Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab:
Sequelette?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Lab

Premier Sponsor:

 


jensen


Sep 16, 2012, 11:16 PM
Post #1 of 47 (8712 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Sequelette?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

This is just an idea that I have. It is yet another variation to the Equalette. I've only set it up in my living room, clipping to random things in my home. I haven't tried it out in the field yet.

1. Tie an inline figure 8 near your double-fisherman's knot in your cordelette. The two loops in the inline-8 portion should be about 8 to 10 inches long. As a result of tying the inline-8, you will have a short single loop and a long single loop. The short single loop created (shown on the right side of the attached SAM_1284.jpg image) should be about 1 to 1.5 feet long. This part should probably be pre-tied and shouldn't get untied probably ever.
2. Clip the short single loop to your pro. Clip a biner through the two inline-8 loops and through 1 strand of the long single loop(see SAM_1286.jpg)
3. Push a loop from the long single loop through the the two loops of the inline-8 portion splitting your long single loop into two new loops (shown in SAM_1090.jpg). (Side note: If you wanted a 4-point anchor you could actually create three new loops if you push an additional loop out between the two inline-8 loops).
4. Clip in the two new loops (shown in SAM_1293.jpg) to your pro.
5. Pull down to make a V at the end of the two inline-8 loops(shown in SAM_1295.jpg) manually equalizing your two new loops as though the V was going to be your power point. This is done because you'll lose cord real estate once you tie the overhand knot described in step 7.
6. Unclip the two new loops so you can tie your overhand knot described below. (see SAM_1296.jpg)
7. Tie an overhand knot on top of the ends of the inline-8 loops (see SAM_1297.jpg). Reclip your loops to your biners. Tying the overhand knot is a little tricky because you have to tie it so the inline-8 loop ends are on the side of the overhand knot that is away from the center of the system (shown in these close-up images from different perspectives SAM_1298.JPG and SAM_1299.jpg).
8. If you are using this as a TR anchor, you can clip another opposed and reversed locker through the same 3 loops that the first biner was clipped through in step 2 (shown in SAM_1302.jpg).

As I see it, here are the pros and cons, of this system:

Pros:

* You can clip your biners to the same strands in the middle so they sit well against each other.
* You have a single power point.
* You have loops at each piece of pro. (I prefer this to making 2 arms of the system from a single loop)
* If the loops are too long you can use clove hitch them to tighten them up.
* You have two beefy knots, that is, an in-line 8 and a multi-stranded overhand.
* No loose single strands floating in space which is what the Triplette looks like it has and although, according to what I've read, that's fine, it still makes me uncomfortable.

Cons:

* If you tie the overhand knot incorrectly (that is, so the inline-8 loops ends are on the side of the overhand knot that is closer to the center of the system), I'm not sure what would happen.
* Eats up more of your cord
* It's harder to tie the overhand because it's beefier

Please let me know what you all think.

Thanks,

Kelly
Attachments: SAM_1284.JPG (84.2 KB)
  SAM_1286.JPG (78.0 KB)
  SAM_1290.JPG (86.8 KB)
  SAM_1293.JPG (83.8 KB)
  SAM_1295.JPG (77.6 KB)
  SAM_1296.JPG (80.4 KB)
  SAM_1297.JPG (85.5 KB)
  SAM_1298.JPG (88.5 KB)
  SAM_1299.JPG (91.4 KB)
  SAM_1302.JPG (87.4 KB)


JimTitt


Sep 16, 2012, 11:26 PM
Post #2 of 47 (8704 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 975

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:

Please let me know what you all think.

Thanks,

Kelly

Thatīs the worst, most complicated and pointless way of joining three pieces together Iīve ever seen.


jensen


Sep 17, 2012, 12:12 AM
Post #3 of 47 (8692 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [JimTitt] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wow! Don't hold back or anything.

If anyone else feels the same or has any other comments , just let me know.

