Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Trad Climbing:
Building anchors with the rope
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Trad Climbing

Premier Sponsor:

 


LostinMaine


Jul 4, 2012, 5:25 PM
Post #1 of 127 (13423 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Building anchors with the rope
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

There are threads galore about anchor building with sliding X's, cordelettes, equalettes, stupidlettes, and every other gizmo under the sun. Anchor books skim over the good old days when cave men in lycra or EBs simply used the climbing rope for building anchors. When they are described, they are always described at a disadvantage because they are presumably static with poor load distribution among anchor points. There is a strong contingent of climbers who eschew the 'lettes in favor of the rope.

For those who prefer to use the climbing rope, what is your preferred rope anchor design when in these two "ideal" conditions:
1. 3 bomber nuts in a vertical crack with a fourth set for an upward pull

2. 3 bomber cams in a horizontal crack

In scenario #1, I generally figure-8 to the top-most piece and clove hitch the remaining pieces trying my best to equalize them.

In scenario #2, I tend to focus on the two strongest pieces and tie in with a bowline on a bight and clove hitch the third somewhat snugly.

I'm curious what others typically do since most all of my partners use cords and slings in mystifying configurations.

Edited to add image with redirect for 3 horizontal placements.



(This post was edited by LostinMaine on Jul 5, 2012, 11:08 AM)


Partner rgold


Jul 4, 2012, 6:16 PM
Post #2 of 127 (13403 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

For the bazillioneth time, here's what I do with horizontal pieces.



i clove vertical pieces in series from the bottom up. When making the top clove hitch, I take in slack so that the two biners below are roughly horizontal, which means that the two higher pieces will get at least a little loading. If the anchor needs a directional piece, I usually use a sling for that. Of course, the method depicted above for horizontal pieces can be used for anything including upward directionals.


guangzhou


Jul 4, 2012, 7:23 PM
Post #3 of 127 (13383 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

RJ, Excellent response.

I like using the rope as the anchor and usually do. The times I don't is when my partner isn't going to lead the next pitch. (Leap Frog)


bearbreeder


Jul 4, 2012, 11:56 PM
Post #4 of 127 (13338 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

clove one of the outer piece ... pull through enough rope ... clove the other outer piece ... tie a fig 8/overhand with the bights you pulled through ...

easy, simple, fast, and works as well as anything fancier

an even faster way with 3 pieces is to take a sliding x to 2 pieces with a sling clove the rope to that, clove the rope to the 3rd piece, and then clove the bight in between to the masterpoint ... i say faster because there are no knots to untie when the second takes it apart ...


Partner cracklover


Jul 5, 2012, 10:09 AM
Post #5 of 127 (13264 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9979

Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

LostinMaine wrote:
There are threads galore about anchor building with sliding X's, cordelettes, equalettes, stupidlettes, and every other gizmo under the sun. Anchor books skim over the good old days when cave men in lycra or EBs simply used the climbing rope for building anchors. When they are described, they are always described at a disadvantage because they are presumably static with poor load distribution among anchor points. There is a strong contingent of climbers who eschew the 'lettes in favor of the rope.

For those who prefer to use the climbing rope, what is your preferred rope anchor design when in these two "ideal" conditions:
1. 3 bomber nuts in a vertical crack with a fourth set for an upward pull

2. 3 bomber cams in a horizontal crack

In scenario #1, I generally figure-8 to the top-most piece and clove hitch the remaining pieces trying my best to equalize them.

In scenario #2, I tend to focus on the two strongest pieces and tie in with a bowline on a bight and clove hitch the third somewhat snugly.

I'm curious what others typically do since most all of my partners use cords and slings in mystifying configurations.

For most any 3 point anchors, assuming I'm climbing on a single rope (doubles would be different): Fig-8 on a bight to one piece, equalize the other two with a sliding-x on a sling, clove the rope into that, and adjust the clove to equalize load.



GO

(edited to show the powerpoint/redirection point in the image).


(This post was edited by cracklover on Jul 9, 2012, 9:33 AM)


LostinMaine


Jul 5, 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #6 of 127 (13248 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
For the bazillioneth time, here's what I do with horizontal pieces.

Thanks for the post (even if it was excessively redundant to what you have posted in the past). I was hoping for dialogue rather than a search.

If I recall, you said you climb most frequently on doubles ropes. What, if anything, changes with the configuration you've posted if you are on doubles?


JimTitt


Jul 5, 2012, 11:33 AM
Post #7 of 127 (13222 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 975

Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Double rope:-
Two pieces- clove each rope into one piece.
Three pieces- clove into one then the next, back to your harness (karabiner or direct tie in), other rope to other piece.
Four pieces-as for the first two pieces in a three piece system but twice.


acorneau


Jul 6, 2012, 12:55 PM
Post #8 of 127 (13072 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889

Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post



My favorite way is almost exactly what you have pictured, except in opposite order...

I clove myself in to the first piece (the right piece in your picture), bowline on a bight to the second and third, clove the end of that back to my belay loop, master point is the same as in your picture.

It's quicker for the team if you can clove in to a bomber piece and go off belay, that way you can continue to construct the rest of the anchor while your belayer is doing stuff on his/her end of things.

Cool


(This post was edited by acorneau on Jul 6, 2012, 1:00 PM)


Partner rgold


Jul 6, 2012, 3:36 PM
Post #9 of 127 (13029 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

LostinMaine wrote:
rgold wrote:
For the bazillioneth time, here's what I do with horizontal pieces.

Thanks for the post (even if it was excessively redundant to what you have posted in the past). I was hoping for dialogue rather than a search.

If I recall, you said you climb most frequently on doubles ropes. What, if anything, changes with the configuration you've posted if you are on doubles?

I do what Jim said, which is exactly as in the shot I posted, except that knot #4 is made with the second rope.

Also, if you aren't a power point believer, you can skip the power point and use the rope tie-in loop for that purpose.


LostinMaine


Jul 7, 2012, 10:49 AM
Post #10 of 127 (12949 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

acorneau wrote:
My favorite way is almost exactly what you have pictured, except in opposite order...

I clove myself in to the first piece (the right piece in your picture), bowline on a bight to the second and third, clove the end of that back to my belay loop, master point is the same as in your picture.

It's quicker for the team if you can clove in to a bomber piece and go off belay, that way you can continue to construct the rest of the anchor while your belayer is doing stuff on his/her end of things.

Cool

I used to do that as well, until my bomber first piece wasn't as bomber as I thought. Though I was on a decent ledge, it still shook me up a bit (having called off belay already but only in a single piece that didn't hold so well). Yep, it should have been bomber before I trusted it, but at times it can be deceiving. The rock broke, in this case.

Since then, I have always tied the bowline on a bight first. I'm not convinced it slows me down enough to consider going back.


guangzhou


Jul 7, 2012, 8:24 PM
Post #11 of 127 (12890 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

LostinMaine wrote:
acorneau wrote:
My favorite way is almost exactly what you have pictured, except in opposite order...

I clove myself in to the first piece (the right piece in your picture), bowline on a bight to the second and third, clove the end of that back to my belay loop, master point is the same as in your picture.

It's quicker for the team if you can clove in to a bomber piece and go off belay, that way you can continue to construct the rest of the anchor while your belayer is doing stuff on his/her end of things.

Cool

I used to do that as well, until my bomber first piece wasn't as bomber as I thought. Though I was on a decent ledge, it still shook me up a bit (having called off belay already but only in a single piece that didn't hold so well). Yep, it should have been bomber before I trusted it, but at times it can be deceiving. The rock broke, in this case.

Since then, I have always tied the bowline on a bight first. I'm not convinced it slows me down enough to consider going back.

It's what I do, but I don't call "Off belay until the entire belay station is completed.


Partner cracklover


Jul 9, 2012, 9:41 AM
Post #12 of 127 (12779 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9979

Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The OP said he was interested in starting a discussion. I'd be interested also. I'd love to hear the arguments for or against one method over another. I'm particularly interested in things that someone might not notice the first time setting up the method, but something you've learned over time and with use.

Those of you who use one of these methods - can you elucidate specific benefits that you do not see in the other two methods?

And also, those of you who use one method regularly, is there anything you've found from experience is either annoying, or you've realized could potentially be a problem?

I feel that some degree of organization is required to get the ball rolling, so let me propose the following.

It sounds to me like there are three methods that have been proposed here, with each one most likely having many variations. I'll lay them out and give them provisional names.

1 - Bowline on a bight plus clove:


2 - The Bazillianchor:


3 - Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x:


I'll start.

  • From my understanding of them, all three do an adequate job of dividing the forces between three pieces. All three anchors will, in an average case, put half the force on one of the pieces, and split the remaining load on the other two pieces. None attempt to split the load evenly between all three pieces. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just worth noting.


  • All three incorporate clove hitches on the anchor points. This should allow for a little bit of self-correction for imperfectly "equalized" legs in the event of a very heavy load on the anchor.



  • Number of knots/cloves:

    1. Bowline on a bight plus clove: Two knots and one clove hitch.

    2. The Bazillianchor: One or two knots, and four clove hitches.

    3. Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x: Two knots and one clove hitch.


    It seems to me that of the three, the Bazillianchor would require more time than the other two for setup and breakdown, due to the number of knots and cloves.

    A few benefits I see to my method owing to the fact that the figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x is the only one of the three that incorporates any dynamic equalization.

  • It might provide slightly better equalization between the two shared pieces than the other methods in all generic cases when the leader doesn't get the cloves perfectly equalized.


  • It could provide significantly better equalization if a load were to come unexpectedly from one side. Both other anchor methods would always feel the entire force on only one piece: the outer piece opposite the direction of load. The fig-8 on a bight plus sliding-x, however, in the same situation, could distribute forces between the middle and outer pieces.


  • If the piece feeling half the load on any of the three anchor methods were to fail, the method incorporating the sliding x would most likely do the best in distributing the load equally between the two remaining pieces, making further cascade failure less likely.


  • And a few (minor?) negatives:
  • It does absorb a single biner and a sling from the rack.


  • If the sling is cut, and no limiter knots had been tied in it, the anchor now only has one piece.


  • And one last thing I'll add. If you use my method, make sure to tie your redirection/powerpoint knot first. If you try to tie it after doing everything else, you may discover that you don't have enough rope, or it moves you from the stance you wanted to use to belay.

    Sorry this post got so long. Just wanted to put everything out in one place. Feel free to just address one point at a time.

    GO


    Partner rgold


    Jul 9, 2012, 12:41 PM
    Post #13 of 127 (12732 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
    Can't Post

    cracklover wrote:

  • From my understanding of them, all three do an adequate job of dividing the forces between three pieces. All three anchors will, in an average case, put half the force on one of the pieces, and split the remaining load on the other two pieces. None attempt to split the load evenly between all three pieces. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just worth noting.

  • The now-named bazillion anchor does attempt to equalize all pieces, and unlike the others does not start from a baseline in which half the load goes to one piece.

    In reply to:
  • The Bazillianchor: One or two knots, and four clove hitches.

  • That second knot is just an illustration of something that might be done with the slack rope, so for comparison purposes you should say one knot if a power point is desired or else no knots if the biner at position 3 in the diagram is clipped to the tie-in knot loop. But, as indicated in the diagram, if you want to engage the entire anchor while escaping the belay, then you'll need another biner and another clove hitch.

    In reply to:
    It seems to me that of the three, the Bazillianchor would require more time than the other two for setup and breakdown, due to the number of knots and cloves.

    Maybe in some cases, but you are talking about seconds, not enough to make a difference even on a twenty-pitch route, and I'm not even sure you are right, since the other methods have knots that have to be adjusted---one or two-looped figure-8's on a bight---and these take longer to get right than clove hitches, and can be harder to untie if they've been weighted.

    In other cases, when that first anchor is remote and not near where the belayer wants to be situated, the eight on a bight knots make it harder to get adjustment right and will likely either consume more time than the cloves or else oblige the belayer to settle for a less optimal configuration.

    In reply to:
    A few benefits I see to my method owing to the fact that the figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x is the only one of the three that incorporates any dynamic equalization.

  • It might provide slightly better equalization between the two shared pieces than the other methods in all generic cases when the leader doesn't get the cloves perfectly equalized.


  • It could provide significantly better equalization if a load were to come unexpectedly from one side. Both other anchor methods would always feel the entire force on only one piece: the outer piece opposite the direction of load. The fig-8 on a bight plus sliding-x, however, in the same situation, could distribute forces between the middle and outer pieces.


  • If the piece feeling half the load on any of the three anchor methods were to fail, the method incorporating the sliding x would most likely do the best in distributing the load equally between the two remaining pieces, making further cascade failure less likely.

  • All of these are suppositions that might be true, but also might not. The more "dynamic equalization" systems are tested, the less evidence there is that they work at all.

    In reply to:
    And a few (minor?) negatives...

    The Bazillion anchor is the only one that adapt to anything that happens in the field. The other two both require that two of the three pieces be very close together.

    The double figure-eight/clove hitch seems the least versatile. What happens if you have to place all three anchors essentially at belay-ledge level, for example? It also seems to have inferior behavior in a factor-2 fall situation, since the belayer is only directly anchored to two pieces, and, although the rope can be redirected through the power point, the rigging makes it possible that the power point could be too low to be loaded in some cases, not to mention the potential problems caused by possible collision of the belay device and belayer's hand with the power point.

    All that said, they'll all work in most situations most of the time, so whatever floats yer boat applies.


    wivanoff


    Jul 9, 2012, 5:34 PM
    Post #14 of 127 (12688 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 23, 2007
    Posts: 144

    Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    You guys should add a few more photos and get this thread pinned - as there seems to be a resurgence of interest in anchoring with just the rope. Great information consolidated here in one place. A fine contrast to the multitude of 'lette threads.

    Cracklover: you missed Bearbreaders two methods and tying in with double ropes. Maybe I (or anyone else) can take some photos and post them.


    MFC


    Jul 9, 2012, 6:25 PM
    Post #15 of 127 (12680 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jul 17, 2010
    Posts: 19

    Re: [wivanoff] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    I am enjoying this discussion and look forward to more contributions/thoughts.

    Perhaps an easy way for people to transition to using the rope to construct belay anchors is to show them how to use the climbing rope to connect the pro in a webolette/cordalette manner (something most are already used to).

    For instance in a typical 3 piece horizontal set up, using the climbing rope, clove hitch into the left most piece leaving enough slack for later tying into the final masterpoint. Clip the rope into the second (central) piece of pro and leaving sufficient length clove hitch the rope into the third (right most piece).

    Collect the strands between the pieces and tie a master point as when using a cordalette. Connect yourself to this masterpoint with the slack from the first (left most) piece.

    This isn't always the best setup depending on the belay stance/pro but it is just another "tool in your bag."


    bearbreeder


    Jul 9, 2012, 9:26 PM
    Post #16 of 127 (12648 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [MFC] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    ^^^^ my point exactly ... KISS ... many will use the rope as something they do infrequently ... KISSing insures they dont fumble when they are cold, tired, hungry, 15 pitches up in the dark ...

    the belayer can also clove in to the masterpoint should they wish ...

    any decent method should work well enough ... just like cord and slings and even GASP those metolliius 50$ anchor chains ... its all preference


    JimTitt


    Jul 9, 2012, 11:11 PM
    Post #17 of 127 (12628 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cracklover wrote:

  • From my understanding of them, all three do an adequate job of dividing the forces between three pieces. All three anchors will, in an average case, put half the force on one of the pieces, and split the remaining load on the other two pieces. None attempt to split the load evenly between all three pieces. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just worth noting.


  • The more traditional method of up to one piece, across to the next, down to the belayer and back up to the third piece (if you are on a single rope) does of course attempt to equalise the force.

  • It could provide significantly better equalization if a load were to come unexpectedly from one side. Both other anchor methods would always feel the entire force on only one piece: the outer piece opposite the direction of load. The fig-8 on a bight plus sliding-x, however, in the same situation, could distribute forces between the middle and outer pieces.


  • You have to appreciate that when the load shifts to one side all the force doesn´t come directly on one piece. The force on outer piece rises as the load angle changes until the connection to the other piece becomes slack, in a 90° included angle setup this is when the load is at 45° to the side for example. While narrow angles are considered desirable for strength reasons they are less forgiving of load angle shift.
    The friction in the sliding X means that it stays as a fixed system until the friction is overcome which for a 90° internal angle anchor you need a load angle shift of about 15° before there is any difference between the two systems. How this load angle change would occur is not clear.

  • If the piece feeling half the load on any of the three anchor methods were to fail, the method incorporating the sliding x would most likely do the best in distributing the load equally between the two remaining pieces, making further cascade failure less likely.


  • However this is a selective case since you decided which piece would fail, if you randomly select a piece to fail you have a 2 in 3 chance the failed sliding X makes the situation worse. Since the objective in building belays is generally not to achieve the optimum solution for one case but to get the best solution for most or all cases then the X is clearly not desirable.

    I don´t understand the reason for building a power-point into the belay, the belayers tie-in/belay loop is the focal point for the loads in multi-pitch trad climbing unless the belay points are of unquestionable strength in which case any methor of tying to them is acceptable. If escapingthe system is nescessary there are other ways of doing this.


    notapplicable


    Jul 10, 2012, 9:58 AM
    Post #18 of 127 (12548 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    JimTitt wrote:
    cracklover wrote:
    If the piece feeling half the load on any of the three anchor methods were to fail, the method incorporating the sliding x would most likely do the best in distributing the load equally between the two remaining pieces, making further cascade failure less likely

    However this is a selective case since you decided which piece would fail, if you randomly select a piece to fail you have a 2 in 3 chance the failed sliding X makes the situation worse. Since the objective in building belays is generally not to achieve the optimum solution for one case but to get the best solution for most or all cases then the X is clearly not desirable.

    Nothing to add here, just wanted to quote for emphasis. I have personally always felt that using a sliding-X (especially without limiter knots) in the construction of an anchor is more than just undesirable, it's sketchy. Mostly because I think lack of extension in the event of a placement failing is more important than maximizing equalization in an attempt to prevent placement failure.


    JimTitt wrote:
    I don´t understand the reason for building a power-point into the belay, the belayers tie-in/belay loop is the focal point for the loads in multi-pitch trad climbing unless the belay points are of unquestionable strength in which case any methor of tying to them is acceptable. If escapingthe system is nescessary there are other ways of doing this.

    I incorporate a masterpoint in my anchor most of the time so that my attachment to the anchor is easily adjustable without altering the anchors construction. I may, for example, want to be seated while belaying my second and then stand while belaying their lead on the next pitch. All I have to do is adjust a single clove hitch to achieve this.

    I'm not working today, so I will go take some pictures of what I use most frequently as a 3 point gear anchor.

    edited for grammar


    (This post was edited by notapplicable on Jul 10, 2012, 9:59 AM)


    notapplicable


    Jul 10, 2012, 11:25 AM
    Post #19 of 127 (12521 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [notapplicable] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Sorry the pictures are so small. The hammer is the belayer in all pictures and only clove hitches are used to construct the anchors.

    I never liked the bulk and lack of versatility of a cordelett and abandoned it after a few months of use. I mostly used the anchor below during my first 3+ years of climbing. I have no idea if other people use it but I just made it up in the field so I could build with the rope. Major disadvantages are that the middle strands are cumbersome to adjust (it may be hard to see but there is not clove hitch at the middle "gear placement" biner) and it uses more rope



    I think it was about 4 years ago that I saw rgolds rope anchor and made some modifications to my own based on his design. It solves the middle strand adjustability problem and uses less rope but retains the 3 piece masterpoint (advantage over the Bowline plus clove) and still allows the belayer to easily adjust how far from the masterpoint they are anchored (advantage over all three anchors posted so far). It also only uses clove hitches which are very easy to untie after being weighted (advantage over any system that ties overhand or figure-8 knots that will be weighted).

    If anyone is concerned with how the upper basket of the masterpoint locking biner will be weighted in the event of a Factor 2 fall, you can use separate lockers for each clove hitch coming down from the gear placements and clove them together at the bottom with the belayers rope.



    I sometimes use the same system for vertically oriented placements but leave slack in the rope attached to the bottom two pieces so they will end up roughly equalized once fully weighted. Some times I clove in sequence.

    I use the system picture below for two bolt anchors. The lower biner on the right serves as a redirect and something for the second to clove in to while the gear swap is conducted.




    (This post was edited by notapplicable on Jul 10, 2012, 11:39 AM)


    JimTitt


    Jul 10, 2012, 12:49 PM
    Post #20 of 127 (12492 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [notapplicable] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    The second one is good to go, that´s the sort-of usual traditional way to do it but with the powerpoint/adjustable length/escape issue neatly worked out.
    Have a prize!


    Partner rgold


    Jul 10, 2012, 1:06 PM
    Post #21 of 127 (12484 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    I agree with Jim about the power point; I put it in my diagram mostly so I wouldn't have to argue about it not being there. I rarely tie it.

    But I think Jim must be nearly as out of fashion as I am, because nowadays an awful lot of people are using guide-type ATC's to belay the second off a power point. I do not do this as a matter of course, but sometimes, when there are two followers following simultaneously, I'll go over to the dark side and tie the power point so as to do the guide belay.

    It is true that escaping the belay is easier with a tied power point in place; you'll probably need some extra slings otherwise. Given that the need for such escapes is almost vanishingly small, this really isn't much of an issue.


    climbinANF


    Jul 10, 2012, 1:23 PM
    Post #22 of 127 (12474 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jul 2, 2009
    Posts: 3

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    I don't want to change the course of this thread but was wondering how one would best incorporate a piece for upward pull into one of these anchor schemes? Is it just not necessary?


    Partner rgold


    Jul 10, 2012, 1:58 PM
    Post #23 of 127 (12463 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [climbinANF] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    In the Bazillion anchor, take the strand hanging off the last-clipped piece, clove it back to the power point, and then run it down and clove it to the upward directional.


    notapplicable


    Jul 10, 2012, 8:25 PM
    Post #24 of 127 (12398 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    JimTitt wrote:
    The second one is good to go, that´s the sort-of usual traditional way to do it but with the powerpoint/adjustable length/escape issue neatly worked out.
    Have a prize!

    WOO!! I'll take the pink giraffe with the funny hat!


    notapplicable


    Jul 10, 2012, 8:36 PM
    Post #25 of 127 (12393 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    I agree with Jim about the power point; I put it in my diagram mostly so I wouldn't have to argue about it not being there. I rarely tie it.

    Just curious. If you don't usually tie the butterfly knot in that way, how do you incorporate/equalize the left most strand in to the anchor?


    Partner rgold


    Jul 10, 2012, 9:19 PM
    Post #26 of 127 (3910 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [notapplicable] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    notapplicable wrote:
    rgold wrote:
    I agree with Jim about the power point; I put it in my diagram mostly so I wouldn't have to argue about it not being there. I rarely tie it.

    Just curious. If you don't usually tie the butterfly knot in that way, how do you incorporate/equalize the left most strand in to the anchor?

    I use the loop of my tie-in knot instead of the butterfly knot power point. Everything else is the same.


    notapplicable


    Jul 10, 2012, 9:40 PM
    Post #27 of 127 (3907 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    notapplicable wrote:
    rgold wrote:
    I agree with Jim about the power point; I put it in my diagram mostly so I wouldn't have to argue about it not being there. I rarely tie it.

    Just curious. If you don't usually tie the butterfly knot in that way, how do you incorporate/equalize the left most strand in to the anchor?

    I use the loop of my tie-in knot instead of the butterfly knot power point. Everything else is the same.

    Nice. Very efficient.

    Thanks for sharing your system by the way. I was never completely happy with mine until yours inspired that little change. It seems so obvious now but it just never occurred to me.


    acorneau


    Jul 11, 2012, 6:05 AM
    Post #28 of 127 (3879 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 6, 2008
    Posts: 2889

    Re: Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Here's another method of creating an anchor with the rope...


    http://climbinglife.com/...mbing-rope-3-57.html


    For me, my method is like the OP's picture but with the free end cloved to my belay loop. When belaying a second I usually use a Münter on the master point. If the second is then going to lead the master point becomes the first redirect with the belay device on my harness.


    It seems like while everyone might have their preference on their variation of the anchor in reality they are all just that, variations on the same concept.


    (This post was edited by acorneau on Jul 11, 2012, 6:07 AM)


    Gmburns2000


    Jul 11, 2012, 7:33 AM
    Post #29 of 127 (3862 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 6, 2007
    Posts: 15113

    Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    acorneau wrote:
    Here's another method of creating an anchor with the rope...


    http://climbinglife.com/...mbing-rope-3-57.html


    For me, my method is like the OP's picture but with the free end cloved to my belay loop. When belaying a second I usually use a Münter on the master point. If the second is then going to lead the master point becomes the first redirect with the belay device on my harness.


    It seems like while everyone might have their preference on their variation of the anchor in reality they are all just that, variations on the same concept.

    That's pretty simple. I wonder how easy it would be to make that powerpoint higher up.


    wivanoff


    Jul 11, 2012, 7:55 AM
    Post #30 of 127 (3854 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 23, 2007
    Posts: 144

    Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    acorneau wrote:
    Here's another method of creating an anchor with the rope...

    http://climbinglife.com/...mbing-rope-3-57.html

    Some differences were addressed here: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2351839#2351839


    Partner rgold


    Jul 11, 2012, 8:25 AM
    Post #31 of 127 (3845 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    acorneau wrote:
    Here's another method of creating an anchor with the rope...

    http://climbinglife.com/...mbing-rope-3-57.html

    It seems like while everyone might have their preference on their variation of the anchor in reality they are all just that, variations on the same concept.

    The systems that use sliding x's and bunny ears and start off with 50% of the load on one piece are definitely not the same concept. Whether you like them better or worse than the type of anchor I posted is a matter of personal preference, but they are, as noted above, less adaptable.

    I agree that the remaining systems are all variations, but that doesn't make them equivalent. My interest is in something quick, simple, and fully adaptable. You should be able to do essentially the same thing no matter how many pieces in your anchor and how they are situated. In this regard, I think the Bazillion method is the best of the variations posted, but it is my system (*), so I would say that, right?

    Compared to notapplicable's method. I get the power point in exactly the position I want it in by a combination of where the butterfly is tied and how the first clove hitch is installed. I've never ever had any need to adjust the position of the power point after that, so the extra loop of slack in NA's system just isn't needed, at least for me.

    Compared to Eli Hemuth's method. He's a great guide and climber, but, in my opinion, his method fails at several efficiency and adaptability criteria.

    By essentially creating, with the rope, a separately rigged power point, he saddles himself with two equalizing tasks, not one. It is peculiar in the video that he spends time getting his tie-in arms properly tensioned, but does not give anything like the same attention to the power point connections, which after all are more likely to be loaded heavily. Perhaps part of the reason is that his power point is created the same way a cordelette power point is, with an overhand or figure-eight knot, which introduces all the adjustment disadvantages and uncertainties of the cordelette method. (He can't adjust arm tension to the power point via the clove hitches without altering the adjustments to his tie-in---he has to use the overhand knot for those adjustments.)

    Other disadvantages of his system are the need to guesstimate how much of a slack loop to leave and a reduced amount of control over the location of the power point relative to his body. Moreover, the system he uses is easiest to deploy when the pieces are vertically aligned, is much more awkward for widely-spaced horizontally aligned pieces, adapts very poorly to four pieces if that need arises, and uses considerably more rope.

    There is another advantage of the Bazillion anchor---with its power point---over the Helmuth rigging that I ought to have mentioned in connection with Jim's question about why bother with power points. If the belayer wants or needs to be a long way from the anchor points, the use of the power point in the Bazillion anchor saves a substantial amount of rope, since the rigging can be kept close to the anchor and only one long strand run to the belayer, rather than running three long strands as you have to do without the power point and with the Helmuth system.
    __________
    (*) When I say "my system," I'm referring to the fact that it is the one I use much of the time. For quality vertically-aligned pieces, I'll often just clove hitch them in series and be done with it. Moreover, although I eventually arrived at this method on my own, it is clear that many other climbers have had the same thoughts, and I make no claims to having "discovered" anything---these methods have been known for years.


    bearbreeder


    Jul 11, 2012, 8:59 AM
    Post #32 of 127 (3832 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    i like this ... havent seen it that way before ... ill have to give it a whirl next time

    what people use is up to them ... there are many ways to skin kitty kats ... "better" is always a loaded and relative term

    Tongue


    JimTitt


    Jul 11, 2012, 10:45 AM
    Post #33 of 127 (3798 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    I agree with Jim about the power point; I put it in my diagram mostly so I wouldn't have to argue about it not being there. I rarely tie it.

    But I think Jim must be nearly as out of fashion as I am, because nowadays an awful lot of people are using guide-type ATC's to belay the second off a power point. I do not do this as a matter of course, but sometimes, when there are two followers following simultaneously, I'll go over to the dark side and tie the power point so as to do the guide belay.

    It is true that escaping the belay is easier with a tied power point in place; you'll probably need some extra slings otherwise. Given that the need for such escapes is almost vanishingly small, this really isn't much of an issue.

    I´ve only used a guide plate once and that was on a bolted belay anyway, a ghastly idea! Nowadays on a bolt belay I´d be on a Munter directly into the bolt or possibly Grigri if it was multi-pitch sport.
    I last climbed with 3 on two ropes in about 1971! If it´s hard then I don´t climb as a 3 as it´s too slow and if its easy then 2 seconds on one rope and a tether, typically dodgy Italian style!


    moose_droppings


    Jul 11, 2012, 2:07 PM
    Post #34 of 127 (3764 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 7, 2005
    Posts: 3348

    Re: [notapplicable] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    notapplicable wrote:


    This is what I use most of the time. It goes up so fluidly like this and falls in to order so naturally. Kind of figured it would of been the first one posted.

    Also, I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but, if your leading in blocks or the pitch is as long as your rope, your going to have to improvise an anchor with some slings or a cordellette and not your rope. Unless you swap rope ends and I'm not into that.


    notapplicable


    Jul 11, 2012, 7:43 PM
    Post #35 of 127 (3722 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    Compared to notapplicable's method. I get the power point in exactly the position I want it in by a combination of where the butterfly is tied and how the first clove hitch is installed. I've never ever had any need to adjust the position of the power point after that, so the extra loop of slack in NA's system just isn't needed, at least for me.

    Glad you brought that up because I forgot to mention one (what I consider to be advantageous) feature of my system. If you are inclined to either redirect or belay off of the master point, that master point/redirect can be as adjustable as the belayers attachment.

    You can create a "secondary" masterpoint by either cloveing a biner to the free end of the rope opposite the strand anchoring the belayer to the "primary" masterpoint or, if you have used most of your available slack to reach a more comfortable stance below the anchor, you can clove a biner at any point in the rope between the belayer and the "primary" masterpoint.

    I personally don't own a device with a "guide mode" but I do like to redirect if I'm sitting down while belaying the second and lot of other folks do like to belay off the master point. For those reasons, I think the versatility/adjustability of my system more than makes up for the few extra seconds and feet of rope it takes to rig.


    (This post was edited by notapplicable on Jul 11, 2012, 9:21 PM)


    Partner rgold


    Jul 11, 2012, 9:15 PM
    Post #36 of 127 (3707 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [notapplicable] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Well, I still don't get it, but whatever.

    A question: in what order to you clove into the three anchor biners (number them left to right as 1,2,3)?


    notapplicable


    Jul 11, 2012, 10:04 PM
    Post #37 of 127 (3692 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    Well, I still don't get it, but whatever.

    A question: in what order to you clove into the three anchor biners (number them left to right as 1,2,3)?

    Mostly, I'm just lazy. Sometimes I like to sit while bringing up the second (assuming the stance permits it) but I always stand while they lead. The adjustability allows for that.

    I tie the first 4 in the same order you do. #5 equalizes the belayers strand to the master point and #6 attaches the belayer to the master point. I usually tie the last two in opposite fashion to prevent rope twist.


    Partner rgold


    Jul 11, 2012, 10:37 PM
    Post #38 of 127 (3686 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [notapplicable] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Oh, sitting and standing---I get it.

    Next question: I don't think I understand what you mean by the "same order" I use. In your picture, are you successively cloving the anchor biners left to right or right to left? Put another way, where does the very first clove go, on an anchor point or on the power point biner?

    It sounds as if you are saying right to left, with the first clove on the rightmost anchor point in your picture. The arrangement of knots on the master point biner also suggests this. If that is the case, then how do you know how much slack to leave in the rope when you are installing the first clove hitch on that rightmost anchor point?


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 12, 2012, 9:04 AM
    Post #39 of 127 (3647 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    Oh, sitting and standing---I get it.

    Next question: I don't think I understand what you mean by the "same order" I use. In your picture, are you successively cloving the anchor biners left to right or right to left? Put another way, where does the very first clove go, on an anchor point or on the power point biner?

    It sounds as if you are saying right to left, with the first clove on the rightmost anchor point in your picture. The arrangement of knots on the master point biner also suggests this. If that is the case, then how do you know how much slack to leave in the rope when you are installing the first clove hitch on that rightmost anchor point?

    No, I think what he's saying is the following (correct me if I'm wrong NA).



    BTW, sorry I haven't had time to respond to anything from page 1 yet. Been too busy.

    GO


    moose_droppings


    Jul 12, 2012, 9:22 AM
    Post #40 of 127 (3643 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 7, 2005
    Posts: 3348

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cracklover wrote:



    I don't want to speak for NA either but the way I tie it is:
    First I CH the left piece with plenty of slack to myself, then CH to where I want the PP to be. Then I clove CH myself to the power point. From there I tie it all together by CH the middle piece, come down to PP and CH and back to the third piece for the last CH.

    In CL's picture it would be in this order;
    1, 5, 6, 2, 3, 4.


    (This post was edited by moose_droppings on Jul 12, 2012, 9:23 AM)


    wivanoff


    Jul 12, 2012, 9:53 AM
    Post #41 of 127 (3631 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 23, 2007
    Posts: 144

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cracklover wrote:
    No, I think what he's saying is the following (correct me if I'm wrong NA).

    [image]http://i48.tinypic.com/ekixs0.jpg[/image]

    If you're going to do this, 1,2,3,5,4,6 makes most sense to me <shrug>
    I like the Bazillion. But, mostly I lead multi-pitch on two ropes - so different setup.


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 12, 2012, 1:02 PM
    Post #42 of 127 (3605 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    The now-named bazillion anchor does attempt to equalize all pieces, and unlike the others does not start from a baseline in which half the load goes to one piece.

    I think I see that now. The physics is not immediately obvious to me, so let me see if I have it.

    At first glance it appears that at the butterfly knot half the force goes to the right, and half to the left. That's why I thought the left-side piece got half the force. But if the two strands that make up the bight of rope coming out of the butterfly to the right are each thought of independently, then you get three strands coming out of the butterfly, each taking (roughly) equal force. Is that the way you see it? If so, then I agree - in a perfect situation, each of the three pieces will feel similar forces.

    In reply to:
  • The Bazillianchor: One or two knots, and four clove hitches.

  • That second knot is just an illustration of something that might be done with the slack rope, so for comparison purposes you should say one knot if a power point is desired or else no knots if the biner at position 3 in the diagram is clipped to the tie-in knot loop. But, as indicated in the diagram, if you want to engage the entire anchor while escaping the belay, then you'll need another biner and another clove hitch.

    This really doesn't solve a belay-escape, unless the climber wants to get out completely. More often, I want to get out, but remain tied in. For example, if it turns out I'm leading the next pitch. More on that in another post.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    It seems to me that of the three, the Bazillianchor would require more time than the other two for setup and breakdown, due to the number of knots and cloves.

    Maybe in some cases, but you are talking about seconds, not enough to make a difference even on a twenty-pitch route, and I'm not even sure you are right, since the other methods have knots that have to be adjusted---one or two-looped figure-8's on a bight---and these take longer to get right than clove hitches, and can be harder to untie if they've been weighted.

    It may indeed be only seconds of difference. I've not had enough experience in the field with the Bazillianchor to know. But to address your concern - IME the single fig-8 knot in the fig-8 plus sliding-x anchor has never gotten sufficiently tight to be difficult to untie.

    In reply to:
    In other cases, when that first anchor is remote and not near where the belayer wants to be situated, the eight on a bight knots make it harder to get adjustment right and will likely either consume more time than the cloves or else oblige the belayer to settle for a less optimal configuration.

    I don't understand where this concern comes from. Tying that first Fig-8-on-a-bight knot on the anchor I posted is no more or less complicated to get the length right than the first clove on yours. It's simply the distance to the piece, plus about six to eight inches for the rope the knot will use up.

    Putting aside the question of whether a clove or an eight is harder to get the right length, both the Bazillion and the Eight-on-a-bight-plus-crossed-sling require you to equalize two strands potentially far from your stance. The Notapplicable anchor, if I've correctly pictured the order in which the cloves are tied here...



    ... only requires one clove be tied at the correct distance - #4. All other strands are equalized at the belayer biner. This is a very nice benefit, IMO.

    In reply to:
    The Bazillion anchor is the only one that adapt to anything that happens in the field. The other two both require that two of the three pieces be very close together.

    That is more or less true. I wouldn't use the method I showed where all three pieces are quite far from each other. To be honest, though, I have yet to build an anchor where two of the pieces did not happen to be within three or four feet of each other. When the two pieces that are closest to each other are more than a couple feet away from each other, I extend the higher one with a sling.

    In reply to:
    The double figure-eight/clove hitch seems the least versatile. What happens if you have to place all three anchors essentially at belay-ledge level, for example?


    I'm confused about which anchor you're referring to. Do you mean the Bowline on a bight plus clove, or the Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x? I'm going to assume you mean the former. But if you mean the latter, this seems to me a rather trivial objection. I measured how much shorter the smallest bazillianchor can get compared to the one incorporating a crossed-sling. Answer: The length of the shorter arm of the crossed sling. So, typically, 3 to 9 inches. I can't see how that makes it "less versatile", unless you're literally sitting on the gear.

    In reply to:
    It also seems to have inferior behavior in a factor-2 fall situation, since the belayer is only directly anchored to two pieces, and, although the rope can be redirected through the power point, the rigging makes it possible that the power point could be too low to be loaded in some cases, not to mention the potential problems caused by possible collision of the belay device and belayer's hand with the power point.

    If you're referring to the Bowline on a bight plus clove, these seem like fair and potentially serious points.

    GO


    ninepointeight


    Jul 12, 2012, 1:37 PM
    Post #43 of 127 (3595 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 14, 2012
    Posts: 102

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    If you are anchoring with the rope, do you climb with a 70m? I'm picturing a scenario in which you get off course and run out of rope and there is not enough slack at the belay for you to build an anchor. Do you tie a knot 5m or so from the end of the rope before climbing to prevent that?


    moose_droppings


    Jul 12, 2012, 2:06 PM
    Post #44 of 127 (3588 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 7, 2005
    Posts: 3348

    Re: [wivanoff] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    wivanoff wrote:

    If you're going to do this, 1,2,3,5,4,6 makes most sense to me <shrug>
    I like the Bazillion. But, mostly I lead multi-pitch on two ropes - so different setup.

    The reason I've come to tying it 1, 5, 6, 2, 3, 4, is so I can get myself anchored as quickly as possible. Once anchored to the wall I can place my other two pieces and tie them in without having to guess how much rope I'm going to need.

    Before going to this I would anchor into my 1st piece, then after placing the next 2 pieces I'd CH the middle and down to a biner off my tie in loop and back up to the 3rd piece. Yes, there was a small chance of ring loading my tie in loop, I survived. After doing this enough I got tired of not being able to adjust my position at the belay for different reasons and with a little work at home, safely on the ground, came up with this simple add on to make my position adjustable. The anchoring in first was just a carry over of habit.


    moose_droppings


    Jul 12, 2012, 2:14 PM
    Post #45 of 127 (3585 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 7, 2005
    Posts: 3348

    Re: [ninepointeight] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    ninepointeight wrote:
    If you are anchoring with the rope, do you climb with a 70m? I'm picturing a scenario in which you get off course and run out of rope and there is not enough slack at the belay for you to build an anchor. Do you tie a knot 5m or so from the end of the rope before climbing to prevent that?

    If you don't have enough rope your going to have to make up an anchor out of slings or cordellette. you could also down climb (if it's an option) to a different place to belay and then use your rope. As I mentioned earlier, using the rope for anchoring isn't the best way if your leading in blocks. You can disconnect from the system and swap ends, but I try to never do that if possible.


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 12, 2012, 3:00 PM
    Post #46 of 127 (3573 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    JimTitt wrote:
    In reply to:
  • If the piece feeling half the load on any of the three anchor methods were to fail, the method incorporating the sliding x would most likely do the best in distributing the load equally between the two remaining pieces, making further cascade failure less likely.

  • However this is a selective case since you decided which piece would fail, if you randomly select a piece to fail you have a 2 in 3 chance the failed sliding X makes the situation worse. Since the objective in building belays is generally not to achieve the optimum solution for one case but to get the best solution for most or all cases then the X is clearly not desirable.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "makes the situation worse".

    The point you raise is a key one though: What happens if a piece pulls. So it's worth drilling down into the question a lot further.

    Let's take the four anchor methods.

    1 - Bowline on a bight plus clove:
    --------------------------------------


    There is a 1/3 chance that the piece that pulls is the middle one. If this happens, you still have good equalization.

    There is a 1/3 chance that the piece pictured on the right pulls. If this happens, again, you still have excellent equalization!

    The one remaining piece: If this piece pulls, you will likely still have reasonably good equalization.

    So for this anchor, any of the pieces pulling will likely result in good to excellent equalization between the remaining two pieces.

    2 - Bazillianchor:
    ----------------------


    There is a 1/3 chance that the piece that pulls is the middle one. If this happens, you still have perfect equalization. Yay!

    There is a 2/3 chance the piece that pulls will be an outer one. If the pieces are spread out horizontally (for example your 90 degree angle scenario) then most of the force will go onto the middle piece. The two will be very poorly equalized, but both will probably get some force.

    So for this method, there is a 2/3 chance that a piece blowing will result in poor equalization between the two remaining pieces. 1/3 chance of excellent equalization.

    3 - Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x:
    -------------------------------------------


    There is a 1/3 chance that the piece that pulls will be the one pictured on the left. If this happens, you likely still have excellent equalization.

    There is a 2/3 chance that the piece that pulls is part of the sliding-x. If this happens, the sling extends to either the end or the limiter knot. Depending on the situation, you may still have quite good equalization, or you may have none, between the two remaining pieces. If you use limiter knots, you will still probably have excellent equalization between the two remaining pieces. If you don't, it depends on the specific anchor.

    So, for this anchor, there is a 2/3 chance that you will wind up with equalization that will anywhere from excellent to poor, depending on the specifics of the construction and the angles. 1/3 chance of excellent equalization between the two remaining pieces.

    4 - Notapplicable Anchor:
    -------------------------


    Same as the bazillianchor.

    So, of the four, I'd rank the bowline on a bight plus clove as clear winner.

    If limiter knots are used, the Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x is clearly a second-place finisher, with the other two taking third.

    Otherwise, I'd say all three tie for second place, depending on the specifics of the angles and distances in the anchor.

    GO


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 12, 2012, 3:16 PM
    Post #47 of 127 (3563 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [moose_droppings] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    moose_droppings wrote:
    As I mentioned earlier, using the rope for anchoring isn't the best way if your leading in blocks. You can disconnect from the system and swap ends, but I try to never do that if possible.

    You just put your finger on what, IMO, makes the Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x the most versatile method.

    In truth, it is not really in the same category as the other anchors here, because it's a hybrid anchor. It's partly built with the rope, and partly it's external.

    This comes in handy because I actually often have to "escape the belay" for completely mundane reasons - after building the anchor with my tie-in rope, I need to lead the next pitch. In such cases, it's very easy to switch out: the second just needs to tie the fig-8 on a bight and clove to the sliding-x. One knot and one clove hitch and we're good to go. Certainly not as easy as an anchor built completely external to the rope, but as I said, it's a hybrid.

    This comes up for me fairly often. A few cases:

    - The other member of your party arrives at the belay, looks up, gets snail-eye, and says "you mind leading the next pitch?"

    - You wind up either running some pitches together, or stopping at a different place than what you anticipated from the ground, and one of your party definitely wants to take a specific pitch or pitches.

    - One of your party tries a pitch and then comes back to the belay for one reason or another to switch out.

    For these or other reasons, it can be nice not to have to reconstruct the whole anchor (or untie from the ends) to switch who's leading.

    GO


    moose_droppings


    Jul 12, 2012, 4:37 PM
    Post #48 of 127 (3548 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 7, 2005
    Posts: 3348

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [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:
    The other member of your party arrives at the belay, looks up, gets snail-eye, and says "you mind leading the next pitch?"

    Been there.


    In reply to:
    One of your party tries a pitch and then comes back to the belay for one reason or another to switch out.

    That too.


    In reply to:
    For these or other reasons, it can be nice not to have to reconstruct the whole anchor (or untie from the ends) to switch who's leading.

    Makes sense.
    Thanks for pointing those out. It is handy having part of the anchor not made with the rope for those instances, which do happen from time to time.


    notapplicable


    Jul 12, 2012, 7:06 PM
    Post #49 of 127 (3530 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    Oh, sitting and standing---I get it.

    Next question: I don't think I understand what you mean by the "same order" I use. In your picture, are you successively cloving the anchor biners left to right or right to left? Put another way, where does the very first clove go, on an anchor point or on the power point biner?

    It sounds as if you are saying right to left, with the first clove on the rightmost anchor point in your picture. The arrangement of knots on the master point biner also suggests this. If that is the case, then how do you know how much slack to leave in the rope when you are installing the first clove hitch on that rightmost anchor point?

    Cracklover has it right in the picture below. #3 & #4 can easily be swapped in the sequence and ofter are, now that I think about it. If I'm gripped and at a poor stance, I'll tie it as Moose described so I can hang if need be. Breaking it down is also slightly more intuitive with the MP biner facing the other way. It's just a personal idiosyncrasy that I prefer to secure myself last under most circumstances.

    Like I said. This anchor has evolved with me over time and is tailored for my use. As I would imagine most everyones rope anchor is. IMO that versatility/adaptability is their biggest advantage over the ________elette alternatives.




    (This post was edited by notapplicable on Jul 12, 2012, 7:16 PM)


    acorneau


    Jul 12, 2012, 7:19 PM
    Post #50 of 127 (3525 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 6, 2008
    Posts: 2889

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cracklover wrote:

    In reply to:
    It also seems to have inferior behavior in a factor-2 fall situation, since the belayer is only directly anchored to two pieces, and, although the rope can be redirected through the power point, the rigging makes it possible that the power point could be too low to be loaded in some cases, not to mention the potential problems caused by possible collision of the belay device and belayer's hand with the power point.

    If you're referring to the Bowline on a bight plus clove, these seem like fair and potentially serious points.

    GO

    If you take the other side of the rope and clove it back to your belay loop like I do then the belayer is in all three pieces. Having the master point high enough is just a matter making it so (which is easy enough).

    You can also adjust your master point so that the two pieces on the BOAB is taking a little more of the weight and the single cloved piece is taking a little less (which is what I usually do).

    Again, circumstances dictate the best rigging.


    (This post was edited by acorneau on Jul 12, 2012, 7:24 PM)


    acorneau


    Jul 12, 2012, 7:41 PM
    Post #51 of 127 (6952 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 6, 2008
    Posts: 2889

    Re: Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    So let's discuss these systems if there is a large 10' ledge where the anchoring options are 10' back from the edge and the belayer wants to be seated at the edge. (A common scenario at one of my regular spots: Upper Mt. Scott, Wichitas, OK.)

    What I usually do is pull up enough slack so I can clove to the first piece and have enough slack to sit on the edge. Then I use the BOAB to go to pieces 2 and 3, and will clove that back to myself when seated at the edge. I'll then use that cloved biner as the belay biner for my belay device.

    This puts the weight mostly on the BOAB/#2/#3 pieces with piece #1 (cloved) sharing the load or nearly loaded. It takes two full-length runs of the rope between the edge and the pro 10 feet back, plus the rope for the knots.

    The Bazillion anchor would take 4 full 10' runs between the butterfly/master point and the pro and would be a PITA to get all three strands at the right length without a lot of futzing around.

    Cracklover's Fig-8+X system would only take two, the one "loaded" strand going to the belayer and one that isn't loaded at all.

    Thoughts on this type of scenario?


    (This post was edited by acorneau on Jul 12, 2012, 7:44 PM)


    Partner rgold


    Jul 12, 2012, 8:18 PM
    Post #52 of 127 (6942 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    acorneau wrote:
    The Bazillion anchor would take 4 full 10' runs between the butterfly/master point and the pro and would be a PITA to get all three strands at the right length without a lot of futzing around.

    No. You clip the first piece, adjust so you are in the remote position you want, and return to finish the clove. (You do have to know how to manage clove hitches for this.) Then you install the power point butterfly appropriately close (in terms of arm angles) to the anchor points, install all the other cloves with appropriate tension, and then walk back out to your belay position. The set-up looks exactly like the diagram, except that the strand going from the power point butterfly to the belayer is much longer.

    This does make the power point butterfly rather remote, which I guess could be a problem for those who use guide-plate belays---I'm not one of them. Such people can always clove a power point biner on the anchors strand closer to them if that's what they want.


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 13, 2012, 7:45 AM
    Post #53 of 127 (6906 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    acorneau wrote:
    So let's discuss these systems if there is a large 10' ledge where the anchoring options are 10' back from the edge and the belayer wants to be seated at the edge. (A common scenario at one of my regular spots: Upper Mt. Scott, Wichitas, OK.)

    Cracklover's Fig-8+X system would only take two, the one "loaded" strand going to the belayer and one that isn't loaded at all.

    Thoughts on this type of scenario?

    Mine takes only one run back from the edge to the gear. If I understand it correctly, yours takes also takes one. Only in yours both strands (both going from your harness and coming to it) are loaded. Is this correct?

    Fig-8-on-a-bight-plus-x-sling - long version:


    Acorneau long anchor:


    Certainly one strike against yours as you describe it, is that you've lost your power-point, if you care about such things.

    If you wanted a powerpoint you could incorporate the power-point from the bazillion anchor and then add a redirect/second power-point on the tie-in rope. It would look something like this:



    Incorporated in the anchor are a power-point on a biner, plus a second power-point/redirect near your harness where you can belay.

    GO


    acorneau


    Jul 13, 2012, 8:36 AM
    Post #54 of 127 (6895 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 6, 2008
    Posts: 2889

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cracklover wrote:
    Mine takes only one run back from the edge to the gear. If I understand it correctly, yours takes also takes one. Only in yours both strands (both going from your harness and coming to it) are loaded. Is this correct?

    Sort of...

    If you've led the climb, walk back to build your anchor and can make it back to the edge then the rope goes between the edge and the anchors twice: one end going to you (the leader) and one going back down to the belayer.


    In reply to:
    Certainly one strike against yours as you describe it, is that you've lost your power-point, if you care about such things.

    Yeah, it's not that hard to create a new one, as you show.


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 13, 2012, 8:54 AM
    Post #55 of 127 (6892 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    acorneau wrote:
    In reply to:
    Certainly one strike against yours as you describe it, is that you've lost your power-point, if you care about such things.

    Yeah, it's not that hard to create a new one, as you show.

    True, but now you're up to three knots and four clove hitches. One of the nice things about your system originally was its simplicity.

    GO


    Partner rgold


    Jul 13, 2012, 10:36 AM
    Post #56 of 127 (6873 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    The real answer to the question about extended anchors is that rope-only anchors will certainly work but are not the best way to rig belays when the belayer is going to be a long way from the anchor. For those situations, a cordelette or properly arranged slings is better.

    These arguments have a way of making everyone dogmatic as the minute details of each system are picked apart. But the real value of such discussions is to expand people's horizons about what they might do, since an increasing number of climbers nowadays only know how to rig anchors with a cordelette. This shouldn't be a "contest" to see whose method is "best," although after a while it starts to seem that way.

    Rope-only anchors aren't ideal for every situation any more than cordelettes are, and part of the point is that cordelettes have been way oversold. But rigging separate from the rope is sometimes a better approach---it's all about having options and choosing the most suitable one.


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 13, 2012, 11:50 AM
    Post #57 of 127 (6855 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    The real answer to the question about extended anchors is that rope-only anchors will certainly work but are not the best way to rig belays when the belayer is going to be a long way from the anchor. For those situations, a cordelette or properly arranged slings is better.

    Why so? It seems to me that most of these configurations would work fine, just at the end of a long tie-in rope.

    In reply to:
    These arguments have a way of making everyone dogmatic as the minute details of each system are picked apart. But the real value of such discussions is to expand people's horizons about what they might do, since an increasing number of climbers nowadays only know how to rig anchors with a cordelette. This shouldn't be a "contest" to see whose method is "best," although after a while it starts to seem that way.

    Rope-only anchors aren't ideal for every situation any more than cordelettes are, and part of the point is that cordelettes have been way oversold. But rigging separate from the rope is sometimes a better approach---it's all about having options and choosing the most suitable one.

    To be honest, I'm not feeling all that biased, and I plan to adopt one of these methods myself when I want to use just rope. I apologize if the nit-picky nature of my posts is both hard to slog through and reads as pedantic, but it's helpful for me to argue through the minutiae in order to see the bigger picture. And the value of doing so on a public forum is that it may be helpful for others too.

    I guess if it's too much, feel free to disengage, but I do always value your thoughts and considerations.

    GO


    Partner rgold


    Jul 13, 2012, 12:44 PM
    Post #58 of 127 (6843 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    The rope-only configurations work, as I said in my post, they just aren't the best way any more. If you have your anchor rigged with, say, a cordelette, then you just clip in to the power point with your rope, walk out to the edge, clove the rope back to your harness, and you're done. I think the rigging and adjusting is far easier this way. Of course, I'm assuming an on-harness anchor belay for this.

    Plus, when the second comes up, you will almost certainly want to return to the anchor for belaying the next lead. You reel your tie-in rope in as you walk back and clove the power point. With the rope-only method, you either have to retie the whole thing or else clove off a big loop of slack that would be much better left for the leader to run out.


    acorneau


    Jul 13, 2012, 1:38 PM
    Post #59 of 127 (6830 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 6, 2008
    Posts: 2889

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Very true, very true.

    As always, appropriateness is key.


    acorneau


    Jul 13, 2012, 2:05 PM
    Post #60 of 127 (6828 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 6, 2008
    Posts: 2889

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post




    Cracklover: You posted the picture above as one of your go-to systems. I was thinking about this and have come up with a system that is very similar but does away with the extra sling/biner...

    #1, #2, and #3 are clove hitches.

    #4 is a Alpine butterfly, directional 8, or in your case a standard fig-8 on a bight which creates a large loop for #2 and #3 anchor points.

    #5 is your same master point (butterfly).




    This removes the need for the extra sling biner, each piece would (theoretically) get 33% of the load, and each piece can be adjusted easily with the clove hitches.

    Have you tried this one before?


    (This post was edited by acorneau on Jul 13, 2012, 2:09 PM)
    Attachments: Clove+loop.jpg (26.8 KB)


    cervicornis


    Jul 15, 2012, 12:53 AM
    Post #61 of 127 (6777 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 27, 2005
    Posts: 58

    Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Those of you who rarely use a cordelette for anchor-rigging, do you still carry one on most or all climbs? If you’re heading up an old favorite and you’re positive you won’t need the cordelette for an anchor, do you still carry it for emergency use? I realize that isn’t really an anchor question, I’m just curious.

    How concerned should I be about the two cloves on the powerpoint as pictured in the notapplicable anchor? I fooled around with all of these methods today and I found that using two biners to alleviate that concern was somewhat clumsy. Otherwise, I really like this anchor method (I almost always belay directly off the powerpoint using an ATC Guide).

    My partner rarely leads, which presents the problem of having to swap rope ends. I would really like to ditch the cordelette method and use the rope anchor, but I am leery about swapping ends on every pitch. Are there any clever tips to make this fast and safe? What do you all do in this situation? Use a pair of lockers instead of a normal tie-in to make the swaps relatively quick? Back yourself up with slings or the rope and just get it done as quickly and safely as possible?


    patto


    Jul 15, 2012, 1:05 AM
    Post #62 of 127 (6774 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2005
    Posts: 1451

    Re: [cervicornis] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    I find one of the key advantages of rope anchors is their ability to deal with anchors which are positioned away from the belayer! The area which I climb regularly normally has ledge belays and I'm certainly used to setting up such anchors.

    It's quick, easy and involves no extra gear. I used to use a cordalette but I stopped because it offered absolutely no advantage. (Unless you climb a 60m pitch)


    bearbreeder


    Jul 15, 2012, 9:09 AM
    Post #63 of 127 (6731 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [cervicornis] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    If yr block leading, cord or sling anchors are faster IMO ... U just set it up with a master locker and everyone clips their cloves into that

    U really dont want to untie and retie every pitch ...

    I almost always carry a cord/webbing even when anchoring with the rope ... It acts as a gear sling, emergency prussic, bail material, etc ...

    Its cheap and means you wont have to sacrifice those $$$ dyneema slings or chop the rope Tongue


    JimTitt


    Jul 15, 2012, 9:50 AM
    Post #64 of 127 (6723 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [cervicornis] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Never carried a cordalette. Build the anchor with slings/rope/whatever and then the second just clips into the pieces again same as I did. While he´s doing that I´ll be re-racking.


    LostinMaine


    Jul 15, 2012, 4:47 PM
    Post #65 of 127 (6686 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 8, 2007
    Posts: 539

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    First - thanks all for the thoughtful replies. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. I've been trying to stay out of it a bit to see what others have been thinking.

    I went out yesterday with a relatively new climber and had the opportunity to use 6 different anchors. I tried three with rope (essentially the bazillion in two closely spaced horizontal crack with four pieces, my standard bowline on a bight with a clove hitch for a 3-piece anchor, and GO's "equalized" sling setup). I compared these to a cordalette, a modified equalette, and one anchor was two bolts, so that doesn't count.

    Luckily, each anchor was built from a decent stance with very acceptable pro. The fastest for me was GO's setup, by quite a bit. The bazillion took me a lot longer than I thought it would, but to be fair it was also the one I was least familiar with beforehand. I suspect with a few more attempts it would go much faster (primarily order of clove hitches). I still find the bowline on a bight provides me a lot of flexibility and does a fairly good job equalizing. Having said that, I tie it a LOT. It probably has the steepest learning curve of all anchors attempted since getting the two ears the correct lengths can be a PITA without a lot of practice.

    Since I was with a new climber, we weren't able to swing leads. All of the 'ettes were far faster to get on the second pitch, but that was entirely expected. They were also the most "comfortable" anchors for him to deal with (easy to clip in when he got the the anchor).

    In general, I found a somewhat reformed camaraderie with the cordalette. I may start carrying one again when not swinging leads. I didn't care much for the equalette, but I also didn't have it pre-tied. The rope-only anchoring techniques seem to be best suited for swinging leads or the top pitch anchors.


    Partner rgold


    Jul 15, 2012, 6:44 PM
    Post #66 of 127 (6670 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [cervicornis] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cervicornis wrote:
    Those of you who rarely use a cordelette for anchor-rigging, do you still carry one on most or all climbs? If you’re heading up an old favorite and you’re positive you won’t need the cordelette for an anchor, do you still carry it for emergency use? I realize that isn’t really an anchor question, I’m just curious.

    The only time I carry a cordelette is for big-wall climbing or on free climbs if I expect to do all the leading, and even then only if the climb has enough pitches to make time for belay changeovers important, since I can sequentially unrig a "bazillion" anchor while building a second one (in the opposite order) very quickly. (If a climb has bolted anchors, I don't see any need for a cordelette under any circumstances.) I virtually always climb with half ropes, which makes the anchoring process a little quicker and more flexible than what we're describing here.

    On long climbs that might require slings for retreating, I'll usually carry some light webbing in the pack for rigging retreat anchors. I also typically climb with a few nylon full-length runners that can be sacrificed if need be.


    notapplicable


    Jul 16, 2012, 9:48 AM
    Post #67 of 127 (6621 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [cervicornis] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cervicornis wrote:
    Those of you who rarely use a cordelette for anchor-rigging, do you still carry one on most or all climbs? If you’re heading up an old favorite and you’re positive you won’t need the cordelette for an anchor, do you still carry it for emergency use? I realize that isn’t really an anchor question, I’m just curious.

    My cordelette hangs in the closet alongside my hexes and figure-8 rap device and other random stuff I bought early on but soon realized I had little use for.

    When I'm climbing with someone who doesn't lead, I either swap ends or use some combination of slings and rope that I can easily duplicate with their end of the rope.

    In reply to:
    How concerned should I be about the two cloves on the powerpoint as pictured in the notapplicable anchor?

    One could make an argument for triaxial loading but I honestly don't think it's a concern, even in a "worst case scenario". I have zero actual data or pull tests to back that up though, so you might consider using the two biners or some other method of anchor construction if the angle gets too wide between your outside pieces.


    iknowfear


    Jul 16, 2012, 11:21 AM
    Post #68 of 127 (6596 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 8, 2004
    Posts: 637

    Re: [notapplicable] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    notapplicable wrote:
    cervicornis wrote:
    Those of you who rarely use a cordelette for anchor-rigging, do you still carry one on most or all climbs? If you’re heading up an old favorite and you’re positive you won’t need the cordelette for an anchor, do you still carry it for emergency use? I realize that isn’t really an anchor question, I’m just curious.

    My cordelette hangs in the closet alongside my hexes and figure-8 rap device and other random stuff I bought early on but soon realized I had little use for.

    When I'm climbing with someone who doesn't lead, I either swap ends or use some combination of slings and rope that I can easily duplicate with their end of the rope.

    In reply to:
    How concerned should I be about the two cloves on the powerpoint as pictured in the notapplicable anchor?

    One could make an argument for triaxial loading but I honestly don't think it's a concern, even in a "worst case scenario". I have zero actual data or pull tests to back that up though, so you might consider using the two biners or some other method of anchor construction if the angle gets too wide between your outside pieces.

    unless I'm only single pitch sport climbing, I almost always bring a cordelette. Eg. for self/buddy-resuce and to improve rappel anchors (cut the old stuff off and leave something new)


    herites


    Jul 16, 2012, 3:05 PM
    Post #69 of 127 (6571 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 10, 2011
    Posts: 210

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Could you post up some methods to build an anchro from double ropes?


    blueeyedclimber


    Jul 20, 2012, 9:59 AM
    Post #70 of 127 (6447 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 19, 2002
    Posts: 4602

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cracklover wrote:
    moose_droppings wrote:
    As I mentioned earlier, using the rope for anchoring isn't the best way if your leading in blocks. You can disconnect from the system and swap ends, but I try to never do that if possible.

    You just put your finger on what, IMO, makes the Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x the most versatile method.

    In truth, it is not really in the same category as the other anchors here, because it's a hybrid anchor. It's partly built with the rope, and partly it's external.

    This comes in handy because I actually often have to "escape the belay" for completely mundane reasons - after building the anchor with my tie-in rope, I need to lead the next pitch. In such cases, it's very easy to switch out: the second just needs to tie the fig-8 on a bight and clove to the sliding-x. One knot and one clove hitch and we're good to go. Certainly not as easy as an anchor built completely external to the rope, but as I said, it's a hybrid.

    This comes up for me fairly often. A few cases:

    - The other member of your party arrives at the belay, looks up, gets snail-eye, and says "you mind leading the next pitch?"

    - You wind up either running some pitches together, or stopping at a different place than what you anticipated from the ground, and one of your party definitely wants to take a specific pitch or pitches.

    - One of your party tries a pitch and then comes back to the belay for one reason or another to switch out.

    For these or other reasons, it can be nice not to have to reconstruct the whole anchor (or untie from the ends) to switch who's leading.

    GO

    This happens to me quite a bit, which is why I still like the cordellete. I construct the anchor with the rope sometimes, but a majority of the time I use a cordellete. At a place like the Gunks, I also find the cordellete useful for belays at the top, which is usually a tree. Just tie it around and there's your anchor.

    Josh


    blueeyedclimber


    Jul 20, 2012, 10:13 AM
    Post #71 of 127 (6444 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 19, 2002
    Posts: 4602

    Re: [cervicornis] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cervicornis wrote:
    Those of you who rarely use a cordelette for anchor-rigging, do you still carry one on most or all climbs? If you’re heading up an old favorite and you’re positive you won’t need the cordelette for an anchor, do you still carry it for emergency use? I realize that isn’t really an anchor question, I’m just curious.

    I think the point of this thread is to open your mind (and toolbox) to other possibilities. You never NEED a cordellette. I happen to prefer them, but If I didn't have one, I wouldn't panic, I would just set up the belay a different way.

    In reply to:
    How concerned should I be about the two cloves on the powerpoint as pictured in the notapplicable anchor? I fooled around with all of these methods today and I found that using two biners to alleviate that concern was somewhat clumsy. Otherwise, I really like this anchor method (I almost always belay directly off the powerpoint using an ATC Guide).
    2 cloves should not be a problem as long as they are not pulling in vastly different directions.

    In reply to:
    My partner rarely leads, which presents the problem of having to swap rope ends. I would really like to ditch the cordelette method and use the rope anchor, but I am leery about swapping ends on every pitch. Are there any clever tips to make this fast and safe? What do you all do in this situation? Use a pair of lockers instead of a normal tie-in to make the swaps relatively quick? Back yourself up with slings or the rope and just get it done as quickly and safely as possible?

    Once again, the purpose of this thread is not to make you ditch what you are doing and use someone else's method. I would find a cordellete useful if you are doing all the leading. But, you should not be dependent on the cordellete. You SHOULD know other methods. How many times have you been on a climb and realized that you forgot something in your pack, or dropped something, or assumed your partner grabbed it. Stuff happens. Open you mind and your toolbox. Just don't drink the Kool-Aid and buy into the idea that so and so's method is better than yours.

    Josh


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 20, 2012, 12:31 PM
    Post #72 of 127 (6418 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [herites] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    herites wrote:
    Could you post up some methods to build an anchro from double ropes?

    I can't speak for RG, but when I'm climbing on doubles, what I typically do is simply put a crossed sling on two pieces and clove to that with one rope, and then clove hitch the other rope to a third piece. Simple and super-quick.

    If I need to use a >2' long sling, I'll often throw a limiter knot in the long side.

    GO


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 20, 2012, 12:49 PM
    Post #73 of 127 (6410 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [cervicornis] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    cervicornis wrote:
    Those of you who rarely use a cordelette for anchor-rigging, do you still carry one on most or all climbs?

    I'd say I carry a cordelette about 75% of the time on a multipitch climb, and only use it at the anchor about 10% of the time. Ten years ago, I would have said I carry it nearly 100% of the time, and used it more than 50% of the time. The main reason why I use it so much less is that so many belays have become bolted. At a belay with two good bolts, a cordelette is just so much useless weight.

    I often do most of the leading, which is partly why I still carry it. Also, I tend to be conservative - I'd rather have too much than too little, which is why I've not stopped carrying the cordelette more quickly. But I would anticipate that within the next ten years, I very well might.

    In reply to:
    If you’re heading up an old favorite and you’re positive you won’t need the cordelette for an anchor, do you still carry it for emergency use?

    No.

    In reply to:
    My partner rarely leads, which presents the problem of having to swap rope ends. I would really like to ditch the cordelette method and use the rope anchor, but I am leery about swapping ends on every pitch. Are there any clever tips to make this fast and safe?

    Perhaps, but if I were in your place, I'd either continue to just use a cordelette, or use a hybrid method like mine.

    Just to use my method as an example, when the second comes up, she can simply clip a locker in to the crossed sling, clip into that, and go off belay. Then she can clip into the third piece using any number of methods before you set off for the next pitch.

    GO


    majid_sabet


    Jul 20, 2012, 10:51 PM
    Post #74 of 127 (6359 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 12, 2002
    Posts: 8347

    Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post




    Partner rgold


    Jul 21, 2012, 7:09 AM
    Post #75 of 127 (6340 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [majid_sabet] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Hello? The subject is building anchors with the rope.

    And for climbing anchors, not rescue loads. A climber that builds a five-point anchor like that is going to run out of pieces on the next lead.

    Granting its total irrelevance to the subject at hand, the example does illustrate one of the drawbacks of the cordelette method, namely the difficulty of getting the legs properly adjusted when tying a big central knot. In spite of the obvious care with which that knot was formed and dressed, the leftmost leg came out too long and the rigger kludged a fix by wrapping it around the biner twice, a technique that provides only discrete jumps in arm length rather than the continuous adjustments afforded by clove hitching.

    Perhaps getting everything properly snug would have been easier if the rightmost two arms had just been tied as a single arm clipped to both pieces, which are right next to each other and have no need for separate attachments.

    Finally, you think the ends on the cordelette joining knot could be shortened a bit? Why have those gigantic inch-long stubs flapping about uselessly?


    majid_sabet


    Jul 21, 2012, 8:42 AM
    Post #76 of 127 (3465 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 12, 2002
    Posts: 8347

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    I wonder how many pages of scientific papers you write every time you climb


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 23, 2012, 10:03 AM
    Post #77 of 127 (3410 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    I ran into a guide teaching anchor-building in Eldo yesterday. Inspired in part by this thread, I asked him an open-ended question about what techniques he taught climbers to build anchors, to see what his response would be. He never brought up using the rope. When I asked him about using the rope, he said sure, if it was straightforward, he'd "clip in with the rope". I asked him - what about building the anchor with the rope? The answer was interesting.

    Basically, what it boiled down to was that he felt that none of his clients could comprehend the situation well enough to build an anchor with the rope. He said that even in his multi-pitch clinic, in which it would most make sense to show rope-anchors as a useful tool, he did not do so unless specifically asked to (and I got the impression he'd never been asked to).

    I suspect that he's not alone. My guess is that it's just too much trouble for many guides to fully cover, and give all the necessary context around, rope-only anchors. It's certainly easier for them, and quicker for the client, to show how to build an anchor with a cordelette.

    One thing I wish I'd asked him was whether he himself, in his own recreational climbing, ever built a rope-only anchor.

    GO


    bearbreeder


    Jul 23, 2012, 11:19 AM
    Post #78 of 127 (3396 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    exactomundo .... and when they do show it, it is something extremely simple ... such as clove the outer pieces, pull through the rope in between the middle piece and fig 8 the bights ...


    KISS ...

    we can argue about all the fancy rope anchors we want, but the above will work as well for all practical purposes as any of the other proposed anchors here and is simple enough to remember when you are cold, tired, hungry, in the dark and out of slings on the 15th pitch of a climb even if youve only built it once or twice before ...

    Wink


    majid_sabet


    Jul 23, 2012, 11:49 AM
    Post #79 of 127 (3383 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 12, 2002
    Posts: 8347

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
    Can't Post

    cracklover wrote:
    I ran into a guide teaching anchor-building in Eldo yesterday. Inspired in part by this thread, I asked him an open-ended question about what techniques he taught climbers to build anchors, to see what his response would be. He never brought up using the rope. When I asked him about using the rope, he said sure, if it was straightforward, he'd "clip in with the rope". I asked him - what about building the anchor with the rope? The answer was interesting.

    Basically, what it boiled down to was that he felt that none of his clients could comprehend the situation well enough to build an anchor with the rope. He said that even in his multi-pitch clinic, in which it would most make sense to show rope-anchors as a useful tool, he did not do so unless specifically asked to (and I got the impression he'd never been asked to).

    I suspect that he's not alone. My guess is that it's just too much trouble for many guides to fully cover, and give all the necessary context around, rope-only anchors. It's certainly easier for them, and quicker for the client, to show how to build an anchor with a cordelette.

    One thing I wish I'd asked him was whether he himself, in his own recreational climbing, ever built a rope-only anchor.

    GO

    what a waste of paying a guide or an instructors when they do not even cover the basic such as building an anchor with rope.


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 23, 2012, 1:05 PM
    Post #80 of 127 (3368 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    bearbreeder wrote:
    exactomundo .... and when they do show it, it is something extremely simple ... such as clove the outer pieces, pull through the rope in between the middle piece and fig 8 the bights ...


    KISS ...

    we can argue about all the fancy rope anchors we want, but the above will work as well for all practical purposes as any of the other proposed anchors here and is simple enough to remember when you are cold, tired, hungry, in the dark and out of slings on the 15th pitch of a climb even if youve only built it once or twice before ...

    Wink

    Well, it may or may not be simple, but... this is the second time you've described your anchor system, and thought I'm reasonably good at envisioning such things in my head, I still haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to convey.

    GO


    bearbreeder


    Jul 23, 2012, 1:09 PM
    Post #81 of 127 (3366 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post



    except with the climbing rope ... and cloves instead of barrel knots


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 23, 2012, 1:58 PM
    Post #82 of 127 (3357 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    So correct me if I'm wrong - what you're trying to convey is as follows (for a three piece anchor):

    1 - Clove hitch the outer two pieces with a whole shit-ton of slack between them.

    2 - Clip the slack to the middle piece, pull the arms down (like you would with a cordelette) and tie a big Fig-8 knot with those two arms.

    Couple issues: 1 - How do you know how much slack to leave when clove hitching the second piece? Seems like it would take a few tries to get it right. 2 - You're putting twice the force on the middle piece as on the two outer ones. Not a deal-breaker, but certainly worth noting, as most of the other anchor systems mentioned here do not do that.

    GO


    JimTitt


    Jul 23, 2012, 2:28 PM
    Post #83 of 127 (3352 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    [quote "cracklover" 2 - You're putting twice the force on the middle piece as on the two outer ones. Not a deal-breaker, but certainly worth noting, as most of the other anchor systems mentioned here do not do that.
    I think you´ll find this is not the case, unless this is going to be a horribly complex discussion on the different stretch in the doubled strand compared with the single strands.


    bearbreeder


    Jul 23, 2012, 4:55 PM
    Post #84 of 127 (3336 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Jim answered part of yr question

    As to slack, its pretty simple just place the pieces , clove one, pull through the bights till u havr enough for a fig 8 and then clove the other... Then tie the fig 8

    Im not claimings its the fastest or the "best" ... What i am saying i that it is so simple and stupid that even i can remember it even when distracted by a hawt lulu clad partner ... As can anyone else who has ever built a cord anchor ... Which it basically is

    My view is that while there are those who have their fancier systems and use em all the time, which there is nothing wrong with ... I prefer something absolutely simple that works an that ill never forget even when being pecked at by nesting falcons ... An if i show someone whos never done it before, KISS

    Wink


    Partner rgold


    Jul 24, 2012, 8:57 AM
    Post #85 of 127 (3296 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Jim, you certainly have a better sense about what happens in testing situations, but there is nothing particularly complex about Gabe's assertion.

    Assume, for simplicity, that the three pieces are very close together so that all arms are of the same length and the contribution of the arm angles is negligible. When the power point is loaded, it displaces downward a certain amount, which means that all arms elongate by that single amount. Since the arms are the same length, their percentage stretch is the same for all four arms, which means the tension in all four is the same. Given that the middle two arms connect to the same single point, it gets twice the load of the outer pieces, as Gabe said.

    In the past, this simplistic type of reasoning has proven to correspond very well to experimental results, and I'd guess the same will be true here. Of course the center piece load won't be exactly twice as much, but I'd predict a very significant difference, even when the arms are nearly the same length.

    I also have to say that I am genuinely puzzled that making four clove hitches in an obvious sequence could be considered so complicated as to require a "simpler" version that brings back all the adjustment issues and uncertainties of the cordelette, adds the need to guess, for each new anchor configuration, the correct amount of slack to leave for forming the figure-8, uses 2/3 more rope, will, I believe, prove to have the loading issues Gabe mentioned (although I'm prepared to be wrong on that if Jim says so) and is perhaps worse than the cordelette because the belayer is tethered to just one piece rather than the power point.

    I think the method I described is better than a cordelette for many anchoring situations. If you are just going to make a cordelette out of the rope and get something not quite as good, why bother? Stick with the cordelette---that would be the K.I.S.S. solution for those choices, at least in my opinion.

    I guess the answer is that both simplicity and stupidity are in the eye of the beholder where K.I.S.S. is concerned, eh?


    Partner cracklover


    Jul 24, 2012, 9:22 AM
    Post #86 of 127 (3290 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    bearbreeder wrote:
    As to slack, its pretty simple just place the pieces , clove one, pull through the bights till u havr enough for a fig 8 and then clove the other... Then tie the fig 8

    Ah, that makes much more sense. BTW, that's not what you said earlier. Thanks for the clarification.

    Edited (because BB is still describing something different from what i think he actually does ) to add the following:

    So you:
    1 - Clove hitch the first outside piece
    2 - Clip the middle piece and the second outside piece
    3 - Pull down the two arms (between the middle and outside pieces) and make a big fig-8 knot with both bights together.
    4 - Take the rope you clipped through the second outside piece and turn it into a clove on that biner.
    5 - Use that big knot in the middle as your power-point, and clip yourself into it.

    As for the forces - maybe I need to go all the way back to my HS physics textbooks, but I don't see why the middle piece, with double the connections to the power-point, wouldn't see double the force.

    GO


    (This post was edited by cracklover on Jul 25, 2012, 8:14 AM)


    bearbreeder


    Jul 24, 2012, 10:20 AM
    Post #87 of 127 (3263 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    well let me ask you this ... even if it sees a bit more force ... does it really matter ... we all know the shortest length of an anchor will generally see more force than that of the longer arms ... true equalization aint really happening regardless IMO

    you can simply make the piece with the doubled up arm the longest one ... or the strongest one ... etc ... rarely will you have an anchor where all the pieces are equally strong or of absolutely equal length ...

    remember that you care constructing it with dynamic climbing rope ...

    as to simplicity and cord anchors ... you can make the RC arguments over and over again till we get to 50+ pages ... but my view of showing people how to anchor with the rope is that theyll likely use it when they run out of slings or get to the top of a pitch and forgot the cord on their partner ... so they need something absolutely and utterly simple which they can remember even if theyve only done it once or twice ...

    if they constantly build rope anchors all the time, then sure, they can likely remember how to build it over and over again ... but i can tell you that there is no way they will forget the way i pictured above if they use cord anchors

    which for all practical purposes will work just as well as anything here ...

    Wink


    wivanoff


    Jul 24, 2012, 10:42 AM
    Post #88 of 127 (3251 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 23, 2007
    Posts: 144

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    The only time I carry a cordelette is for big-wall climbing or on free climbs if I expect to do all the leading, and even then only if the climb has enough pitches to make time for belay changeovers important...

    rgold:
    Could I ask please, when you DO use a cordelette, do you tie it as a "standard" cordelette with the big central knot or do you tie something else - perhaps using clove hitches for adjustment? Thanks.


    JimTitt


    Jul 24, 2012, 10:49 AM
    Post #89 of 127 (3247 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rgold wrote:
    Jim, you certainly have a better sense about what happens in testing situations, but there is nothing particularly complex about Gabe's assertion.

    Assume, for simplicity, that the three pieces are very close together so that all arms are of the same length and the contribution of the arm angles is negligible. When the power point is loaded, it displaces downward a certain amount, which means that all arms elongate by that single amount. Since the arms are the same length, their percentage stretch is the same for all four arms, which means the tension in all four is the same. Given that the middle two arms connect to the same single point, it gets twice the load of the outer pieces, as Gabe said.

    In the past, this simplistic type of reasoning has proven to correspond very well to experimental results, and I'd guess the same will be true here. Of course the center piece load won't be exactly twice as much, but I'd predict a very significant difference, even when the arms are nearly the same length.

    I also have to say that I am genuinely puzzled that making four clove hitches in an obvious sequence could be considered so complicated as to require a "simpler" version that brings back all the adjustment issues and uncertainties of the cordelette, adds the need to guess, for each new anchor configuration, the correct amount of slack to leave for forming the figure-8, uses 2/3 more rope, will, I believe, prove to have the loading issues Gabe mentioned (although I'm prepared to be wrong on that if Jim says so) and is perhaps worse than the cordelette because the belayer is tethered to just one piece rather than the power point.

    I think the method I described is better than a cordelette for many anchoring situations. If you are just going to make a cordelette out of the rope and get something not quite as good, why bother? Stick with the cordelette---that would be the K.I.S.S. solution for those choices, at least in my opinion.

    I guess the answer is that both simplicity and stupidity are in the eye of the beholder where K.I.S.S. is concerned, eh?

    Hey, it was a joke! Well, more or less since it offered another pathway to a thousand-post discussion on whether the lower rope stretch because of the double strand would be counteracted by increased slippage throught the knot (2 strands to slip not one), where do the cloves come in the picture and so on.
    All on pieces where (as in most of these type of anchors) one is merely guessing the strength anyway.

    Personally I like it and would use it if circumstances called for that type of centre point.


    Partner rgold


    Jul 24, 2012, 11:56 AM
    Post #90 of 127 (3226 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    bearbreeder wrote:
    well let me ask you this ... even if it sees a bit more force ... does it really matter ... we all know the shortest length of an anchor will generally see more force than that of the longer arms ... true equalization ain't really happening regardless IMO

    Of course true equalization ain't happening---damn, I'm one of the people who spent years trying to explain that to the SRENE crowd. But if you properly understand anchoring strategy, then whether the extra load will "make a difference" is not the point to focus on, because we don't know whether and/or when it might, in fact, make a difference.

    Perhaps it is just the mathematician orientation that I can't escape, but it seems to me that, faced with various methods of equal implementation complexity (which is what the several proposals here are) the most sensible approach is to choose the one with the best theoretical properties. Of course, things such as knot behavior will will introduce variation into the actual results, but starting with a situation that is theoretically optimal means that your real-life variation also starts from an optimal position.

    On the other hand, starting with a position that, for instance, substantially overloads one of the anchors (well beyond the contribution of anchor length) means that your variation will be around that skewed position. Why choose a suboptimal starting point when we know better and it is no harder to chose an optimal alternative? That's what I don't get about the "what difference does it make really" argument.

    bearbreeder wrote:
    as to simplicity and cord anchors ... you can make the RC arguments over and over again till we get to 50+ pages ... but my view of showing people how to anchor with the rope is that they'll likely use it when they run out of slings or get to the top of a pitch and forgot the cord on their partner ... so they need something absolutely and utterly simple which they can remember even if they've only done it once or twice ...

    This is a different question. Perhaps I should have read your response more carefully. If the issue is not the optimal way to do something, but rather a method that will be employed by people who will very rarely use it, then it makes sense to find a procedure that is as much possible like the method they've practiced.


    notapplicable


    Jul 24, 2012, 12:50 PM
    Post #91 of 127 (3212 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    bearbreeder wrote:
    My view is that while there are those who have their fancier systems and use em all the time, which there is nothing wrong with ... I prefer something absolutely simple that works an that ill never forget even when being pecked at by nesting falcons ... An if i show someone whos never done it before, KISS

    I just started climbing with a longtime sport/gym climber who wants to get in to gear routes. I showed her how to build the anchor once then asked her to build her own and walked away to pack up some gear. When I came back she was hanging from a perfectly duplicated anchor while fine tuning the tension at the clove hitches.

    Perhaps she's smarter than the average gym rat but I don't think she will have any trouble remembering it the next time out. No one else I've showed it to seemed to struggle with the concept either. Some have adopted it and some preferred their original method but no one has complained about it being too complicated.


    bearbreeder


    Jul 24, 2012, 5:53 PM
    Post #92 of 127 (3178 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [notapplicable] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Ive had climbers totally freak out on a wall once they get cold, tired and hungry ... Its one thing to be able to do it right after someone shows u on the ground, and another to be able to remeber as the sun is setting, as its startin to drizzle, above freezing, or when yr dehydrated, etc... Especially if the last time u did it was a yer or two ago

    Until u have someone whos knows their knotsfumble to tie clove hitches and a basic gear anchor setup at the end of the day on a climb,you dont realize how much even the simplest tasks go wrong when someone is out of it

    Like i said im not claiming in any way that the method pictures above is "optimal" or the "best" ...

    What i AM saying is that it will work just fine for all pratical purposes, is something thats works well for the most common reason the average climber ties in with the rope, ie they dont have any more gear ... And is something youll remember how to do easily and not screw up in bad conditions even years after you last used it ...

    KISS


    notapplicable


    Jul 24, 2012, 10:04 PM
    Post #93 of 127 (3153 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 31, 2006
    Posts: 17766

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Teaching one less than ideal system to take up the slack (so to speak) for another less than ideal system seems kind of like a circle jerk. I would rather teach a new partner an ideal anchoring system that will last a lifetime and show them the less than ideal systems for rare occasions when the primary just doesn't work out.


    bearbreeder


    Jul 24, 2012, 10:21 PM
    Post #94 of 127 (3151 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [notapplicable] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
    Can't Post

    you can argue about "ideal" all you want ... like i said for all practical purposes the anchor i pictured will work just fine, except on RC ;)

    you are never going to have perfect equalization regardless, and if you are worried, just make the doubled arm the longest one, which might actually give you better real "equalization" considering that the shortest arm usually takes more than its share of the load anyways

    or simply clip it into yr strongest piece ... rare are the anchors IME where all pieces are absolutely equally strong and of absolute equal length ...

    2 opposed quickdraws arent theorectically ideal for TR anchors, but they work ... belaying off yr harness with no redirect aint idea either ... sliding Xs arent ideal in a rope anchor, yet someone listed it (and john long for bolt anchors) here, along with series anchor example with the rope by craig luebben in his anchor book ...

    if climbing teaches you anything is that there aint no "ideal" or "best" or "optimal" ... just what works bet for the person and the situation ...

    the climber i run away from at the crag is the one who tries to claim that his way is ideal and youre doing it wrong ... like RC

    Tongue


    (This post was edited by bearbreeder on Jul 24, 2012, 10:45 PM)


    Partner rgold


    Jul 29, 2012, 7:33 AM
    Post #95 of 127 (3023 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    From:
    Get Out on Rock---An Instructional Guide to Rock Climbing
    Libby Peter and Neil Gresham

    Here is my so-called Bazillion anchor, rigged for just two pieces and using the rope loop rather than creating a master point. To rig three pieces, the rope that is lying on the ledge is cloved to the third piece.



    Excerpt from http://www.ukclimbing.com/...les/page.php?id=2592

    Although it may seem like news here, it is obviously old-hat in the U.K., where, apparently, they dare to imagine that beginners can actually master the purported American-mind boggling complexity of this method.

    Have cordelettes really made American beginners and intermediates too dumb to master this, as Gabe's conversation with a guide suggest?

    (Of course not, but there is such a thing as the self-fulfilling prophecy...)


    bearbreeder


    Jul 29, 2012, 7:45 AM
    Post #96 of 127 (3018 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    remember that the majority of climbers are weekend warriors at best these days ... that means that they are likely to do a real multipitch with gear anchors at most a few times a year ... and these days theyll tend to use a cord or sling for the anchors, which makes very good sense when you realize that a good proportion of these weekend warriors dont swap leads, but rather block lead, often because one of the leaders is more experienced or the better climber

    so in short, theyll likely use rope anchors in more of an "emergency" situation, and very possibly in poor conditions ... they need something thats simple, safe, reliable and that theyll never forget how to do even when their hands are shaking ...

    as to all the "unequalizing" effect of the anchor i posted .. notice that metollius recommends the same method with their equalizing sling in their instructions ... i think theyd know a thing or two Tongue




    JimTitt


    Jul 29, 2012, 8:39 AM
    Post #97 of 127 (3010 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    The concerns are probably more that one anchor point will have half the stretch than the others and with rope this might have more effect than say with low-stretch tape or cord. (I´d just put the double strand on the strongewst piece). But the cloves on the two singles will give a bit and the centre knot a big unknown as well anyway. Since it´s a nice way to get the master point though I´ll test it this evening rather than watching some obscure sport.

    Interesting that Metolious aren´t embarassed to call their sling an equaliser and illustrate it clearly doing nothing of the kind!


    bearbreeder


    Jul 29, 2012, 9:40 AM
    Post #98 of 127 (3001 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    what i personally dont understand is the belief that rope climbing anchors will provide better load distribution than lower stretch cord or slings where the legs are uneven ... or than the method i listed

    i suspect that with stretchy rope, the uneven forces will be even worse than the pic listed below from mr longs book ...

    id be quite interested in the test ... not that it will change anything here one way or another Tongue




    (This post was edited by bearbreeder on Jul 29, 2012, 9:45 AM)


    Partner rgold


    Jul 29, 2012, 10:22 AM
    Post #99 of 127 (2986 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    The picture in Long's book gives the hypothetical load distribution obtained by assuming the sling material obeys Hooke's Law. Tests subsequently showed that the estimates given by basic theory were on target.

    Even materials that don't obey Hooke's Law in general have it as their first-order approximation, which means that they "nearly" obey it for small displacements. This is the basis for engineering calculations on deformation of steel beams, for example, which are not exactly what you'd call "stretchy."

    The tricky part comes in understanding, for a given material, what constitutes a "small displacement." Whether climbing load displacements are "small" for the webbing in the Metolius Equalizer is something I don't know, but the point is that we don't have to postulate some high level of "stretchiness" to see the kinds of load inequalities predicted by Hooke's Law.

    If the Hooke's Law approximation is appropriate, which I suspect it is without knowing for sure, then the Metolius "Equalizer," rigged as in their illustration, will have the same substantial loading inequality Gabe mentioned for rope configurations, in which case an equalizer it ain't.

    Edit: Hooke's Law says that the tension in a loaded material is proportional to its percentage deformation.


    (This post was edited by rgold on Jul 29, 2012, 10:27 AM)


    bearbreeder


    Jul 29, 2012, 10:35 AM
    Post #100 of 127 (2979 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    there is an easy solution ... ill simply ask metollius if there is "double" the force on the middle piece as on the others in their recommended setup

    my point is simply that quite a few of these rope tie in systems listed in this thread dont IMO provide "ideal" load sharing, especially in uneven arm lengths ...

    also with the method i listed above, at least i can choose which piece will receive more of the load, either the farthest which typically sees a much lower load, or the strongest which will take it the best ...

    its also quite simple to remember Wink

    again im not claiming its the best or "ideal" like others ...


    JimTitt


    Jul 29, 2012, 10:48 AM
    Post #101 of 127 (4400 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Well it was worse than I hoped for!

    With the anchor points at equal height so the middle leg the shortest (about 1/3rd shorter) it was 11%/79%/and 10%.
    I added draws into the outer legs to make them 1/3rd of the centre leg length and got 17%/62%/21%.

    I tried playing with the centre knot to bias toward the outer legs but under load this seemed to just slide through until the centre strands locked the knot up.

    The problem as always is that the difference between good equalisation and none at all is so small, 5mm in the leg lengths makes all the difference and there doesn´t seem anyway of either tying knots that accurately or controlling what happens in the centre knot well enough.
    (When I´m setting-up for a lot of these tests I´m actually watching the read-outs to start out equalised and it is a question of mm adjustment until in the end the rope weave is the limitation, then I tighten the cloves and watch it all go haywire!).

    On the other hand the Bearbreeder method does join all the pieces together in a simple, redundant and no-extension method which makes it as good as it gets realistically.


    bearbreeder


    Jul 29, 2012, 10:55 AM
    Post #102 of 127 (4393 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    so am i gunna die? Tongue

    what i would be interested in is seeing the load where the longest arm is the double strand in all uneven arm lengths ... similar to a vertical crack ...

    thanks for the test ... ill keep on using it which will no doubt provoke comments here Wink


    Partner rgold


    Jul 29, 2012, 12:48 PM
    Post #103 of 127 (4380 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    With the middle leg doubled and 2/3 of the outer legs, the Hooke's Law analysis predicts that the middle anchor would get three times the load of each of the outer anchors. Instead, it looks more like four times the load, probably because the clove hitches give a bit more than the central knot and so bleed even more tension out of their anchor arms.

    By the way, had Jim doubled the connection to an outer leg, the prediction would be a 22% : 33% : 44% distribution, which still (of course) has one anchor load double one of the other anchor loads.

    There isn't much more I can say about all this. Jim's tests, as far as they go, support the simple hypothetical calculations which, so far, have proven to be on target for every situation that has been tested. My guess is that the misnamed Metolius Equalizer will still do poorly, but not as badly as the results Jim got, because of the absence of the clove hitches.

    At this point it seems fairly certain that double strands to just one of the anchor points will result in highly skewed loading, unless the arm leading to that anchor is much longer (e.g. twice as long as one of the other arms). The question about whether one should deliberately choose such loading when much more equitable distributions are attainable---with no real increase in complexity---is both personal and situational.

    Hopefully, our anchors will always be individually good enough, and never tested to the extreme anyway, so that none of this matters.


    JimTitt


    Jul 30, 2012, 2:07 AM
    Post #104 of 127 (4327 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    A vertical setup is easier to test because it removes one of the practical difficulties I have doing the horizontal orientation (McKently doesn´t say what they did about this when they tested the cordalette). The strain guages have considerable weight (the smaller ones I used on the outer pieces are over 5lbs each) and to pull them into the line one thinks the force is going to take when tying the centre knot equalised a real pain and the accuracy suffers. Beverly tested horizontally so his guages lay on a board which solves the problem.

    I adjusted the leg lengths as near as possible in thirds. From top down with the doubled strand on the top piece I got 48%/19%/33%. Changing to the doubled strand on the bottom piece 8%/9%/83% so at least the theory is correct about the double strands being stiffer but the results are somewhat erratic at best.

    I also tried the Metolious concept with Dyneema and no clove hitches but as usual the tying the master point makes this a lottery of what force goes where, with all three legs the same length 17% on one single strand, 56% on the other single and 27% on the double strand not being what we should get.

    It´s pretty clear that the dominant effect in load distribution is tying the master point and it is hard to see how out on the cliff one could ever realistically expect a reasonable amount of equalisation which is also what Beverly implies.

    Whie I had a vertical setup I tried the `clove hitch the pieces in series method´ with what I thought was a reasonable attempt to account for the differing lengths and stretch. Clearly 2%/5% and 93% shows room for improvement!


    Partner rgold


    Jul 30, 2012, 5:19 AM
    Post #105 of 127 (4306 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 3, 2002
    Posts: 1800

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Thanks so much for these tests Jim!

    Whether or not Hooke's Law applies in principle, it seems that stretchiness does matter. My guess is that in "stretchy" rope, the amount of rope elongation is enough to mitigate the variation introduced by the power point knot, whereas with low-stretch materials, small differences in arm length caused by power point knot irregularities can have effects large enough to bury the Hooke's Law distribution.

    If this is true, then either the climbing rope or a rope cordelette looks like a more reliable load distributor than low-strength slings like the "Equalizer."

    The series rigging with clove hitches comes out as one would expect. When I do it with, say, three vertical pieces, I rig the bottom two with the rope snug between them and then, when cloving the top piece, pull things up so the bottom two carabiners are horizontal, the theory being that a load will stretch things down and there will at least be some distribution to the upper pieces. Whether this actually works or not I have no idea.

    Thanks again for introducing a cool dose of reality to what is otherwise a lot of hot air.


    acorneau


    Jul 30, 2012, 5:52 AM
    Post #106 of 127 (4293 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 6, 2008
    Posts: 2889

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    JimTitt wrote:
    ... as usual the tying the master point makes this a lottery of what force goes where...

    It´s pretty clear that the dominant effect in load distribution is tying the master point ...


    This makes me wonder if these results gives even more validity to the concept of the mini-sliding-x as implemented in the Equalette/Quad.


    bearbreeder


    Jul 30, 2012, 7:45 AM
    Post #107 of 127 (4271 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [JimTitt] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    thats really good to know thanks for the test ...

    my opinion is that no system is "ideal" ... and that in general i strive for simplicity, redundancy and minimal extension


    JimTitt


    Jul 30, 2012, 8:04 AM
    Post #108 of 127 (4266 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [rgold] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    At least with a rope system there is miles of stretchy rope and an enormous knot to take a lot of the impact out of the system, I tied the rope (a 9mm) into a cordalette to try something and needed 8m to be able to tie the master point even with a very compact 3-point system. The fig.8 tied in 6 strands looks to be an impressive shock absorber as it pulls tight!
    Probably a good avenue to explore in fact since the alternative to sharing the force between several pieces (which is proving difficult) is to reduce the force altogether.


    tomcecil


    Aug 2, 2012, 5:05 AM
    Post #109 of 127 (4152 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 13, 2009
    Posts: 46

    Re: [majid_sabet] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    "what a waste of paying a guide or an instructors when they do not even cover the basic such as building an anchor with rope" majid

    "I suspect that he's not alone. My guess is that it's just too much trouble for many guides to fully cover, and give all the necessary context around, rope-only anchors. It's certainly easier for them, and quicker for the client, to show how to build an anchor with a cordelette."Crack

    A real waste of time is listening to anyone with such ridiculous generalizations--


    Partner cracklover


    Aug 2, 2012, 7:24 AM
    Post #110 of 127 (4127 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Nov 14, 2002
    Posts: 9979

    Re: [tomcecil] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
    Can't Post

    tomcecil wrote:
    "what a waste of paying a guide or an instructors when they do not even cover the basic such as building an anchor with rope" majid

    "I suspect that he's not alone. My guess is that it's just too much trouble for many guides to fully cover, and give all the necessary context around, rope-only anchors. It's certainly easier for them, and quicker for the client, to show how to build an anchor with a cordelette."Crack

    A real waste of time is listening to anyone with such ridiculous generalizations--

    If reading my post is such a waste of time, why waste even more time bothering to respond? Particularly with a post that offers absolutely nothing of substance? If you have something to add that's not a "ridiculous generalization" - please do.

    GO


    jacques


    Aug 2, 2012, 7:27 AM
    Post #111 of 127 (4126 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 13, 2008
    Posts: 276

    Re: [majid_sabet] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    majid_sabet wrote:
    I wonder how many pages of scientific papers you write every time you climb

    I just read this thread rapidly and don't believed it. I used to ask to my partner to built an anchor with the rope at the end of an aid pitch without any sling. This is not commun use, but it is good to understand that whatever the situation, there is always a solution.

    I look at some picture on that thread and wonder if some people ever climb in remote area. You need to use your rope in few situations. When there is three cam placement very far a part ( in british where coming at canon, I made three weak anchor and I tied them togheter more to slow down my heart beat than for safety.) or when you use all your sling under to avoid a rope drag. There is also an other situation when you went that your protection pop up in a sequence from the weaker to the more solid to maximize your chances...but it is rare.

    Actually, I red a lot of scientific paper on what happen in a fall...not on what to do or not because every thing is possible. I just learn to adapt my equipment to as many situation as I can
    In reply to:


    tomcecil


    Aug 2, 2012, 9:52 AM
    Post #112 of 127 (4099 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 13, 2009
    Posts: 46

    Re: [cracklover] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    no need to--
    just read Rgold and you may learn something------


    majid_sabet


    Aug 2, 2012, 12:08 PM
    Post #113 of 127 (4078 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 12, 2002
    Posts: 8347

    Re: [tomcecil] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    tomcecil wrote:
    "what a waste of paying a guide or an instructors when they do not even cover the basic such as building an anchor with rope" majid

    "I suspect that he's not alone. My guess is that it's just too much trouble for many guides to fully cover, and give all the necessary context around, rope-only anchors. It's certainly easier for them, and quicker for the client, to show how to build an anchor with a cordelette."Crack

    A real waste of time is listening to anyone with such ridiculous generalizations--

    I honestly don't think is too much of a trouble to teach essential skills to climbers rather, today's guides are just don't care to teach and students are too lazy to ask for extra knowledge.
    I train 100s of climbers a year to build anchors and sure we could drop a couple sling and ask them to build a sliding x....or whatever but no, if they can't build an anchor with ropes, cords, slings, webbing etc, they are not passing the course.


    JimTitt


    Aug 2, 2012, 12:22 PM
    Post #114 of 127 (4072 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 7, 2008
    Posts: 975

    Re: [majid_sabet] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    I know something bad is going to happen to me soon, I´m agreeing with both Jacques and Majid!
    Tying ones self to something immovable with the rope is surely the first and most basic principle in building belays.


    crasic


    Aug 2, 2012, 10:16 PM
    Post #115 of 127 (4032 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jul 25, 2012
    Posts: 18

    Re: [acorneau] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    acorneau wrote:
    So let's discuss these systems if there is a large 10' ledge where the anchoring options are 10' back from the edge and the belayer wants to be seated at the edge. (A common scenario at one of my regular spots: Upper Mt. Scott, Wichitas, OK.)

    What I usually do is pull up enough slack so I can clove to the first piece and have enough slack to sit on the edge. Then I use the BOAB to go to pieces 2 and 3, and will clove that back to myself when seated at the edge. I'll then use that cloved biner as the belay biner for my belay device.

    This puts the weight mostly on the BOAB/#2/#3 pieces with piece #1 (cloved) sharing the load or nearly loaded. It takes two full-length runs of the rope between the edge and the pro 10 feet back, plus the rope for the knots.

    The Bazillion anchor would take 4 full 10' runs between the butterfly/master point and the pro and would be a PITA to get all three strands at the right length without a lot of futzing around.

    Cracklover's Fig-8+X system would only take two, the one "loaded" strand going to the belayer and one that isn't loaded at all.

    Thoughts on this type of scenario?


    Why not just build a nice tight anchor up near the pieces with a power point there using whatever system you like, set up a direct belay then clove hitch yourself to the anchor with 10ft of rope to walk back to ledge and just pull slack while your ATCGuide/Reverso/alpine clutch is 10ft away by the anchor?

    It will only use 10ft more rope to anchor yourself in.


    If you want to shorten your tie in without walking back to the belay I take a little extra slack, (say 11 ft for the 10ft ledge), tie a bight and clip a biner through it about 4 feet away from my end, clove hitch the strand from your harness to the biner and then lengthen shorten the loop to get the exact length you need. Or you can clip a biner to your harness and then just clove hitch to shorten the tie (I do the former because I find it easier to adjust a weighted clove hitch at eye level then one on my harness, but the later is cleaner)


    (This post was edited by crasic on Aug 2, 2012, 10:20 PM)


    wivanoff


    Aug 3, 2012, 4:33 AM
    Post #116 of 127 (4011 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 23, 2007
    Posts: 144

    Re: [crasic] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    "crasic wrote:

    Why not just build a nice tight anchor up near the pieces with a power point there using whatever system you like, set up a direct belay then clove hitch yourself to the anchor with 10ft of rope to walk back to ledge and just pull slack while your ATCGuide/Reverso/alpine clutch is 10ft away by the anchor?

    I think it's a bad idea. It sux to try to operate the ATCGuide/Reverso/alpine clutch from 10ft away. (You belay with an alpine clutch? Surely you mean Munter Hitch?) Sometimes you have to feed the live end into the belay device while pulling the brake end. Not to mention the issue of lowering or dropping a loop to assist your second.

    If you're going to do something like that, I'd recommend creating a powerpoint with an alpine butterfly or in-line Fig 8 in the 10ft of rope and closer to where you're standing.

    YMMV, but I'd hate to operate the belay device from 10 ft away.


    jacques


    Aug 3, 2012, 5:49 AM
    Post #117 of 127 (3998 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 13, 2008
    Posts: 276

    Re: [majid_sabet] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    majid_sabet wrote:
    I honestly don't think is too much of a trouble to teach essential skills to climbers rather, today's guides are just don't care to teach and students are too lazy to ask for extra knowledge.

    One think that i find hard to teach is to use essential skill in a real situation. Are you better to know less and know it better than to know a lot of technique and not be able to remember it as you need it.

    After one or two years, I ordinarly remember what I learned as I think that I was in danger and make a knot or anchor under supervision. Learned at the bottom of the cliff, I don't even remember them few hours later. Every body know that some people panic under stress and that state of mind influence there way of thinking. When we saw fatal mistake on basic technique, should we critic the stupidity of the climber who didn't adapt is technique to the situation or should we look at how he learned his technique to be able to use it under stress?


    bearbreeder


    Aug 3, 2012, 8:43 AM
    Post #118 of 127 (3979 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [jacques] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    RCers can get into theoretical arguments on the intrawebs all they want about what to "teach" ...

    the reality which im seeing every single day up here in squamish is that there are plenty of climbers who come up here with skills that are minimally practiced and jump on the many moderate multis we have up here ...

    now these may be "new" climbers, or in other cases they many be "experienced" climbers who go out a few times a year and are quite rusty ... regardless they can barely make basic gear anchors, they are slow as hell at setting up belays, and take double the time they should to get up multis ... and cause traffic jams

    go ahead and teach em fancy rope anchors, most of them wont remember em or will be very slow with them for lack of proper practice ... now you can say that its their fault for not practicing it, but when yr stuck behind several parties that have the same issue, the point is moot ...

    if you want to teach these skills to weekend, or worse holiday, warriors ... you need to keep em absolutely and utterly simple ... since theyll use them at most a few times in the summer, and will be too busy with kids/work/life to practice em (thats just how it is when i ask em why they arent quick and efficient) ...

    ive seen many people struggle to tie even the most basic cloves, munters, anchors on the 12th+ pitch of a moderate at the end of the day ... they can tie em perfectly on the ground when well rested and watered after being shown ...

    again this is not some theorectical intrawebs thing ... i see this every day ... its the nature of the moderate multis, the rusty weekend warriors, and the newish climbers ...

    the worse are the holidays ... for both the may and huly long we were invaded by americans, who to be perfectly blunt, many had absolutely no business being on 5.7/5.8 multis if they wanted to get up in a reasonable time ... it was quite obvious that they rarely climbed multis, especially crack ones, and much of their knowledge was theoretical ...

    KISS


    moose_droppings


    Aug 3, 2012, 9:17 AM
    Post #119 of 127 (3966 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 7, 2005
    Posts: 3348

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    bearbreeder wrote:
    RCers can get into theoretical arguments on the intrawebs all they want about what to "teach" ...

    the reality which im seeing every single day up here in squamish is that there are plenty of climbers who come up here with skills that are minimally practiced and jump on the many moderate multis we have up here ...

    now these may be "new" climbers, or in other cases they many be "experienced" climbers who go out a few times a year and are quite rusty ... regardless they can barely make basic gear anchors, they are slow as hell at setting up belays, and take double the time they should to get up multis ... and cause traffic jams

    go ahead and teach em fancy rope anchors, most of them wont remember em or will be very slow with them for lack of proper practice ... now you can say that its their fault for not practicing it, but when yr stuck behind several parties that have the same issue, the point is moot ...

    if you want to teach these skills to weekend, or worse holiday, warriors ... you need to keep em absolutely and utterly simple ... since theyll use them at most a few times in the summer, and will be too busy with kids/work/life to practice em (thats just how it is when i ask em why they arent quick and efficient) ...

    ive seen many people struggle to tie even the most basic cloves, munters, anchors on the 12th+ pitch of a moderate at the end of the day ... they can tie em perfectly on the ground when well rested and watered after being shown ...

    again this is not some theorectical intrawebs thing ... i see this every day ... its the nature of the moderate multis, the rusty weekend warriors, and the newish climbers ...

    the worse are the holidays ... for both the may and huly long we were invaded by americans, who to be perfectly blunt, many had absolutely no business being on 5.7/5.8 multis if they wanted to get up in a reasonable time ... it was quite obvious that they rarely climbed multis, especially crack ones, and much of their knowledge was theoretical ...

    KISS

    Sounds like it's a bitch to be as good as you and climb moderate, multi-pitch routes.


    bearbreeder


    Aug 3, 2012, 9:28 AM
    Post #120 of 127 (3962 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 1, 2009
    Posts: 1960

    Re: [moose_droppings] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    you do realize that many people up here do a quick run up 6+ pitches of a moderate for a warm up or cool down at the start/end of the day ... or use it to access more climbs on the upper part of the chief dontcha ya Tongue

    it is what it is ... sadly i can never remember em yankee holidays to stay away from the jams Wink


    crasic


    Aug 3, 2012, 9:52 AM
    Post #121 of 127 (3947 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jul 25, 2012
    Posts: 18

    Re: [wivanoff] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    wivanoff wrote:

    I think it's a bad idea. It sux to try to operate the ATCGuide/Reverso/alpine clutch from 10ft away. (You belay with an alpine clutch? Surely you mean Munter Hitch?) Sometimes you have to feed the live end into the belay device while pulling the brake end. Not to mention the issue of lowering or dropping a loop to assist your second.

    If you're going to do something like that, I'd recommend creating a powerpoint with an alpine butterfly or in-line Fig 8 in the 10ft of rope and closer to where you're standing.

    YMMV, but I'd hate to operate the belay device from 10 ft away.

    Personally I haven't used an alpine clutch, but I've seen it used in a pinch if they needed self locking belay for whatever reason. A munter will work as well.

    I haven't had any issue pulling in slack on a guide from 10-20ft away, usually do it on topouts, leave the guide by the tree and then back off like 20 feet to the edge so I can see my partner climb, never really had any issues. If you need to lower for whatever reason then you need to walk up to the anchor anyway. In fact, I'd think that lowering on an "extended" powerpoint (e.g. with the power point on an alpine butterfly down by you) would be harder in an emergency situation because you still need to pass a sling through a redirect higher up (or do the "rotate the biner trick" do inch them down). Which if the power point is loaded and your ten feet away from the nearest hard-point/redirect would be difficult, not to mention if the power point is on your tie in (as one of the schemes above has the alpine butterfly) you have even more problems. Ideally I would have the anchor extended next to me on the cliff edge, but on most topouts there simply isn't enough rope to do that.

    I also avoid mixing my *personal* belay/tie-in and the belay as a hard rule so making the power point on my tie-in strand is a big personal no-no. Extending the anchor down to you is viable but requires more material which was what my comment was trying to address.


    acorneau


    Aug 3, 2012, 10:21 AM
    Post #122 of 127 (3935 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 6, 2008
    Posts: 2889

    Re: [crasic] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    crasic wrote:
    I haven't had any issue pulling in slack on a guide from 10-20ft away, usually do it on topouts, leave the guide by the tree and then back off like 20 feet to the edge so I can see my partner climb, never really had any issues. If you need to lower for whatever reason then you need to walk up to the anchor anyway. In fact, I'd think that lowering on an "extended" powerpoint (e.g. with the power point on an alpine butterfly down by you) would be harder in an emergency situation because you still need to pass a sling through a redirect higher up (or do the "rotate the biner trick" do inch them down).

    Use a Munter hitch and you won't have to deal with any of that. Using a Munter would also negate any issue with how close or far it was to the belayer; you operate it the same way no matter how close you are.


    In reply to:
    Ideally I would have the anchor extended next to me on the cliff edge, but on most topouts there simply isn't enough rope to do that.

    I also avoid mixing my *personal* belay/tie-in and the belay as a hard rule so making the power point on my tie-in strand is a big personal no-no. Extending the anchor down to you is viable but requires more material which was what my comment was trying to address.

    If you've lead the pitch and created your anchor with a master point, just tie your rope off with the slack you need to get to the edge (clove, fig-8, etc) and use the line going down to your climber to create your new master point, no extra materials or rigging required.


    (This post was edited by acorneau on Aug 3, 2012, 10:23 AM)


    jacques


    Aug 3, 2012, 9:39 PM
    Post #123 of 127 (3864 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 13, 2008
    Posts: 276

    Re: [bearbreeder] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    bearbreeder wrote:
    the reality which im seeing every single day up here in squamish is that there are plenty of climbers who come up here with skills that are minimally practiced and jump on the many moderate multis we have up here ...
    [..]
    especially crack ones, and much of their knowledge was theoretical ...

    KISS
    totaly agree

    wish that those people who climb with too much responsability to practice there skill will understand that sport climbing is also a great sport. The goal are different and the time invest to climb at the same level is shorter in trad, but it is a smart choice to do sport if you don't have time to practice. Just don't bother those who have time to praqctice.

    in the 60 - 70, they said that 60% of the time on the cliff is used to practice there skill. A 5.10 climber need fifteen hours of training to keep is level. In trad, it is still true, but if you don't have too much time, sport is a very good alternative to a lack of time to train.


    (This post was edited by jacques on Aug 8, 2012, 7:23 PM)


    majid_sabet


    Aug 3, 2012, 10:16 PM
    Post #124 of 127 (3857 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 12, 2002
    Posts: 8347

    Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    let's just end this thread and use whats on the wall








    wivanoff


    Aug 4, 2012, 6:11 AM
    Post #125 of 127 (3836 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 23, 2007
    Posts: 144

    Re: [crasic] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    crasic wrote:
    Personally I haven't used an alpine clutch, but I've seen it used in a pinch if they needed self locking belay for whatever reason.
    Another bad idea, IMO. An Alpine Clutch (Garda Knot) would be very difficult to release if you actually had to lower your second.

    crasic wrote:
    A munter will work as well.
    That would be a better choice, IMO.

    crasic wrote:
    I haven't had any issue pulling in slack on a guide from 10-20ft away, usually do it on topouts, leave the guide by the tree and then back off like 20 feet to the edge
    I'm sorry, if I saw someone doing that, I'd be thinking: "Noob". I don't see it as dangerous.. Just inconvenient. I guess it works for you.

    crasic wrote:
    In fact, I'd think that lowering on an "extended" powerpoint (e.g. with the power point on an alpine butterfly down by you) would be harder in an emergency situation because you still need to pass a sling through a redirect higher up (or do the "rotate the biner trick" do inch them down).

    I used my nut tool to rotate the ATC-Guide in the VERY few times I had to lower someone. No redirect necessary. A quick Munter off my harness makes a nice backup.

    crasic wrote:
    Which if the power point is loaded and your ten feet away from the nearest hard-point/redirect would be difficult, not to mention if the power point is on your tie in (as one of the schemes above has the alpine butterfly) you have even more problems.
    Are you suggesting using "guide mode" when belaying off your harness? I'm not sure why anyone would do that.

    This thread has a lot of good information. Unfortunately, it's starting to drift.


    shockabuku


    Aug 4, 2012, 8:41 AM
    Post #126 of 127 (1097 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 20, 2006
    Posts: 4857

    Re: [jacques] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
    Can't Post

    jacques wrote:
    people who climb with too much respsability

    It's hard to know how much respsability to climb with. I know I need 1-2 liters of water per day but other things vary so much with the location, weather, etc.


    billcoe_


    Aug 20, 2012, 11:35 AM
    Post #127 of 127 (954 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 30, 2002
    Posts: 4668

    Re: [LostinMaine] Building anchors with the rope [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
    Can't Post

    Lowest black 1" tied tubular runner wrapped around a fully closed crack and omnidirectional, followed by a green Totem cam, then 2 nuts highest up. This was totally overkill and I only did it cause the it was the first multipitch gear route these guys had done and the guidebook said that you needed to be comfortable with belays being your body wedged into chimneys and I was proving a point. We got 3 bomber pieces for each of the 6 or so belays on the route.



    That might not be the best example as there was 3 of us on that route and I changed the belay so I could lead the next pitch.


    Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Trad Climbing

     


    Search for (options)

    Log In:

    Username:
    Password: Remember me:

    Go Register
    Go Lost Password?



    Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook