|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 3, 2012, 3:27 AM
Post #1 of 32
(20722 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
So, the discussion on the latest equalette thread got me thinking, and last night I sat down to play with a needle and thread and some old slings. Here's what I mocked up: a "holey dogbone"
Basically, it's just a 2-foot sling with a smaller sling bar-tacked inside it, with a little reinforcement I'll describe below. Topologically, though, it basically is the equalette, just built into a more compact form.
Here's what it looks like set up as a 2-point anchor:
For more anchor points just stack copies:
Of course, this configuration only gets load distribution of 50-25-25 (ideally), but as has been hashed out in a great many threads, this is about the best you can hope for anyway.
In the event of failure, the load remains trapped within the inner loop:
In the first one I made, it was entirely internally redundant (meaning that you'd have to break at least two strands for complete failure), except at two points - here (and its symmetrical equivalent):
Cutting at this point while under load would put all the load onto the top bartack, leading to the inner loop potentially peeling itself all the way out. So, in my second version I added an extra layer of reinforcement here:
... which, unless I've missed something, makes it entirely functionally redundant, meaning just one could be used as the power point.
In terms of handling, each one weighs not much more than the equivalent length nylon sling, and it would take at least half a dozen to weigh the same as a cordelette. They'd still behave perfectly well as long quickdraws. Clip one biner through both end loops, and the other around the bottom end (leave a small gap un-tacked between inner and outer loops on the unloaded strand to clip your biner through, and it'll keep it well-behaved while not falling off the end as soon as you lengthen the draw. On the whole, you wouldn't lose much by replacing all your longer draws with these - just use whatever's left to build the anchor.
So, advantages, as I see them:
- simple and relatively (I've learned to never say completely) foolproof
- lightweight
- versatile - unlike a cordelette, they're still very much functional if necessary mid-route
- ???
Disadvantages
- since it requires bartacking, it will only ever become widely available if manufactured and sold by a gear company (have at it, guys - it's now public domain)
- ??? I'm sure I'll be told below.
|
|
Attachments:
|
holey_dogbone.jpg
(27.9 KB)
|
|
|
2pointanchor.jpg
(38.4 KB)
|
|
|
3pointanchor.jpg
(41.6 KB)
|
|
|
single_fail.jpg
(36.6 KB)
|
|
|
closeup_weaklink.jpg
(39.3 KB)
|
|
|
closeup.jpg
(38.6 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 3, 2012, 5:48 AM
Post #2 of 32
(20690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
I predict that someone will copy this idea and patent it. I hope you're ok with that.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 3, 2012, 5:56 AM
Post #3 of 32
(20687 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Pretty innovative, nice.
I think some guys would go for it even if you can accomplish everything with normal slings.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jul 3, 2012, 6:10 AM
Post #4 of 32
(20685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
I think it might have an advantage with a 2 bolted anchor where the two bolts are some what close together. It might be more advantageous to make one up out of a four foot runner which would give more leeway for pro that might not always be close together to avoid wider angles in the anchor. This is also where an equallette might have an edge. Just a thought.
Jay may be right with his prediction. It does seem simple, light and versatile in uses.
Edit:
Banz yourself for 5 days for starting another anchor thread.
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Jul 3, 2012, 6:17 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 3, 2012, 6:37 AM
Post #5 of 32
(20669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
jt512 wrote: I predict that someone will copy this idea and patent it. I hope you're ok with that.
Yup. Thought about it for a while. Then I thought to myself, "self, you're a research academic in a secure, fairly well-paid job with three patents to your name as it is. If you're going to get rich someday, it probably won't be from selling a new piece of climbing gear."
Besides, having been through the patenting process a few times from a professional perspective, the thought of doing it as a private citizen gives me cold chills. The only thing that really gave me pause is that manufacturers are often only really interested in taking on new products if they have a guaranteed monopoly for a while (i.e. a patent). But the reason for that is to make sure they recoup development costs - and the development costs on something like this are pretty tiny.
Anyway, if it ends up on shelves, consider it my gift to the climbing community. 