Kelly


climbingaggie03


Sep 17, 2012, 12:32 AM
Post #4 of 47 (8682 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1172

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Why on earth wouldn't you just equalize them and tie a figure 8 like a normal cordalette? looks pretty pointless to me.


patto


Sep 17, 2012, 3:37 AM
Post #5 of 47 (8653 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1451

Re: [climbingaggie03] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Its like the Kama Sutra of anchor building.

Sure there is a perfectly normal and sensible way of getting the job done. But why stop at that when you can twist it around an have more fun! Crazy


JimTitt


Sep 17, 2012, 3:42 AM
Post #6 of 47 (8651 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 975

Re: [patto] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Youīve been trawling the bondage sites again havenīt you?


kennoyce


Sep 17, 2012, 7:16 AM
Post #7 of 47 (8597 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1303

Re: [JimTitt] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
jensen wrote:

Please let me know what you all think.

Thanks,

Kelly

Thatīs the worst, most complicated and pointless way of joining three pieces together Iīve ever seen.

+100


edge


Sep 17, 2012, 9:04 AM
Post #8 of 47 (8554 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9091

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Aside from the over complication and reinventing the wheel issues, you have nylon on nylon in a position to slide in the event of a shift in direction under tension. You may think that's not a problem, but have a friend hold a piece of monofilament fishing line, and see how easily it breaks by pinching a piece of tissue over it and giving it a stroke or two (insert tasteless and predictable joke here...)

Personally I rarely use a cordelette, and would guess 98% of my anchors are built by using the rope. There are many good threads on this site explaining just how fast and efficient that can be.


LostinMaine


Sep 17, 2012, 9:23 AM
Post #9 of 47 (8540 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

That is one intense spider's web of an anchor.


potreroed


Sep 17, 2012, 10:28 AM
Post #10 of 47 (8518 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1448

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Waaay toooo complicated and unnecessary. KISS.


shimanilami


Sep 17, 2012, 12:21 PM
Post #11 of 47 (8478 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

Notes to self -

1. Don't climb with Jensen.

2. Get high with Jensen ('cuz clearly he smokes some strong shit.)

3. After getting high with Jensen, don't climb with Jensen.


sittingduck


Sep 17, 2012, 1:49 PM
Post #12 of 47 (8441 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post



Think you might get the same functionality out of this less complicated rig.


jensen


Sep 17, 2012, 7:44 PM
Post #13 of 47 (8351 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [edge] Sequelette? [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:
Aside from the over complication and reinventing the wheel issues, you have nylon on nylon in a position to slide in the event of a shift in direction under tension.

Thanks for the constructive input!

I understand the issues with nylon on nylon. And I see now that eventually equalizing the long loop through the the two inline-8 loops will eventually wear those loops down especially if I leave them pre-tied.

But I'm not sure where you see stuff shifting under tension. From my living room experiments, both the inline-8 knot and the overhand knot (assuming you position it correctly) tighten like an overhand knot would in a standard cordelette setup. Can you clarify?

And I'm sure a rope setup is super fast but I like the idea of my anchor being a separate system from my rope so it's easier to handle a self-rescue situation should I ever encounter one.


jensen


Sep 17, 2012, 7:49 PM
Post #14 of 47 (8348 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [sittingduck] Sequelette? [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:
Think you might get the same functionality out of this less complicated rig.

Ah, the Quad. I actually love the Quad. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for a 3-point anchor system...


edge


Sep 17, 2012, 8:04 PM
Post #15 of 47 (8344 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9091

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
In reply to:
Aside from the over complication and reinventing the wheel issues, you have nylon on nylon in a position to slide in the event of a shift in direction under tension.

Thanks for the constructive input!

I understand the issues with nylon on nylon. And I see now that eventually equalizing the long loop through the the two inline-8 loops will eventually wear those loops down especially if I leave them pre-tied.

But I'm not sure where you see stuff shifting under tension. From my living room experiments, both the inline-8 knot and the overhand knot (assuming you position it correctly) tighten like an overhand knot would in a standard cordelette setup. Can you clarify?



Let's label the legs on this pic A, B, and C, left to right. Any movement by the belayer side to side, even just readjusting your stance or yarding in rope, could cause the fixed loop from C to saw against A and B. A sudden sideways pull, say from a traverse just before the belay, would exacerbate this. Also, any failure of A or B would create extension which would shock load C.

Edit: OK, I see now this is only a midway step in your set-up, so no hot nylon on nylon scissor action. Still all that extra fiddling just makes it even more complicated, time consuming, and undesirable.

In reply to:
And I'm sure a rope setup is super fast but I like the idea of my anchor being a separate system from my rope so it's easier to handle a self-rescue situation should I ever encounter one.

There's an old saying that "if you bring bivy gear, you will bivy.". It's a generalization, but holds true all too often. If you go about your climbing anticipating a self-rescue, well, you get the point. There are tried and true time tested methods to escape a belay from a rope anchor, and you would do well to learn them. You will ultimately climb faster, lighter, and safer.


(This post was edited by edge on Sep 17, 2012, 8:25 PM)


edge


Sep 17, 2012, 8:09 PM
Post #16 of 47 (8339 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9091

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
In reply to:
Think you might get the same functionality out of this less complicated rig.

Ah, the Quad. I actually love the Quad. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for a 3-point anchor system...

It does if you know how to rig it as such. Still not my preferred anchor though, but it addresses many of the shortcomings of your set up.


marc801


Sep 17, 2012, 10:12 PM
Post #17 of 47 (8306 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2731

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
This is just an idea that I have. It is yet another variation to the Equalette. I've only set it up in my living room, clipping to random things in my home. I haven't tried it out in the field yet.

1. Tie an inline figure 8 near your double-fisherman's knot in your cordelette. The two loops in the inline-8 portion should be about 8 to 10 inches long. As a result of tying the inline-8, you will have a short single loop and a long single loop. The short single loop created (shown on the right side of the attached SAM_1284.jpg image) should be about 1 to 1.5 feet long. This part should probably be pre-tied and shouldn't get untied probably ever.
2. Clip the short single loop to your pro. Clip a biner through the two inline-8 loops and through 1 strand of the long single loop(see SAM_1286.jpg)
3. Push a loop from the long single loop through the the two loops of the inline-8 portion splitting your long single loop into two new loops (shown in SAM_1090.jpg). (Side note: If you wanted a 4-point anchor you could actually create three new loops if you push an additional loop out between the two inline-8 loops).
4. Clip in the two new loops (shown in SAM_1293.jpg) to your pro.
5. Pull down to make a V at the end of the two inline-8 loops(shown in SAM_1295.jpg) manually equalizing your two new loops as though the V was going to be your power point. This is done because you'll lose cord real estate once you tie the overhand knot described in step 7.
6. Unclip the two new loops so you can tie your overhand knot described below. (see SAM_1296.jpg)
7. Tie an overhand knot on top of the ends of the inline-8 loops (see SAM_1297.jpg). Reclip your loops to your biners. Tying the overhand knot is a little tricky because you have to tie it so the inline-8 loop ends are on the side of the overhand knot that is away from the center of the system (shown in these close-up images from different perspectives SAM_1298.JPG and SAM_1299.jpg).
8. If you are using this as a TR anchor, you can clip another opposed and reversed locker through the same 3 loops that the first biner was clipped through in step 2 (shown in SAM_1302.jpg).

As I see it, here are the pros and cons, of this system:

Pros:

* You can clip your biners to the same strands in the middle so they sit well against each other.
* You have a single power point.
* You have loops at each piece of pro. (I prefer this to making 2 arms of the system from a single loop)
* If the loops are too long you can use clove hitch them to tighten them up.
* You have two beefy knots, that is, an in-line 8 and a multi-stranded overhand.
* No loose single strands floating in space which is what the Triplette looks like it has and although, according to what I've read, that's fine, it still makes me uncomfortable.

Cons:

* If you tie the overhand knot incorrectly (that is, so the inline-8 loops ends are on the side of the overhand knot that is closer to the center of the system), I'm not sure what would happen.
* Eats up more of your cord
* It's harder to tie the overhand because it's beefier

Please let me know what you all think.

Thanks,

Kelly
Ill be a bit less restrained than the other posters and go straight for the ad hominem attack: holy fuck you're a moron. I think you could over complicate a wet dream.

Seriously, in climbing, the less complicated, the better.


chris


Sep 18, 2012, 7:30 AM
Post #18 of 47 (8246 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 4, 2003
Posts: 94

Re: [marc801] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm with the overwhelming majority on this - your idea, while entertaining, is over-thought and over-kill.

Since the evidence shows that complete equalization is not possible to reach, I've made a priority to limit extension on all my pieces over perfecting equalization.

Keep it simple - it saves gear, it saves time, and it keeps you safer.


jensen


Sep 18, 2012, 11:12 PM
Post #19 of 47 (8160 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Ok. I'm starting to sense that people think my proposed anchor system is too complicated... :)

So, I definitely agree that it's more complicated than the usual lot for 3-point anchor systems (that is, rope anchor, standard cordelette, equalette, triplette, ...). Even though I currently still use the standard cordelette system, I'm not happy with it or any of the others for various reasons.

Assuming my proposed method is a viable solution, I do like it over the others. You can take a lot of the complexity out by pre-doing things and that would also make the anchor setup quick.

Since I went overboard in my initial explanation, I've re-written it the way I think a normal person would have explained it. See images below.

If anyone who currently is not satisfied with the 3-point anchoring solutions out there would care to comment, please do. Thanks.



Attachments: Pretied.JPG (70.9 KB)
  Equalize.JPG (70.2 KB)
  Finish.JPG (69.7 KB)


jensen


Sep 18, 2012, 11:23 PM
Post #20 of 47 (8157 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [edge] Sequelette? [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:
It does if you know how to rig it as such. Still not my preferred anchor though, but it addresses many of the shortcomings of your set up.

I assuming the rigging you're referring to results in an anchor system that doesn't have 3 independent arms. I like the idea of having 3 independent arms for trad gear anchors. If my assumption is wrong, please let me know. Thanks.


JimTitt


Sep 18, 2012, 11:55 PM
Post #21 of 47 (8153 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 975

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Your anchor has two independent arms, not three. One is to the right of the karabiners the other to the left. the left one is split again but isnīt independent if you are considering the karabiners as the focal point.
If you think dynamic equalisation will occur then you are loading the pieces unequally.
Since dynamic equalisation wonīt occur anyway you are better off just clipping the lot and tying an overhand, at least youīve removed the extension and got three redundant arms. And made it simple enough your climbing partner can check it and trust it.
Better still is to use a simple, faster, versatile system which doesnīt need retying when the pieces are all over the place and doesnīt clutter your harness, this is called the rope.


sittingduck


Sep 19, 2012, 12:12 AM
Post #22 of 47 (8148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
In reply to:
It does if you know how to rig it as such. Still not my preferred anchor though, but it addresses many of the shortcomings of your set up.

I assuming the rigging you're referring to results in an anchor system that doesn't have 3 independent arms. I like the idea of having 3 independent arms for trad gear anchors. If my assumption is wrong, please let me know. Thanks.

I think edge mean something like this:



billl7


Sep 19, 2012, 6:16 AM
Post #23 of 47 (8099 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
If anyone who currently is not satisfied with the 3-point anchoring solutions out there would care to comment, please do. Thanks.
The above includes me. And the suggested rig also falls into all those other ones that are not satisfying.

Still ...

"No, you can't always get what you want
No, you can't always get what you want
No, you can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime, you just might find
You get what you need"

Rolling Stones

Bomber individual pieces. No Extension. Some load sharing is a bonus but not usually paramount for me. Sufficiently strong and redundant rigging. KISS.

It's fun to discuss getting more than that but it's more than is needed.

Save a climber.

Bill L


(This post was edited by billl7 on Sep 19, 2012, 6:41 AM)


kobaz


Sep 19, 2012, 8:39 AM
Post #24 of 47 (8057 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 717

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
This is just an idea that I have. It is yet another variation to the Equalette. I've only set it up in my living room, clipping to random things in my home. I haven't tried it out in the field yet.

+1 for working on being clever, but holy crap that looks like a pain to set up.

Definitely do some field testing.

Any attempt at improving the cordalette/equalette should focus on being simple and bringing to the table something that lacks in the aforementioned setups.


marc801


Sep 19, 2012, 6:12 PM
Post #25 of 47 (7993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2731

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
Ok. I'm starting to sense that people think my proposed anchor system is too complicated... :)

So, I definitely agree that it's more complicated than the usual lot for 3-point anchor systems (that is, rope anchor, standard cordelette, equalette, triplette, ...). Even though I currently still use the standard cordelette system, I'm not happy with it or any of the others for various reasons.

Assuming my proposed method is a viable solution, I do like it over the others. You can take a lot of the complexity out by pre-doing things and that would also make the anchor setup quick.

Since I went overboard in my initial explanation, I've re-written it the way I think a normal person would have explained it. See images below.

If anyone who currently is not satisfied with the 3-point anchoring solutions out there would care to comment, please do. Thanks.
So what you're saying is that although numerous replies explain why your system is too complicated for actual use and doesn't do what you think it does, you persist in saying that you prefer it and think it's better. This is classic rc.noob aggressive ignorance.


jensen


Sep 20, 2012, 1:40 AM
Post #26 of 47 (2898 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [sittingduck] Sequelette? [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:


Have you used this 3-armed Quad before?

It looks like it wouldn't be that simple to adjust the 2 arms on the left using clove hitches because those 2 arms are fixed in length and because all 3 arms are about the same length, plus it doesn't help that the arms of a Quad are short from the cordelette being doubled before being tied. I suspect you'd probably end up using more gear to extend placements before being able to adjust the arms with clove hitches. If your experience is otherwise, please let me know.


jensen


Sep 20, 2012, 2:32 AM
Post #27 of 47 (2897 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [JimTitt] Sequelette? [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:
Your anchor has two independent arms, not three.
I was thinking of independence in terms of the cord, that is, I could cut any point of a strand or abrade a strand at a knot and it wouldn't take out another arm. But what you say makes sense in terms of the system as a whole, that is, that there are two independent arms with one of them being split into two.

In reply to:
If you think dynamic equalisation will occur then you are loading the pieces unequally.
Since dynamic equalisation wonīt occur anyway you are better off just clipping the lot and tying an overhand,
Are you saying that no dynamic equalization will occur? I was expecting some amount of dynamic equalization to occur because the biners can slide between the knots to adjust to the direction of pull. One of my priorities is equalization (my first is bomber placements). I feel like if your system is more equalized, them you don't have to worry as much about extension.

In reply to:
Better still is to use a simple, faster, versatile system ... this is called the rope.
It is interesting that all you rope anchor builders are satisfied with just using the rope...


JimTitt


Sep 20, 2012, 3:37 AM
Post #28 of 47 (2893 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 975

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You will get some equalisation but not as much as you probably hoped for! But the general concept nowadays is that avoiding extension is preferable to the partial equalisation you achieve in most cases.
Many of us have built belays using the rope for the last 40 years or more, tried all the fancy systems and generally stick with the rope except in very specific circumstances. There are plenty of threads on this subject!
Dynamic equalising systems arenīt taught or used by most organisations for good reason.


patto


Sep 20, 2012, 5:41 AM
Post #29 of 47 (2882 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1451

Re: [JimTitt] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
Dynamic equalising systems arenīt taught or used by most organisations for good reason.

Oooh! I know! I know!

The reason is because they are slow to adjust to the latest cutting edge improvements as frequently discovered by ingenious climbers on rockclimbing.com Sly


edge


Sep 20, 2012, 6:11 AM
Post #30 of 47 (2878 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9091

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
In reply to:


Have you used this 3-armed Quad before?

It looks like it wouldn't be that simple to adjust the 2 arms on the left using clove hitches because those 2 arms are fixed in length and because all 3 arms are about the same length, plus it doesn't help that the arms of a Quad are short from the cordelette being doubled before being tied. I suspect you'd probably end up using more gear to extend placements before being able to adjust the arms with clove hitches. If your experience is otherwise, please let me know.

You can clip the left and center pieces with each end of a folded-in-half cordelette. Now tie an overhand just left of center, and another just right of center (or adjust for the situation). Clip the resultant strand of quadrupled cordelette to the right hand piece. Pretty friggen simple.

If I was one of those who bought into the whole "elette" fad, then I would use this method often, but I'm not so I don't.


LostinMaine


Sep 20, 2012, 9:46 AM
Post #31 of 47 (2843 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
It is interesting that all you rope anchor builders are satisfied with just using the rope...

I find it more interesting that so many people are not satisfied with just using the rope for the majority of cases.


jensen


Sep 22, 2012, 1:11 AM
Post #32 of 47 (2786 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [edge] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks for the explanation! It was really helpful. And you're right, that rigging is pretty darn simple. And because you cilp two of the pieces before you tie the knots, that solves the all-strands-are-fixed-and-the same-length problem that I was concerned about.

I have encountered one minor issue though when experimenting with it in my living room. That is that the resultant strand of quadrupled cordelette seems to end up fairly short in length. But I think the answer to that problem would be to just use a somewhat longer cordelette.

I'll have to play around with it some more but, so far, I like it a lot more than my solution.


patto


Sep 22, 2012, 1:19 AM
Post #33 of 47 (2784 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1451

Re: [LostinMaine] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

LostinMaine wrote:
jensen wrote:
It is interesting that all you rope anchor builders are satisfied with just using the rope...

I find it more interesting that so many people are not satisfied with just using the rope for the majority of cases.
Touche!! Cool

As somebody who almost exclusively builds anchors out of rope I have yet to see many good arguments in favour of cordalettes.

Since I am very efficient with the rope, cordalettes are not faster, easier or more flexible.

The only real advantage to me is if I plan on leading two pitches in a row. But even then it only saves about 60seconds for the belay for the sake of carrying TWO cordalettes.

Simply put I don't carry a cordalette when multipitching.


jensen


Sep 22, 2012, 1:25 AM
Post #34 of 47 (2784 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [JimTitt] Sequelette? [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:
You will get some equalisation but not as much as you probably hoped for! But the general concept nowadays is that avoiding extension is preferable to the partial equalisation you achieve in most cases.

I guess if you get negligible or very little dynamic equalization then it does makes sense to make no-extension the priority over equalization. But I wonder exactly how much partial dynamic equalization you get from systems like the Quad or Equalette. If you know of any studies which measure the dynamic equalization of using the Quad or Equalette versus the standard cordelette, please let me know where I can find them. Thanks.


JimTitt


Sep 22, 2012, 3:41 AM
Post #35 of 47 (2777 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 975

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Itīs complicated to put it mildly!

With the system you show youīll be gettinga load split of ca.62%/38% on the two sliding legs and probably 0%/100% on the left fixed leg.

The dynamic systems equalise to a certain extent but the static (fixed) systems are also difficult to equalise satisfactorily and with more than two pieces in the anchor itīs virtually impossible to get the loads equal. A system like yours is the worst of two worlds because you have probably no equalisation at all on the left side as itīs fixed and tying the overhand destroyed whatever equalisation you might have achieved, plus the invitable extension if the right side fails.

With a setup as you have shown the load has to be at least 15° offset to one side before the karabiners start moving as the friction is considerable and up to this angle there is no difference in the load distribution for either a dynamic or a static system (providing they started out with the same equalisation).

The situation also changes depending on whether the pieces are arranged horizontally as you usually see in the diegrams or arranged vertically. In a vertical orientation the limiter knots can be very close together and extension restricted to a few inches. With a fixed system in the vertical orientation the unequal length of the arms makes equalisation impossible anyway and so a dynamically equalising system is the better choice.
Horizontally orientated the position is reversed and a static system is preferable.
However life being what it is the pieces are usually all over the place and it will be impossible to decide which is the better so the default is not to use a dynamically equalising system.

You shouldnīt be belaying on pieces which MUST be equalised to hold the load since if one does fail the rest will inevitably fail. It is very rare in a cimbing career (unless you are an alpinist) that you must belay on crap since one can find something better somewhere else or just abandon the route and abseil off.
You should be belaying on a number of pieces each of which WILL hold the load and if one does fail (since we canīt normally judge the strength that well) then another will hold. This is the redundancy or back-up principle and what is generally taught these days and eliminating extension is essential to give the next piece the best chance of survival.

Simplicity is even more important to aim for since anchor failures from whatever system (dynamic or static) is used are unheard of, disasters due to elementary screw-ups like clipping into the wrong part or even forgetting to clip in altogether are however more common!


louBlissab


Sep 22, 2012, 5:36 AM
Post #36 of 47 (2766 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 9, 2009
Posts: 51

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Even though I currently still use the standard cordelette system, I'm not happy with it or any of the others for various reasons.


Jensen,

What reasons do you have for not being happy with the standard three-point equalized cordelette system that most climbers use?

It's fast, safe, works 100 percent of the time and the rope is independent of the anchor system. It would be difficult to find another climbing partner with the same complex anchoring thought process to swing leads with.

I am not sure how long this system takes to rig, but I would not want to be on some crappy belay ledge freezing in the rain and wanting to get down in a hurry, trying to figure this rig out.

Just one person's opinion.

AB

(This post was edited by louBlissab on Sep 22, 2012, 5:49 AM)


jensen


Sep 24, 2012, 12:44 AM
Post #37 of 47 (2695 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [JimTitt] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
With a setup as you have shown the load has to be at least 15° offset to one side before the karabiners start moving as the friction is considerable...


Is that number, 15°, from tests you've personally performed or is it from studies published somewhere?

That is not what I expected at all. If that's the case then what I'm calling the 3-Armed Quad (that is, the system that the Edge described in his posting) won't cut it as well. And I was so hopeful for that one...


jensen


Sep 24, 2012, 12:52 AM
Post #38 of 47 (2694 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Posts: 12

Re: [louBlissab] Sequelette? [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:
What reasons do you have for not being happy with the standard three-point equalized cordelette system that most climbers use?

I was pretty happy with it until I read John Long's latest Climbing Anchors book where he talks about the equalization issues with it and introduces the Equalette as a better solution.


JimTitt


Sep 24, 2012, 3:51 AM
Post #39 of 47 (2678 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 975

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
In reply to:
With a setup as you have shown the load has to be at least 15° offset to one side before the karabiners start moving as the friction is considerable...


Is that number, 15°, from tests you've personally performed or is it from studies published somewhere?

That is not what I expected at all. If that's the case then what I'm calling the 3-Armed Quad (that is, the system that the Edge described in his posting) won't cut it as well. And I was so hopeful for that one...

The 15° is a rough figure which depends on the materials you use but a near-enough ballpark for normal purposes. It is from both tests Iīve done (and Iīve done hundreds) and from tests done elsewhere. Itīs also easy to work out from the coefficient of friction which for aluminium on nylon rope is between 0.2 and 0.3 depending on the velocity which gives an angle of repose of 12° to 17°. Testing shows it is in the 13°-15° range depending on the type of cord and a few other variables.
Itīs the same no matter how you tie the system!


LostinMaine


Sep 24, 2012, 9:49 AM
Post #40 of 47 (2634 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
In reply to:
What reasons do you have for not being happy with the standard three-point equalized cordelette system that most climbers use?

I was pretty happy with it until I read John Long's latest Climbing Anchors book where he talks about the equalization issues with it and introduces the Equalette as a better solution.

So as not to rehash all that has been said and demonstrated by Jim Titt (and some others), I recommend reading through this thread:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;


ClimbSoHigh


Oct 12, 2012, 9:54 AM
Post #41 of 47 (2424 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 28, 2008
Posts: 208

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

I like how you are doing a good job analyzing the short comings and compromises of conventional anchor techniques, and are getting you brain churning in the safety of your living room rather than in the field. IMO it is very important to try and figure out "why can't I do something this way" on the ground, and then seek out a reason why experienced climbers do not do it that way and why. A key is to check your pride at the door, and be able to realize something really is a bad idea after you spend hours by yourself thinking about how great it is. I have spent many hours dicking around with possible alternates, and then asking why experienced climbers do or don't do it. Having been there, I feel the following points might be helpful...

1 - Always start with bomber pro. ALWAYS!! This is WAY more important than improving/perfecting equalization or no extension.

2 - The rope is the strongest and most durable soft good you have when climbing. If you are swapping leads, or climbing single pitch, I cannot think of a single good reason not to anchor with your climbing rope.

3 - Cordalettes really only make sense for guides, parties of more than 2, or people that will be leading several pitches in a row. This requires 2 cordalettes for the party.

4 - Keep things simple.

5 - Check and double check everything. Keeping it simple not only helps with efficiency, but also makes it easier to inspect.


surfstar


Oct 30, 2012, 11:47 AM
Post #42 of 47 (2277 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 30, 2011
Posts: 206

Re: [ClimbSoHigh] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ROPE STRETCHING PITCHES

The other thing that makes a cord anchor useful.


patto


Oct 30, 2012, 1:02 PM
Post #43 of 47 (2244 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1451

Re: [jensen] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jensen wrote:
I was pretty happy with it until I read John Long's latest Climbing Anchors book where he talks about the equalization issues with it and introduces the Equalette as a better solution.

John Long should be burned at the stake for the number of beginners he has confused and mislead with this edition of his book.

J. Long's conclusions regarding extension were totally false and the excessive focus on equalisation unsubstantiated.


avalon420


Oct 30, 2012, 1:35 PM
Post #44 of 47 (2229 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 281

Re: [surfstar] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

surfstar wrote:
ROPE STRETCHING PITCHES

The other thing that makes a cord anchor useful.
But by that point in time (rope stretch Crazy) there is typically more than enough gear between belayer & climber to simul-climb the rest.


shimanilami


Oct 30, 2012, 1:54 PM
Post #45 of 47 (2224 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043

Re: [avalon420] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

avalon420 wrote:
But by that point in time (rope stretch Crazy) there is typically more than enough gear between belayer & climber to simul-climb the rest.

Classic!


surfstar


Oct 30, 2012, 3:19 PM
Post #46 of 47 (2209 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 30, 2011
Posts: 206

Re: [shimanilami] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shimanilami wrote:
avalon420 wrote:
But by that point in time (rope stretch Crazy) there is typically more than enough gear between belayer & climber to simul-climb the rest.

Classic!

I usually just untie and use the cordelette to gain another 20' of rope


avalon420


Oct 30, 2012, 3:44 PM
Post #47 of 47 (2202 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 281

Re: [surfstar] Sequelette? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

surfstar wrote:
shimanilami wrote:
avalon420 wrote:
But by that point in time (rope stretch Crazy) there is typically more than enough gear between belayer & climber to simul-climb the rest.

Classic!

I usually just untie and use the cordelette to gain another 20' of rope
Hell yeah, that's why I tie my cordtits out of 10 mm. But I don't usually have them unless I'm dragging a bunch of gumbies c:


(This post was edited by avalon420 on Oct 30, 2012, 3:56 PM)


Forums : Climbing Information : The Lab

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook