times and record the number of failures? What does "top rope it..." mean? Once you explain that very clearly and with some charts and equations, we can then get to worrying about probabilities. Please include the dynamic properties of the rope and the weight of the belayer in the definition. Direction of the any fall is also important since the anchor may fail every time if the direction of pull it up while it may never fail if the direction of pull is exactly as the anchor is configured to allow.

Dave

My own humor is so obvious to me, yet I can't tell if you are joking...

The scenario is "Dad toproping his kids" on this particular anchor. Odds of anchor failure equals what?

You are not really testing, nor can you test this, unless you randomly have kids do their thing. Some will hang, some will flash, all will lower at some point. Some, with enough tests, will climb above the anchor. Some of these, with enough tests, will manage to fall on the anchor from a point above the anchor. You know, seemingly random circumstances a statistically significant number of times.

You are proposing an entirely different test scenario...and your test would seem more rigorous, except it would miss the goofball kid that simply unclips himself and leans back.

I think I'll shut up and climb now.


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 3:54 PM
Post #126 of 159 (3677 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The overarching point is not whether the denominator of the probability is days or falls or whatever, but that thinking of anchor failure as a random event is contrived. Events have probabilities because they are produced by processes that are random, or contain uncertainty. A flipped coin has a probability of landing head up because the process of flipping it randomizes the outcome. An individual piece of gear has a probability of failing at its rated strength because there is random error in the manufacturing process. But what is the source of randomness in determining whether a top rope anchor will fail? In practice, there essentially isn't any. The anchor is either good enough or it isn't.

Jay


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 3:55 PM
Post #127 of 159 (3676 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [sittingduck] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sittingduck wrote:
jt512 wrote:
sittingduck wrote:
jt512 wrote:
sittingduck wrote:
jt512 wrote:
My point is that until someone carefully defines what they mean by the probability of an individual anchor failing, there is nothing to talk about. The way "probability" is being used in this thread is meaningless.

Jay

If the probability of failure is undefinable, maybe the climber should consider rigging the anchor in a way that changes said probability closer to zero?

Huh?

Jay

The definition of the probability of failure in the anchor you captured, is that it is most likely not 0 (zero).
If the climber rigged that anchor with opposed and opposite carabiners at the masterpoint, he would change the probability of failure closer to zero.

You are confusing definition of probability with estimate of probability. My point was that no one has come up with what "probability" means in this context; therefore, it is meaningless to attempt to estimate a value of that probability.

Jay

So what? The value of probability of that anchor failing was high enough to catch your attention and post pictures of it here, right?

That's a tough question to answer with a straight face.

Jay


dugl33


Nov 11, 2009, 4:59 PM
Post #128 of 159 (3647 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So when do we get to see the pic with you standing on the ground, next to the anchor?


jt512


Nov 11, 2009, 6:10 PM
Post #129 of 159 (3626 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
So when do we get to see the pic with you standing on the ground, next to the anchor?

I've already stated twice that it was a real anchor being used for real. Whether I thought it was dangerous or not is an entirely different question.

Jay


Couloirman


Nov 11, 2009, 6:52 PM
Post #130 of 159 (3613 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 12, 2008
Posts: 108

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Either way, if there is a failure to jettison the first chute, then failure of the reserve, due to entanglement with the main parachute, is almost guaranteed.

Jay


Nope, look up canopy transfer and it will shed some light on why its not a death sentence.


brisboy


Nov 11, 2009, 7:38 PM
Post #131 of 159 (3596 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 3, 2001
Posts: 40

Re: [swoopee] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

swoopee wrote:
Okey everyone, just shut up and climb.


SlyLaugh


LamontagnedeGatineau


Nov 11, 2009, 8:27 PM
Post #132 of 159 (3583 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2008
Posts: 17

Re: [brisboy] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Looks to me like a sloppy job , but not a dangerous one because there's enough redundancy. Also looks like the dude only climbs with quickdraws. Best recommendation could be to stock up on a couple of trad slings next time he hits the climbing store!


moose_droppings


Nov 11, 2009, 9:34 PM
Post #133 of 159 (3573 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3345

Re: [LamontagnedeGatineau] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

^^^

I agree, to many links in the chain so to speak. I'd use it with out worry though.


airscape


Nov 12, 2009, 12:50 AM
Post #134 of 159 (3552 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

Re: An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
I love the way that if someone compares anything to a situation in another sport (in this case skydiving) then all of a sudden that sport also becomes a topic for discussion.


king_rat


Nov 12, 2009, 1:05 AM
Post #135 of 159 (3548 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 365

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I havenít read through he rest of the thread so most of this has already been mentioned.

1. The pieces placed look Ok but canít really see them.

2. The two biners clipped to the rope are not opposite or opposed.

3. The use of quick draws means that the anchor is not equalised particularly the top two.

4. use of quickdraws means that any change of direction of the load will load different legs of the anchor.

5. The top biner looks like it could push against the rock and the gate could be forced open.

6. The second quickdraw on the chain clipped to the top peace of gear is not directly clipped in to the quickdraw leading to the rope, but is clipped to the other leg of the anchor.

7. I donít like metal on metal(possibility of the biners twisting open.

I wouldn't want to climb on it, adn if i did I certanly would not want to be swinging round while working a route. I certainly would not belay my kids on it.


(This post was edited by king_rat on Nov 12, 2009, 2:47 AM)


dingus


Nov 12, 2009, 4:46 AM
Post #136 of 159 (3535 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [airscape] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

airscape wrote:
I love the way that if someone compares anything to a situation in another sport (in this case skydiving) then all of a sudden that sport also becomes a topic for discussion.

The anchor reminds me of tiddlywinks.

DMT


LostinMaine


Nov 12, 2009, 6:17 AM
Post #137 of 159 (3520 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
The overarching point is not whether the denominator of the probability is days or falls or whatever, but that thinking of anchor failure as a random event is contrived. Events have probabilities because they are produced by processes that are random, or contain uncertainty. A flipped coin has a probability of landing head up because the process of flipping it randomizes the outcome. An individual piece of gear has a probability of failing at its rated strength because there is random error in the manufacturing process. But what is the source of randomness in determining whether a top rope anchor will fail? In practice, there essentially isn't any. The anchor is either good enough or it isn't.

Jay

The manufacturing process might not have random error affecting holding strength. Many manufacturing processes have strong biases where they may be very precise, but highly inaccurate of hitting their end product goals.

I agree that the use of probability estimates is kind of funny here (it's a threshold). You could take 13 billion FF 0.2 falls on a shoddy, unequalized, non redundant, anchor that can withstand a FF 0.4 fall and it will not fail. Now, take this same anchor and use it where there is the potential for a fall greater than 0.4, and the story changes.It is still not a probability, but there is a threshold at which the anchor will fail.

The problem with the anchor pictured is that it takes perfectly good gear, decent individual placements, and combines them in such a way as to lower the threshold of failure. This makes it a shoddy anchor. Though it could hold a TR fall for an indefinite number of falls, if someone rope solos on the same line to clean it afterward and takes a fall approaching FF 1 near the top, the anchor could be compromised.

In an odd way, it reminds me of the duel between Huygens and Newton... is light a wave or a particle?


reno


Nov 12, 2009, 3:14 PM
Post #138 of 159 (3470 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
reno wrote:
seatbeltpants wrote:
screw climbing on an anchor that has a 1% chance of blowing - but i'm terrified that some posters seem to have no worries climbing on an anchor that has a 1 in 5 chance of blowing?! russian roulette, anyone?

It must be comforting to do all your climbing on rock that is 100% solid, with all the gear you could possibly need to construct an anchor that is 100% safe from any possible chance of failure.

That sort of climbing has nothing in common with the kind of rock/ice/alpine/mountain climbing I've ever seen and done.

Maybe it's just me, but every anchor I've ever seen has potential to fail. Some have more potential than others.

I can count on my fingers the number of times I've climbed on an anchor that at least a 1% chance of failing, and still have 10 fingers left over. I have a feeling you could, too.

Not really. Let's put aside, for the moment, Dingus' (correct and wise) comment that placing a numerical value on an anchor is an exercise in mental masturbation.

I've had situations where the "anchor" was, to be charitable, "less than optimal." While not trad, I've had a couple stubby screws in shitty ice and a nut slotted in a rotten crack constitute an "anchor." I've had partners on the sharp end call down to me "You're on belay, but please don't fall" and arrived at the belay to find one piton pushed by hand into the soft kitty-litter rock that is the Fisher Towers. I've rapped off a single piton.

Did I like any of these? Hell to the no. At the time, that was what we had, and other options -- down climbing, a different rap path, etc. -- weren't as safe (for a variety of reasons.) Some times, "as good as you're going to get" is the best you can hope for. Most times, sure, we can build an anchor that will hold any fall we can create.

If this area you mention in the OP is a popular area, I'd expect that would be the case... the anchor you posted could have been done better. Hell, a couple different slings, switch around a couple 'biners, and badda boom, you've got a more solid anchor.

I'd say that I could count on both hands the number of times I've had an anchor with at least a 10% chance of failure and have 6 fingers left. That's still enough fingers to hold a beer and hitch a ride to the crag, though.


(This post was edited by reno on Nov 12, 2009, 3:16 PM)


wanderlustmd


Nov 15, 2009, 8:33 AM
Post #139 of 159 (3408 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8149

Re: [epoch] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

epoch wrote:
west_by_god_virginia wrote:
GO DARWIN!Angelic

I've made worse...

yes, you have.


king_rat


Nov 16, 2009, 5:15 AM
Post #140 of 159 (3329 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 365

Re: [reno] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
kylekienitz wrote:
reno wrote:
"What percentage of risk am I, personally, willing to accept?"

Personally I don't see much reason to risk it for TR.

That's the rub, though... Risk WHAT?

Would you accept a TR anchor with a 1% chance of total failure? A 2% chance? 3? Where is your line?

That's the question. There is no answer that fits all.

I think when talking about the acceptability of risk, we need to consider what the alternatives are. Given that the anchor is for a toprope, for the climbers kids, and that the climber has the time and luxury to spend carefully setting it up, many of problems with the anchor could easily be rectified. I therefore cannot see how this could be seen as an acceptable risk.

a 1% risk of failure(over a day??) for a top rope anchor set up for my kids seems remarkably high risk to expose my kids to. So lets say I take my kids climbing every weekend, a 1% failure rate means on average Iím going to kill 1 of my kids every two years? I can really see me selling that one to my wife.

We are not talking about a sketchy anchor set up on a long alpine route.


dingus


Nov 16, 2009, 5:47 AM
Post #141 of 159 (3320 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [king_rat] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

We are not talking about an anchor with a mythical chance of failure of 1% either.

But whatever.

DMT


billcoe_


Nov 24, 2009, 9:12 AM
Post #142 of 159 (3195 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4668

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
Not textbook, but adequate...

pros:
1.) individual placements look solid. (Parallel cracks and cams at mid expansion range or better, in direction of pull)
2.) rock looks solid
3.) not really equalized, but not major shock-loading if a piece fails

cons:
1.) equalization could obviously be better
2.) no opposed biners or locker at rope
3.) nose of black draw pushing into the rock
4.) gear is old -- old style .75 camalot, rigid stem friend.
5.) biner on biner chains, not ideal, but not the end of the world.

easy minor improvement would be to clip the draw from the chain of draws connecting to the nut straight into the draw with the green gate.

I'd be happier with a cordellete (despite its imperfect equalization) with opposed biners, but this anchor wouldn't freak me out upon arrival. I've seen much worse....

This said it for me. The addition of an opposed and reversed biner or even a locker replacing a regular biner would greatly improve it imo. I've seen one old timer tie a single 1" tubular webbing sling to another via waterknot in the middle and consider the bush it terminated at plenty good as an anchor. I couldn't bring myself to tie in just thinking of the lower off though....


knudenoggin


Nov 25, 2009, 7:20 AM
Post #143 of 159 (3121 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [dugl33] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
To no one in particular, I know I'm new here, but what's up with the massive quote within a quote text strings?

Is it so hard to pick out the specific text you are responding to?

Maybe I'll feel differently when I've broken the 10,000 posts threshold. Unsure

-- usually of one-liners. Crazy

Amen!

(Sometimes it feels like you're getting much of the 10,000
all in one of these multi-nested-quotes posts!)

At least on DPR, you get different colors: then, it's lovely!


Shocked


dingus


Nov 25, 2009, 7:26 AM
Post #144 of 159 (3117 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [knudenoggin] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

knudenoggin wrote:
dugl33 wrote:
To no one in particular, I know I'm new here, but what's up with the massive quote within a quote text strings?

Is it so hard to pick out the specific text you are responding to?

Maybe I'll feel differently when I've broken the 10,000 posts threshold. Unsure

-- usually of one-liners. Crazy

Amen!

(Sometimes it feels like you're getting much of the 10,000
all in one of these multi-nested-quotes posts!)

At least on DPR, you get different colors: then, it's lovely!


Shocked

Build-a-quote.

DMT


knudenoggin


Nov 25, 2009, 7:52 AM
Post #145 of 159 (3108 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: An anchor to analyze [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:
6. The second quickdraw on the chain clipped to the top peace of gear is not directly clipped in to the quickdraw leading to the rope, but is clipped to the other leg of the anchor.

This is I think the first critique of that 2nd draw,
which is slack, and which caught my eye, too.
It sh/could be clipped at the top through both upper draws' 'biners,
and through the load-transmitting next-draw-in-chain 'biner at
the bottom: as there seems no chance that this draw can be
loaded against two 'biners (one of which would be away from
its axis), being unequalized. It also makes for a lesser extension
should the shorter draw-chain fail.

Currently, it looks as though should the lower two placements
fail, the lower 'biner of this slack draw would be hit right on the
wire gate by the failing adjacent chain.

And the lower 'biner of the red draw should be turned 180deg or so
around clockwise to untwist the draw and put its gate facing away
from the rock.

*kN*


acorneau


Nov 26, 2009, 11:05 AM
Post #146 of 159 (3051 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889

Re: An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

[Edit: Oops! Not a trad anchor, so if mods want to move this it's fine by me.]

Here's another one I found on MP:



At first glance it appears that they have 4 quickdraws on one bolt! A closer inspection reveals that it's just the camera angle makes it hard to see the second bolt behind the gear. The QD's look to be opposite and opposing, but still, 4 QD's on a top-rope?


(This post was edited by acorneau on Nov 26, 2009, 11:06 AM)


dingus


Nov 27, 2009, 5:35 AM
Post #147 of 159 (3004 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [acorneau] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

acorneau wrote:
[Edit: Oops! Not a trad anchor, so if mods want to move this it's fine by me.]

Here's another one I found on MP:

[image]http://www.mountainproject.com/images/89/18/106608918_large_e81112.jpg[/image]

At first glance it appears that they have 4 quickdraws on one bolt! A closer inspection reveals that it's just the camera angle makes it hard to see the second bolt behind the gear. The QD's look to be opposite and opposing, but still, 4 QD's on a top-rope?

Clearly they drank the 'a locker or two biners, opposite and opposed' koolaid a little too swiftly.

DMT


Adk


Nov 30, 2009, 3:48 PM
Post #148 of 159 (2929 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1084

Re: [acorneau] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

acorneau wrote:
[Edit: Oops! Not a trad anchor, so if mods want to move this it's fine by me.]

Here's another one I found on MP:



At first glance it appears that they have 4 quickdraws on one bolt! A closer inspection reveals that it's just the camera angle makes it hard to see the second bolt behind the gear. The QD's look to be opposite and opposing, but still, 4 QD's on a top-rope?

Sport climbers.........Unsure


(This post was edited by Adk on Nov 30, 2009, 3:49 PM)


jakedatc


Dec 1, 2009, 3:26 PM
Post #149 of 159 (2884 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [Adk] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Adk wrote:
acorneau wrote:
[Edit: Oops! Not a trad anchor, so if mods want to move this it's fine by me.]

Here's another one I found on MP:

[image]www.mountainproject.com/images/89/18/106608918_large_e81112.jpg[/image]

At first glance it appears that they have 4 quickdraws on one bolt! A closer inspection reveals that it's just the camera angle makes it hard to see the second bolt behind the gear. The QD's look to be opposite and opposing, but still, 4 QD's on a top-rope?

Sport climbers.........Unsure

unlikely.. probably trad climbers that don't know what to do with a set of bolts :P looks like Jtree


reno


Dec 1, 2009, 7:15 PM
Post #150 of 159 (2845 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [jakedatc] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jakedatc wrote:
.. probably trad climbers that don't know what to do with a set of bolts

Skip them and run it out, right?

Laugh


jakedatc


Dec 1, 2009, 8:53 PM
Post #151 of 159 (2102 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [reno] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
.. probably trad climbers that don't know what to do with a set of bolts

Skip them and run it out, right?

Laugh

over build and engineer with triple extreme redundancy

an RC user that hasnt posted in a while almost got himself stuck at Rumney because he tried to connect himself to an anchor too many times. took him 5 mins to get his cleaning sling biner out of the bolt hanger


c4c


Dec 2, 2009, 1:38 AM
Post #152 of 159 (2088 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 1279

Re: [jakedatc] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jakedatc wrote:
reno wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
.. probably trad climbers that don't know what to do with a set of bolts

Skip them and run it out, right?

Laugh

over build and engineer with triple extreme redundancy

an RC user that hasnt posted in a while almost got himself stuck at Rumney because he tried to connect himself to an anchor too many times. took him 5 mins to get his cleaning sling biner out of the bolt hanger

jammer?


jakedatc


Dec 2, 2009, 6:26 AM
Post #153 of 159 (2062 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [c4c] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

c4c wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
reno wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
.. probably trad climbers that don't know what to do with a set of bolts

Skip them and run it out, right?

Laugh

over build and engineer with triple extreme redundancy

an RC user that hasnt posted in a while almost got himself stuck at Rumney because he tried to connect himself to an anchor too many times. took him 5 mins to get his cleaning sling biner out of the bolt hanger

jammer?
nope.. but he might have been there


dingus


Dec 2, 2009, 6:32 AM
Post #154 of 159 (2060 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [c4c] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

c4c wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
reno wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
.. probably trad climbers that don't know what to do with a set of bolts

Skip them and run it out, right?

Laugh

over build and engineer with triple extreme redundancy

an RC user that hasnt posted in a while almost got himself stuck at Rumney because he tried to connect himself to an anchor too many times. took him 5 mins to get his cleaning sling biner out of the bolt hanger

jammer?

Don't laugh... sometimes its hard to see the forest for the trees. This is a REAL anchor:



DMT


billcoe_


Dec 2, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #155 of 159 (2012 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4668

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
This is a REAL anchor:

And is this:


bill413


Dec 3, 2009, 8:17 AM
Post #156 of 159 (1979 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [reno] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
.. probably trad climbers that don't know what to do with a set of bolts

Skip them and run it out, right?

Laugh

I thread a #9 hex through them.


guangzhou


Dec 6, 2009, 6:47 PM
Post #157 of 159 (1931 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
c4c wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
reno wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
.. probably trad climbers that don't know what to do with a set of bolts

Skip them and run it out, right?

Laugh

over build and engineer with triple extreme redundancy

an RC user that hasnt posted in a while almost got himself stuck at Rumney because he tried to connect himself to an anchor too many times. took him 5 mins to get his cleaning sling biner out of the bolt hanger

jammer?

Don't laugh... sometimes its hard to see the forest for the trees. This is a REAL anchor:

[IMG]http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x170/oldclymr/WhackyAnchor.jpg[/IMG]

DMT

This one looks familiar. What route is it. Anchors like that are why I now carry one of these on my chalk bag.



anthonymason


Apr 28, 2010, 8:38 PM
Post #158 of 159 (1604 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 10, 2006
Posts: 116

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Why would any one set t-r on this shit, use a sling and equalize it or use a cord-alette to equalize it.
Period there are reasons climbers die!!!!! and this is a good god damn example!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


patto


May 19, 2010, 5:57 PM
Post #159 of 159 (1435 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1451

Re: [anthonymason] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3