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 3, 2012, 6:43 AM
Post #6 of 32
(20666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Oh, and if someone somehow does manage to get a patent, I'll happily volunteer as a witness to the inevitable court challenge... in return for an all-expenses-paid family trip to the jurisdiction of the trial. 
|
|
|
|
|
theguy
Jul 3, 2012, 8:57 AM
Post #7 of 32
(20645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
I guess I'm wondering when I would use this.
If the anchor points are this close together and at such similar heights I'm guessing I'm either sport-climbing, in which case I'd just use draws, or trad climbing with a pretty sweet pair of cracks for pro, and would just use bunny-ears.
I use a cordellete/equalette because I can hook up anchor points which are fairly far apart and adjust the limiter knots to match the different heights of the pro (which I end up doing just about all the time: if I'm equaletting, they are rarely in the right spot right off my harness). And since I don't know what I'm going to run into anchor-wise tradding, I'd be carrying the cordellette anyway, so this would be additional rather than replacement gear.
I guess if you're doing lots of tradding on routes you know and which have the right anchor setup, this would be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 3, 2012, 9:59 AM
Post #8 of 32
(20632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
theguy wrote: I guess I'm wondering when I would use this. If the anchor points are this close together and at such similar heights I'm guessing I'm either sport-climbing, in which case I'd just use draws, or trad climbing with a pretty sweet pair of cracks for pro, and would just use bunny-ears. I use a cordellete/equalette because I can hook up anchor points which are fairly far apart and adjust the limiter knots to match the different heights of the pro (which I end up doing just about all the time: if I'm equaletting, they are rarely in the right spot right off my harness). And since I don't know what I'm going to run into anchor-wise tradding, I'd be carrying the cordellette anyway, so this would be additional rather than replacement gear. I guess if you're doing lots of tradding on routes you know and which have the right anchor setup, this would be nice.
Well, I've always been a "use the rope" type of traddie myself. Bought a cordelette once, used it twice...
Anyway, I see two options: use a 4-foot or longer sling as suggested by moose above, or simply extend arms as needed using other gear, just as you would when using a sliding x, for example. Remember these were thrown together using the first old slings I found in the cupboard. There's all the usual trade-offs to be made: arm length vs rackability, size of inner loop (range of motion vs. length of possible extension on failure, etc.). In the end it's just another potential weapon in the arsenal.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 3, 2012, 12:15 PM
Post #9 of 32
(20607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
There was a (Spanish?) guy touting this concept around the manufacturers a couple of years ago, probably the same person who posted about how to tie this out of a sling which was discussed on here a while ago.
There were some technical issues about using bar tacks due to potential wear from the karabiner but a protective cover was thought to be an acceptable solution.
As far as I know there was no interest in producing them as you need another load of stuff to adjust the lengths of the legs and so while it is neater in itself the end result in practice isn´t. And the Euro´s don´t want any of that equalising stuff anyway so it would never sell, at least over here.
Three layers of Dyneema hybrid bar-tacked together give a load split of 66%/34% for a two-point anchor and 22%/12%/66% for the three point you show.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 3, 2012, 1:08 PM
Post #10 of 32
(20586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
I give you extra points for style and beauty with the colour combination with matching biners. 
My normal response to these threads is to rubbish the design and say use climbing rope or cordalette. This time I not going down that path (maybe its the beer and my good mood, or maybe its a clever design)
It seems like a useful anchor which, if given the item and a couple of bolts, I wouldn't hesitate to use. (There might even be a market for it!)
But back to my normal response:
Still the differences between this and a long sling knotted with extension limiters is minimal. Also without the reinforcement the anchor sling strength would be rated at less than the loop rating (load is held by two strands + angle)
Finally the obsession with obtaining an anchor that will survive a cut in any point seems a bit silly really. Redundancy makes sense when there is a non negligible probability of failure. In makes sense to approach some gear placement with this attitude. Equipment failure (rope breakage, sling breakage, carabiner breakage) is pretty much negligible. As such redundancy is not necessary.
A similar comparison are in engineered structures. Redundancy is not considered at all important for most members in most circumstances. What is important is ensuring the maximum expected loads are less than the capacity and ensuring appropriate quality control so that members behave as expected.
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 3, 2012, 1:09 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Jul 3, 2012, 4:37 PM
Post #11 of 32
(20499 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
How is this different than a knotted sliding x? Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 3, 2012, 5:30 PM
Post #12 of 32
(20466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
johnwesely wrote: How is this different than a knotted sliding x? Am I missing something?
Essentially no. However it looks more `purpose built´, will be stronger and would allow a manufacturer to charge a bit more. Looking at some of the other offerings on the market this is not to be sneered at.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Jul 3, 2012, 5:58 PM
Post #13 of 32
(20453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
JimTitt wrote: johnwesely wrote: How is this different than a knotted sliding x? Am I missing something? Essentially no. However it looks more `purpose built´, will be stronger and would allow a manufacturer to charge a bit more. Looking at some of the other offerings on the market this is not to be sneered at.
I also just realized that without the twist, it will be much easier to clip multiple carabiners into the master point.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 3, 2012, 6:18 PM
Post #14 of 32
(20440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
johnwesely wrote: JimTitt wrote: johnwesely wrote: How is this different than a knotted sliding x? Am I missing something? Essentially no. However it looks more `purpose built´, will be stronger and would allow a manufacturer to charge a bit more. Looking at some of the other offerings on the market this is not to be sneered at. I also just realized that without the twist, it will be much easier to clip multiple carabiners into the master point.
I´m a bit like Patto here, it´s nice looking and more elegant then knots in slings (which I detest anyway) and well though out. It is also sellable to punters which is half the game and a massive improvement on at least one similar item on sale.
But I couldn´t visualise ever using it, if someone gave me one I´d probably cut the stitching so I had two slings!
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 3, 2012, 8:12 PM
Post #15 of 32
(20399 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Heh - might have known it had already been thought of. Interesting what you say about the load split- is that just because the three-layer construct is too stiff to adjust itself to true 50:50?
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 3, 2012, 9:22 PM
Post #16 of 32
(20378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
Well you never get to 50:50, the best I´ve got is 58/42 with 10mm dyneema. The 12mm hybrid like you used normally gets 59/41 but stiffening it up and probably the bar tacks push it up a lot, that´s actually the highest I´ve seen by quite a way. A ring of stainless steel cable would be good though!
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 3, 2012, 10:00 PM
Post #17 of 32
(20364 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
JimTitt wrote: Well you never get to 50:50, the best I´ve got is 58/42 with 10mm dyneema. The 12mm hybrid like you used normally gets 59/41 but stiffening it up and probably the bar tacks push it up a lot, that´s actually the highest I´ve seen by quite a way. A ring of stainless steel cable would be good though!
Interesting. Some sort of stainless eyelet design is also possible, but weight and cost becomes an issue.
One other thing, though: there's no reason why you would need three layers (or, indeed, bar-tacking) all the way across. That third layer is only there to reinforce the joint (as patto said, functionally it's overkill - but I'd hazard that it's probably not so much when it comes to liability). It only needs to be long enough to give a solid overlap on each side. In the middle (where your load should spend most of its time) it can be just the two, unconnected strands. In fact, that's how it is in my mock-up, though that may be hard to see. You'd have to make the inner loop bigger (say, a foot) to make that stretch of a particularly useful length, though.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 4, 2012, 3:37 AM
Post #18 of 32
(20320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Nice. Ultimately superfluous but nice. Given the number of PAS's I've seen floating around the crags, that thing will probably sell just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Hudon
Jul 4, 2012, 4:56 AM
Post #20 of 32
(20305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2010
Posts: 82
|
Can't say I'd use it but I applaud the creative thinking!
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 4, 2012, 10:13 AM
Post #21 of 32
(20272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
blondgecko wrote: notapplicable wrote: Nice. Ultimately superfluous but nice. I bet you could find someone to say that for any piece of climbing gear - and that includes the rope.
I like it! But I still think it is not needed. But given the disparaging comments from the usual suspects like myself are so extremely mild I'd almost go as far as saying this is the best thing since the sling & the cordalette. But I still use the climbing rope.
Anyway well done! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 4, 2012, 10:29 AM
Post #22 of 32
(20268 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Awww, man - so you mean I put on my asbestos undies for nothing? Do you have any idea how much these things itch?
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 4, 2012, 4:42 PM
Post #23 of 32
(20176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
blondgecko wrote: Awww, man - so you mean I put on my asbestos undies for nothing? Do you have any idea how much these things itch?
Dream on, after the Adatesman fiasco we hacked the server and when a moderator clicks on a thread they get the computer-generated family-friendly version. You can always tell the difference because jt512 is pleasant though programming this wasn´t easy, we had use Mother Teresa´s psychological profile in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 4, 2012, 11:23 PM
Post #24 of 32
(20118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
JimTitt wrote: blondgecko wrote: Awww, man - so you mean I put on my asbestos undies for nothing? Do you have any idea how much these things itch? Dream on, after the Adatesman fiasco we hacked the server and when a moderator clicks on a thread they get the computer-generated family-friendly version. You can always tell the difference because jt512 is pleasant though programming this wasn´t easy, we had use Mother Teresa´s psychological profile in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Jul 6, 2012, 1:15 PM
Post #25 of 32
(20029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
I'd might get one because
a) I am a gear whore
and
b) looks like this could be an easy way to "equalize" two pieces mid pitch. At least asier than using a 30cm quickdraw sliding X.
But other than that i think it solves a problem that does not really exist.
And i wonder that no one has yet posted that link:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=2363707
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
surfstar
Jul 6, 2012, 4:53 PM
Post #26 of 32
(3355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2011
Posts: 206
|
johnwesely wrote: How is this different than a knotted sliding x? Am I missing something?
You're knott missing a thing.
Double length nylon sling - add knotts when needed. $6-8, $2 if you tie your own loop.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 7, 2012, 10:27 AM
Post #27 of 32
(3312 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
surfstar wrote: johnwesely wrote: How is this different than a knotted sliding x? Am I missing something? You're knott missing a thing. Double length nylon sling - add knotts when needed. $6-8, $2 if you tie your own loop.
The long (loooooong) series of threads that led eventually to the equalette a few years back came about because the sliding X isn't actually all that great at equalizing. The wrap around the biner creates enough friction to make the load distribution surprisingly asymmetrical. The novelty in the equalette was that it did away with the wrap, significantly improving the biner's freedom to move and equalize without compromising safety. As I said in the OP, this design is functionally equivalent - just ready-made and somewhat streamlined.
|
|
|
|
|
surfstar
Jul 7, 2012, 2:37 PM
Post #28 of 32
(3300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2011
Posts: 206
|
and the bodies keep piling up! Damn you, sliding X!!! You bastards.
Two bomber bolts don't need equalization anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 8, 2012, 12:36 PM
Post #29 of 32
(3263 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
surfstar wrote: Two bomber bolts don't need equalization anyways.
Agreed. I proceed with the whole anchor routine primarily to achieve minimise shock loading and provide redundancy.
The only time I go for better equalisation is when I place tiny nuts (5kN and below). If I have two near each other then I'll use a sliding-X.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 10, 2012, 12:19 AM
Post #30 of 32
(3215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
surfstar wrote: and the bodies keep piling up! Damn you, sliding X!!! You bastards. Two bomber bolts don't need equalization anyways.
A couple of points:
1. The various anchor discussions in The Lab have almost exclusively been about optimising trad anchors. I'm sure you'll find very few people who disagree with your statement that solid bolts don't need equalization. Marginal gear, on the other hand...
and
2. There's no harm in playing around to improve upon and/or optimise existing methods, even if current methods work well. If you disagree, perhaps The Lab is not the place for you.
|
|
|
|
|
wivanoff
Jul 10, 2012, 11:11 AM
Post #31 of 32
(3184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 144
|
patto wrote: The only time I go for better equalization is when I place tiny nuts (5kN and below). If I have two near each other then I'll use a sliding-X.
I assume you're not talking about anchors here but, rather, running belays along the route (?)
I sometimes carry a 2 foot sling with pre-tied limiter knots for use when placing tiny nuts. Since the nuts are likely to blow out at low loads anyways, do you see any advantage to clipping only ONE stand between the limiter knots? This would be an attempt to eliminate friction from the sliding-x and actually get equalization on the micro-nuts.
I suppose I could clip one carabiner into each strand equalette style. Do you see any advantage/disadvantage in either method?
|
|
|
|
|
jktinst
Jul 13, 2012, 5:18 PM
Post #32 of 32
(3097 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 89
|
The anchor systems I have seen to date that have 2 redundant & extension-limited strands bearing the central locker and one or two additional strands closing the loop to lock it in were based on the following 3 systems:
- a single strand folded in an S shape, as in the mexican system discussed in the other thread mentioned here. This has a single locking strand, which means less clutter and weight.
- one huge sling looped so as to create a smaller ring inside a larger one (haven’t been able to retrace the original reference on this one so if someone has it, please pitch in): this gives the less efficient two strands for locking or 3 strands for bearing.
- two separate slings, a smaller one inside a larger one as in the holey dogbones system discussed here and other cord-based ones. In addition to the two locking strands this also has the downside of having two sling-closing knots or bar-tacks.
The main advantages of these systems are that:
- only one central locker is required (as opposed to two for the equalette);
- they have the absolute minimum amount of friction (no squeezing of the strands between the 2 lockers when they are loaded, as in the equalette; and no crossings of strands or clutch effect, as in the sliding X).
The main drawback of these systems is that they are not adjustable in the field. Even if knots are used instead of bar-tacks to create the extension-limited central system, moving those knots in the field to adapt to an asymetrical belay configuration is not realistic because it is not just a matter of loosening and shifting the knots. You have to undo them completely, refold the cord in a new S shape or move the smaller loop to one side of the larger one and redo the knots.
My take on these systems is that they are most useful to equalize 4 not-so-bomproof pros, as shown, using a system inspired from one proposed by healyje a long time ago. This is where, in my mind, it becomes critical to have the best possible dynamic equalization with the most even distribution and the least amount of friction, and where it becomes worthwhile to take the time to build a system that will achieve that over all 4 pros. Of course, there’s a good chance that these pros will be all over the place instead of neatly lined up so the system needs long arms to avoid having to add several extra biners and slings to reach the pros. These long arms make undoing and redoing the knots in the field particularly impractical.
This poor field-adjustability led me to switch to the more easily adjustable system shown. It is essentially one long cord sling with two Fig8s delimiting 2 central strands, to which a third locking strand is added once the Fig8s have been shifted to the correct positions for the belay’s specific configuration. This locking strand is rethreaded once through each Fig8 and backed-up with cloves on the secondary lockers. As an alternative to clipping these secondary lockers directly through the extension-limiting Fig8s as suggested by healyje, it is possible to set up each secondary arm and its Fig8 as 2 bunny ears: a tiny one for clipping the locker and a long one for the equalized/ extension-limited arms, as described recently by Neoshade. http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ring=elette;#2542669
For 3-pro anchors, I actually prefer to use stacked sliding Xs (or in my case, sliding double Xs) because I can take advantage of the friction to achieve a better load distribution than the theoretical 50:25:25. This involves setting up the "50" arm on the same side as the probable load, as I discussed in one of my last posts to Neoshade’s thread. Since I reserve the fancy system for equalizing 4 or more somewhat iffy pros, I carry only one on multipitch trad routes that do not have bolts at the belay stations and park it on the belayer’s harness. If I were to come to the end of a pitch and find that I have no choice but to set up this kind of 4-pro belay anchor, I’d find a way to quickly and temporarily rig it well-enough to bring up the second and I’d replace it with the fancy one for the next lead. However, I’ve not had to use this system for real yet since I came up with it and that’s just fine by me.
(This post was edited by jktinst on Jul 13, 2012, 7:30 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
