Oddball:

But using a sliding X with limiting knots is supposed to give equalization with small extension, it does neither well, so why even use it?

Here are the situations.
1. You don't need equalization. The best anchor is then the ROPE clove hitched in series to your protection points. I have many reasons for this if you want to hear :)
2. You need equalization but don't care about extension. Then my anchor without the top sling is simpler than any solution that has the same equalization, and meets all other needs.
3. You need the best you can get, then use this anchor and spend the minute putting it there.

Oddball:

But using a sliding X with limiting knots is supposed to give equalization with small extension, it does neither well, so why even use it?

Oddball:

Well I think it is fairly well known that the sliding X binds when loaded. And any limiting knot you tie, will reduce proportionally the amount it can equalize.

It binds when loaded, so whats the problem? Did you die?

big deal you drop a couple feet and you may have a little swing.

patto:

SERENE is not an impossibility with dynamic equalization, it just hasn't been designed yet. And the "math" you speak of only applies to current designs, a new design would change that "math".

perhaps you could construct the actual thing and show us some pictures?

I was just thinking about doing that, but I don't want to go to the work

coolcat83:

I was just thinking about doing that, but I don't want to go to the work (thinking load cells I have access to) if people aren't genuinely interested, I'm sure you can understand that.

And by the way, ive never had a Sliding X bind on me so i dont know what others are doing to cause it to but I guess they are going to die unless they bring all their gear with them on a multipitch climb.

Says who? This obsession with redundancy is absurd. Even using two carabiners for you anchor point seems excessive and I have never seen any leader do this EVER. Do you use two carabiners in abseiling? There are plenty of non redundant items in the construction of an anchor and in general climbing. To think otherwise is absurd.

Well it does bind slightly on you and you don't even know it. So rather than perfect 50-50 equalisation you end up with 45-55 or even 40-60 equalisation.

Now sensible people would realise that 40-60 is damn well good enough whereas those who think it isn't design highly complicated anchors and post them on rockclimbing.com.

And yes you do want every part of you anchor redundant.

Are you being overly excessive on this concept yes.

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Thats a great way of demonstrating, majid_sabet

Well actually I don't. And THAT was my point. I only ever have one carabiner at the master point of my anchor. I could have two but I don't because I recognise that redundacy is totally uneccessary here.

????
Um.. I thought I was the one objecting to people getting 'overly excessive' on this concept. ?????

Here are the situations.
1. You don't need equalization. The best anchor is then the ROPE clove hitched in series to your protection points. I have many reasons for this if you want to hear :)

If you were relying on equalized gear placement to give you the total strength then YES YOU DID.

To a lot of people the shock load is a big deal. The jury and tests are still out on the real force of a shockload on a factor 2ish fall.

I posted this over at supertopo, and since I'm getting totally hammered there, wondering your thoughts too I thought I'd see if I'd get more sympathy at rc.com !

Hello everyone, I just thought up an extremely complex and labor-intensive anchor and would like some feedback praise and adulation if would be so kind :) I'm only interested in hearing from those who think my system is the most amazing and original innovation since ribbed condoms, so if you're rgold or anyone else with enough common sense to recognize that my anchor system is utter garbage, please don't reply.

I posted this over at supertopo, wondering your thoughts too !
[image]
Hello everyone, I just thought up an anchor and would like some feedback if would be so kind :)

As far as I can tell it is completely redundant for all components (protection, cord, crabs). Also I think it adheres to SERENE without sacrificing dynamic equalization for no extension (of course adherence with SERENE only applies to protection failure, not cord failure etc). Even better than that, it uses minimal gear, or as minimal as it could with the above properties.

There is a slight bit of extension. It is equal to half the distance between the failing protection and the protection attached to the failing protection with the extension limiter strand. But this is half or less (depending on how close the protection is) of what other designs yield.

It is fast to setup because the knots that are not clove hitches can be tied before a climb, and it takes minimal cord. Basically to setup it requires 3 clove hitch adjustments, not long.

The clove hitches are there only to adjust length if you have no runners. Once can forgo the clove hitches to adjust and just extend which ever of the three ends you need to to be faster, since it all equalizes out.

The two and three protection versions are below (3 protection version only needs an additional 2 crabs and 1 small sling) as well as a very bad wrong version. Can anybody spot the deficiency in the wrong version? :D