Forums: Climbing Information: Beginners:
Cordellette Anchor Question
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Beginners

Premier Sponsor:

 


HouseHippo


Sep 26, 2012, 12:59 PM
Post #1 of 54 (9227 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 19, 2012
Posts: 5

Cordellette Anchor Question
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hello everyone,

I plan on making the anchor shown below on any double bolted spots I run in to for top roping but just have a quick question. Why is the climbing rope feeding through two carabiners, isn't one enough or is there some safety reason that I'm missing?



Thanks!


jeepnphreak


Sep 26, 2012, 1:09 PM
Post #2 of 54 (9225 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 28, 2008
Posts: 1259

Re: [HouseHippo] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

One biner is ok.
Two is better, stronger, redundant, and less friction on the rope.
It make the rope slide over a larger area, allowing the rope to run smoother while belaying and lowering.
also the way the biners are opposed makes the possibility of the gates comming un screwed, and the gates opening and the roping comming un cliped is almost impossible with two lockers.

if you have two locker why not make your outting just a bit safer.


csproul


Sep 26, 2012, 1:58 PM
Post #3 of 54 (9197 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1767

Re: [HouseHippo] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

IMO, one is not enough. It is not a matter of strength. Ropes can pull across the gate and unclip or the gate can be pushed open by the rock. Two opposite and opposed biners prevent the rope from becoming unclipped. A single locker IMO is still not adequate. You are not there to attend a locker on a TR and cannot be assured that it hasn't come unlocked. Lockers can and do come unlocked. If this happens, you are now TRing on a single non-locked carabiner.


climbingaggie03


Sep 26, 2012, 2:15 PM
Post #4 of 54 (9187 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1172

Re: [HouseHippo] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I agree with csproul, I've seen people TR through one locker, but I've also seen lockers unlock themselves. Also as a nitpick, if I was going to set up an anchor like this, I'd have the gates on the biners that are on the bolts facing opposite directions.

To offer some unsolicited advice, if you're sport climbing, you can just put a quickdraw on each bolt (opposite and opposed) clip the rope to each one and call it good. The anchor you posted is perfectly acceptable and safe, but a bit of a pain to set up.


HouseHippo


Sep 26, 2012, 2:45 PM
Post #5 of 54 (9173 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 19, 2012
Posts: 5

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

Awesome, thanks for the replies everyone. I kind of assumed it was an added form of safety incase one of the carabiners were to become unlocked.

This sparks another question for me though. While I agree that if I have the extra carabiner, I may as well use it to make my trip just that much safer, but why is this trend only seen in anchors? I've seen pictures of people using two carabiners on their anchors countless times but I have never seen someone using two biners to lock the rope on to their harness. Using the same logic, the carabiner you use to lock your harness to your rope could just as, if not more easily, become unlocked while banging against the rock face during the ascend.

Is this not done because it just opens a whole new can of worms of redundancy or is there a difference between the two, because I just don't see it. Or perhaps people do use two carabiners to lock their harness to the rope and I just haven't seen it yet?

I apologize for my ignorance, I'm new and I would just like to sponge up as much information as possible that can make my climbs safer.

Thanks in advance! Smile


kennoyce


Sep 26, 2012, 3:00 PM
Post #6 of 54 (9166 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1309

Re: [HouseHippo] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

HouseHippo wrote:
Awesome, thanks for the replies everyone. I kind of assumed it was an added form of safety incase one of the carabiners were to become unlocked.

This sparks another question for me though. While I agree that if I have the extra carabiner, I may as well use it to make my trip just that much safer, but why is this trend only seen in anchors? I've seen pictures of people using two carabiners on their anchors countless times but I have never seen someone using two biners to lock the rope on to their harness. Using the same logic, the carabiner you use to lock your harness to your rope could just as, if not more easily, become unlocked while banging against the rock face during the ascend.

Is this not done because it just opens a whole new can of worms of redundancy or is there a difference between the two, because I just don't see it. Or perhaps people do use two carabiners to lock their harness to the rope and I just haven't seen it yet?

I apologize for my ignorance, I'm new and I would just like to sponge up as much information as possible that can make my climbs safer.

Thanks in advance! Smile

If you're clipping the rope to your harness with a biner you're doing it wrong. The rope should be tied directly to your harness through the tie in points, not clipped to your harness with a biner.


csproul


Sep 26, 2012, 3:12 PM
Post #7 of 54 (9164 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1767

Re: [HouseHippo] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In general, climbers don't often clip the rope into their harness with carabiners. They usually tie the rope on. However, there are times when people do clip the rope to their harnesses instead of tieing in. In these cases I'd definitely use two opposite and opposed carabiners just as I would with a TR anchor. It is true that you could use one locker, but I'm usually worrying about the climbing and not tending the carabiner. Since I do not have my attention focused on assuring that the carabiner remains locked, I prefer to have 2 carabiners.

As for the carabiner used to attach a belay device, in that case you are able to check that it remains locked and thus one is ok.


(This post was edited by csproul on Sep 26, 2012, 3:13 PM)


JaWiB


Sep 26, 2012, 3:20 PM
Post #8 of 54 (9155 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 21, 2011
Posts: 5

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

csproul wrote:
In general, climbers don't often clip the rope into their harness with carabiners. They usually tie the rope on. However, there are times when people do clip the rope to their harnesses instead of tieing in. In these cases I'd definitely use two opposite and opposed carabiners just as I would with a TR anchor. It is true that you could use one locker, but I'm usually worrying about the climbing and not tending the carabiner. Since I do not have my attention focused on assuring that the carabiner remains locked, I prefer to have 2 carabiners.

As for the carabiner used to attach a belay device, in that case you are able to check that it remains locked and thus one is ok.
Two carabiners is actually by the UIAA: http://theuiaa.org/...ope_by_karabiner.pdf


billcoe_


Sep 27, 2012, 11:34 AM
Post #9 of 54 (8976 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4668

Re: [jeepnphreak] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jeepnphreak wrote:
One biner is ok.
Two is better, stronger, redundant, and less friction on the rope.
It make the rope slide over a larger area, allowing the rope to run smoother while belaying and lowering.
also the way the biners are opposed makes the possibility of the gates comming un screwed, and the gates opening and the roping comming un cliped is almost impossible with two lockers.

Great post. On the money all the way. The thing I appreciate on top of all of that is that my rope will last longer. Not a bad thing.


knudenoggin


Sep 27, 2012, 11:34 AM
Post #10 of 54 (8976 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

Re: [jeepnphreak] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jeepnphreak wrote:
One biner is ok.
Two is ... less friction on the rope.

That was my surmise, but in a thread on anchors Jim Titt
remarked that the doubled 'biners would increase friction,
and in some quick play with weights, rope, & 'biners, his point
seemed to be confirmed (but it was a slight difference).

*kN*


redlude97


Sep 27, 2012, 12:03 PM
Post #11 of 54 (8969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

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

knudenoggin wrote:
jeepnphreak wrote:
One biner is ok.
Two is ... less friction on the rope.

That was my surmise, but in a thread on anchors Jim Titt
remarked that the doubled 'biners would increase friction,
and in some quick play with weights, rope, & 'biners, his point
seemed to be confirmed (but it was a slight difference).

*kN*
IIRC he said it was the same, since the total bend radius was the same for 1 vs. 2 carabiners


jeepnphreak


Sep 27, 2012, 12:51 PM
Post #12 of 54 (8953 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 28, 2008
Posts: 1259

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

knudenoggin wrote:
jeepnphreak wrote:
One biner is ok.
Two is ... less friction on the rope.

That was my surmise, but in a thread on anchors Jim Titt
remarked that the doubled 'biners would increase friction,
and in some quick play with weights, rope, & 'biners, his point
seemed to be confirmed (but it was a slight difference).

*kN*

It could be, but the difference is pretty minimal, I not a physicist at all so I not going to get in to calculating the exact numbers. In my experience having two carabineers seems to make a more pleasant rope experience. Whether it be a bit more friction and you are working less on your ATC end, or be it the ropes is running smoother through the anchor, whatever. The peace of mind in having the redundancy is the real reason.
I do believe that two carabineers are easer on the rope due to that the cerconfernce over two biners is 2x the rope is not flexing nearly as much.


JimTitt


Sep 27, 2012, 1:03 PM
Post #13 of 54 (8946 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

Re: [redlude97] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
knudenoggin wrote:
jeepnphreak wrote:
One biner is ok.
Two is ... less friction on the rope.

That was my surmise, but in a thread on anchors Jim Titt
remarked that the doubled 'biners would increase friction,
and in some quick play with weights, rope, & 'biners, his point
seemed to be confirmed (but it was a slight difference).

*kN*
IIRC he said it was the same, since the total bend radius was the same for 1 vs. 2 carabiners

Your memory is failing you! The friction increases the more karabiners you add (the rate of increase slows after loads though, say about 5 or 6).
Not that Iīd be worrying about it in a top-roping context since its only about 10% more!


marc801


Sep 27, 2012, 1:09 PM
Post #14 of 54 (8945 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2744

Re: [jeepnphreak] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jeepnphreak wrote:
I do believe that two carabineers are easer on the rope due to that the cerconfernce over two biners is 2x the rope is not flexing nearly as much.
That is blatantly incorrect. With two biners, the rope contact surface is more closely modeled as a box with rounded edges, not a cylinder that is twice the diameter of a single biner, as your post implies.


knudenoggin


Sep 27, 2012, 1:26 PM
Post #15 of 54 (8941 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 594

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

knudenoggin wrote:
jeepnphreak wrote:
One biner is ok.
Two is ... less friction on the rope.

That was my surmise, but in a thread on anchors Jim Titt
remarked that the doubled 'biners would increase friction,
and in some quick play with weights, rope, & 'biners, his point
seemed to be confirmed (but it was a slight difference).

*kN*

Actually, my memory growing, it wasn't >>rope<< but HMPE tape
that I tested, as that was what was at issue, i.p..
My thinking was that the sort of compressive *snowplowing* of
the material's surface in contact with the 'biner would be limited
in degree (a lesser degree at two points vs. greater at one!?),
and that the material wouldn't have to make the 180deg bend
all at once (more an issue w/rope than tape).

JimTitt wrote:
Your memory is failing you! The friction increases the more karabiners you add (the rate of increase slows after loads though, say about 5 or 6).
Not that Iīd be worrying about it in a top-roping context since its only about 10% more!

I'm thinking that beyond two 'biners one will struggle to have any
sort of stable platform to postulate over! (and have way too many
" 'biners on hand", so to speak Tongue )

But, what's the quick rationale for the INcrease with 2 vs. 1 ?

[NB: It is NOT recommended to use 1 only in the TR, but as argued
above, two --frictional issues be darned. ]


*kN*


redlude97


Sep 27, 2012, 2:33 PM
Post #16 of 54 (8920 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

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

JimTitt wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
knudenoggin wrote:
jeepnphreak wrote:
One biner is ok.
Two is ... less friction on the rope.

That was my surmise, but in a thread on anchors Jim Titt
remarked that the doubled 'biners would increase friction,
and in some quick play with weights, rope, & 'biners, his point
seemed to be confirmed (but it was a slight difference).

*kN*
IIRC he said it was the same, since the total bend radius was the same for 1 vs. 2 carabiners

Your memory is failing you! The friction increases the more karabiners you add (the rate of increase slows after loads though, say about 5 or 6).
Not that Iīd be worrying about it in a top-roping context since its only about 10% more!
Yep you are right it is Blush http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=2533857
JimTitt wrote:
Youīve been reading too many papers by rescuers, if you read all the way to the bottom of what I have written to the bibliography you will find after the link the following:- "Stephen Attaway on friction and deriving Amontonīs capstan formula. Interesting mathematics but flawed."
That was a polite hint that it is completely wrong.

And if you (or he for that matter) bothered to do the experimentation or review bending theory or try some test calculation using the theory and match the results to known experience you (and he) would discover that Amontons capstan theory is inapplicable in a circumstance where the bending object has any moment of inertia.
He is wrong and you are wrong.

The radius of an object doesnīt change by placing another object beside the first, any child can see that. And the result of adding one part of a radius offset to another is that the rope bends, straightens and bends again so the work of bending has to be done twice increasing the resistance.

Get a spring balance, pull a rope with a weight over a karabiner and then add more karabiners. You will see the truth.


Jim


jeepnphreak


Sep 27, 2012, 9:01 PM
Post #17 of 54 (8850 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 28, 2008
Posts: 1259

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

marc801 wrote:
jeepnphreak wrote:
I do believe that two carabineers are easer on the rope due to that the cerconfernce over two biners is 2x the rope is not flexing nearly as much.
That is blatantly incorrect. With two biners, the rope contact surface is more closely modeled as a box with rounded edges, not a cylinder that is twice the diameter of a single biner, as your post implies.

Dude! you need to go into politics. thats is a great way of pulling what I said out of context. Look at the first part, than I said I BELIEVE. allthough it was a wrong statment I never said FACT.
Any why there you have it more friction over the two biner set up.


JimTitt


Sep 28, 2012, 3:30 AM
Post #18 of 54 (8823 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

Re: [redlude97] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Having struggled to pull the graph out from a calc. file the quality is not the best but hereīs lifting an 80kg weight as a 2:1 purchase , 10mm rope with various numbers of karabiners. Tape Iīve never tested but it should be the same effect just less noticeable.
The steps as the load is taken up are from the powered winch used to lift the load.

Attachments: Karabinerefficiency.jpg (17.0 KB)


marc801


Sep 28, 2012, 9:35 AM
Post #19 of 54 (8755 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2744

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

JimTitt wrote:
Having struggled to pull the graph out from a calc. file the quality is not the best but hereīs lifting an 80kg weight as a 2:1 purchase , 10mm rope with various numbers of karabiners. Tape Iīve never tested but it should be the same effect just less noticeable.
The steps as the load is taken up are from the powered winch used to lift the load.
What is the X axis?


redlude97


Sep 28, 2012, 11:43 AM
Post #20 of 54 (8730 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

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

JimTitt wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
knudenoggin wrote:
jeepnphreak wrote:
One biner is ok.
Two is ... less friction on the rope.

That was my surmise, but in a thread on anchors Jim Titt
remarked that the doubled 'biners would increase friction,
and in some quick play with weights, rope, & 'biners, his point
seemed to be confirmed (but it was a slight difference).

*kN*
IIRC he said it was the same, since the total bend radius was the same for 1 vs. 2 carabiners

Your memory is failing you! The friction increases the more karabiners you add (the rate of increase slows after loads though, say about 5 or 6).
Not that Iīd be worrying about it in a top-roping context since its only about 10% more!
Based on this, what are the implications on carabiner wear? Does that mean that a 3 carabiner TR setup would produce more wear than a 2 or 1 carabiner TR anchor?


JimTitt


Sep 28, 2012, 12:04 PM
Post #21 of 54 (8720 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

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

marc801 wrote:
JimTitt wrote:
Having struggled to pull the graph out from a calc. file the quality is not the best but hereīs lifting an 80kg weight as a 2:1 purchase , 10mm rope with various numbers of karabiners. Tape Iīve never tested but it should be the same effect just less noticeable.
The steps as the load is taken up are from the powered winch used to lift the load.
What is the X axis?

Err, time.
Itīs not relevant so it isnīt on the graph. The plot is showing taking the load on the weight (the rising portion of the line) and then the force (or load) needed to pull it upwards (the horizontal lines). The plots are offset anyway to make it possible to see the different lines more clearly.
The horizontal portions of the plots are the important part!


JimTitt


Sep 28, 2012, 12:16 PM
Post #22 of 54 (8712 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

Re: [redlude97] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
JimTitt wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
knudenoggin wrote:
jeepnphreak wrote:
One biner is ok.
Two is ... less friction on the rope.

That was my surmise, but in a thread on anchors Jim Titt
remarked that the doubled 'biners would increase friction,
and in some quick play with weights, rope, & 'biners, his point
seemed to be confirmed (but it was a slight difference).

*kN*
IIRC he said it was the same, since the total bend radius was the same for 1 vs. 2 carabiners

Your memory is failing you! The friction increases the more karabiners you add (the rate of increase slows after loads though, say about 5 or 6).
Not that Iīd be worrying about it in a top-roping context since its only about 10% more!
Based on this, what are the implications on carabiner wear? Does that mean that a 3 carabiner TR setup would produce more wear than a 2 or 1 carabiner TR anchor?

The wear on the rope should be worse with more karabiners since the increased resistance is due to increased flexing in the rope, on the karabiners themselves no idea at all!

However!
Its worth looking at a typical cordalette or whatever when the rope is running through the karabiner under load, you usually see that the ībiner twists a bit and lets the rope touch the rock, if you use three (or more) karabiners side by side they bunch together and make a flat surface which lies nicely on the rock and this removes the rope rubbing problem. So more is better usually despite the theory!


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 7:13 AM
Post #23 of 54 (8408 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

Re: [HouseHippo] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Saw this post and literally signed up to rockclimbing.com to reply to it. You are going to get someone hurt.
1: Conforming to one type of anchor on every double bolted anchor spot displays your inexperience. (As well as the carabiner question)
2: Your carabiner question. It is NOT okay to use only one carabiner at the powerpoint, even if it is a locker it can come undone. Always two carabiners opposite and opposed.
3: Cordelette anchor: Is it safe to say that every route you climb has absolutely no traverse? Falling anywhere off the rope line you positioned that anchor for will cause stress on one of the bolts. Studies show the cordelette anchor istelf can never achieve perfect equality. Depending on the route, it is usually safer to go with a sliding X, provided the bolts are perfect and theres no worry of extension... and a bit of other things that YOU should know about as the person doing anchors for someone. For example...
4: That pic you posted has carabiners on "RAP" rings...
Your ignorance will hurt someone, buy some anchor books, search the internet, take a class and speak with old rock climbing specialists then come back and say you've learned to be safe.
My apologies for coming off rude, but this is why people get hurt.


(This post was edited by chasetherabbit on Oct 4, 2012, 7:34 AM)


JimTitt


Oct 4, 2012, 7:56 AM
Post #24 of 54 (8384 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Why did you bother to sign up and reply?


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 8:16 AM
Post #25 of 54 (8375 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

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

Seen a guy the other day at my local crag runnin around on ever sport route and slappin the same anchor to each one, leaving it tied and everything (not essentially a bad thing but it with sliding X's might as well re-tie to avoid the clutch effect) Having other people TR from them. Its dangerous, and i guess after seeing that and then seeing this on google anchor images, i felt i should say something. Did come off a bit arrogant I'm sure but safety is what were all looking for. Plus... this site is pretty cool now that I'm skimming through it.
I'm not a jerk i swear but someones gotta say somethin... especially after reading the reply that said it was "ok" to use one. -_-


redlude97


Oct 4, 2012, 8:45 AM
Post #26 of 54 (3650 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chasetherabbit wrote:
Saw this post and literally signed up to rockclimbing.com to reply to it. You are going to get someone hurt.
1: Conforming to one type of anchor on every double bolted anchor spot displays your inexperience. (As well as the carabiner question)
2: Your carabiner question. It is NOT okay to use only one carabiner at the powerpoint, even if it is a locker it can come undone. Always two carabiners opposite and opposed.
3: Cordelette anchor: Is it safe to say that every route you climb has absolutely no traverse? Falling anywhere off the rope line you positioned that anchor for will cause stress on one of the bolts. Studies show the cordelette anchor istelf can never achieve perfect equality. Depending on the route, it is usually safer to go with a sliding X, provided the bolts are perfect and theres no worry of extension... and a bit of other things that YOU should know about as the person doing anchors for someone. For example...
4: That pic you posted has carabiners on "RAP" rings...
Your ignorance will hurt someone, buy some anchor books, search the internet, take a class and speak with old rock climbing specialists then come back and say you've learned to be safe.
My apologies for coming off rude, but this is why people get hurt.
3. Even with a traverse, why would a sliding x be better? Why would perfect equalization be necessary on two bomber bolts? Would 2 QDs be inadequate as well then by your standard?
4. And?????


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 9:52 AM
Post #27 of 54 (3639 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

Re: [redlude97] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Redlude97, not all bolts are bomber. And if you send a beginner off to a crag of 50 sport routes with a pre-tied anchor you're an idiot. Do you suggest that this "beginner" disregard equality on double bolted sport routes?
Say, this beginner decides to go ahead to the local sport crag slapping in his same length cordelette at every 2 bolt anchor. Because nobody disagrees with him he assumes its okay. He doesnt check one of the bolts (that had been drilled improperly) and due to the weight he produces upon falling off the direction of pull he rips one bolt out. Sure, there is little to no extension in a cordelette set-up but does that make it okay? If you're gonna TR from a two-bolt anchor with why not just make it an equalette? Safer, long, no extension, and has a wide arc for traversing. (im just gonna stop writing about this here i dnt want to write a text-book)

If the bolts are bomber, a sliding X on a two bolt anchor is the best-known method. "It is better to dynamically equalize the load on the gear [bolts in this situation] in an effort to prevent failure than to anticipate failure and mitigate the consequence of extension." The extension is longer but according to studies done by John Long, Craig Conally and a member of Rock & Ice magazine, true shock loading with the sliding x cannot occur when there is dynamic rope in the system. Review pages 159-160 in "Climbing Anchors" by John Long and Bob gaines: "Granted, you avoid building anchors that could result in really long extension, but there's little cause to fear ordinary set-ups."

As for the rings, i was hinting upon him to look them up. I was hoping he would read things such as: Do not TR through rings as abrasive in rope abrades it. Aluminum holds 3,400 (rough) pounds new but what if he does that anchor to an abraded ring and falls. Theyre meant for "rappelling." Unless they're solid, no-wear stainless steel or titanium i would hope he had the knowledge to back it up.

I do not wish to pursue an argument but if you feel you need to make your opinion clearer please feel free to enlighten me.


marc801


Oct 4, 2012, 10:07 AM
Post #28 of 54 (3637 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2744

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chasetherabbit wrote:
As for the rings, i was hinting upon him to look them up. I was hoping he would read things such as: Do not TR through rings as abrasive in rope abrades it. Aluminum holds 3,400 (rough) pounds new but what if he does that anchor to an abraded ring and falls. Theyre meant for "rappelling." Unless they're solid, no-wear stainless steel or titanium i would hope he had the knowledge to back it up.
Those are Fixe sport climbing anchors. The ring is welded steel and is intended to be used as shown in the photo* and for lowering with the rope threaded directly through the rings. The slot on the bolt hanger is too small to take most biners. They are not the rolled aluminum rap rings you think they are. The plated steel version is rated at 18kN, stainless at 26kN.


BTW, the photo in the OP comes from a How to Rock Climb site, and is a perfectly adequate top roping anchor. You might want to rethink your pontificating, arrogant responses that are filled with absolutes and rules.


bearbreeder


Oct 4, 2012, 10:19 AM
Post #29 of 54 (3630 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

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

Is everyone arguing about top rope anchors on two good bolta again?

Tongue


marc801


Oct 4, 2012, 10:23 AM
Post #30 of 54 (3627 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2744

Re: [bearbreeder] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
Is everyone arguing about top rope anchors on two good bolta again?
Sure seems that way, this time with a righteous n00b adding in the "it must always be done this way" meme.


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 10:29 AM
Post #31 of 54 (3624 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

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

Marc801, agreed. The photo above is a sufficient anchor, but my reply on the rings was to the original poster as a reference to find more info. Ive seen many people look at a picture of an anchor and then proceed to apply it to every anchor without really knowing anything. You, an obvious experienced climber know that that anchor has these FIXE bolts, but the beginner does not. He will continue to clip into any rings he sees unless he is informed, which he now is. Mission complete. I agree with the specs you posted on rings but even you should know that worn rings are far weaker, something beginners don't look for. I stand by everything I've said not as rules but as guidelines. There will be situations where you just cant do some of the things I've said, but if i have sparked an interest in discovering what to do when those particular situations arise then i have helped someone stay safer.
The photo above is not a poster child for two bolt anchors, it is, like I've stated, a guideline. There is far more to anchoring than this photo shows. . .


bearbreeder


Oct 4, 2012, 10:32 AM
Post #32 of 54 (3620 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

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

marc801 wrote:
Sure seems that way, this time with a righteous n00b adding in the "it must always be done this way" meme.

next time im in the bluffs im going to set up a double redundant good ole american death triangle and use that ... perfectly safe for TR, if poor practice on good bolts ...

im going to watch all the 5.7 top rope tough guys come along screaming about how unsafe i am and how i dont know anything ...

just for the hell of it Wink


ncrockclimber


Oct 4, 2012, 10:33 AM
Post #33 of 54 (3619 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2006
Posts: 274

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chasetherabbit, you seem to feel very comfortable providing "guidelines" to other climbers and pointing out the errors in their thinking. What is your experience level? How long have you been climbing? Please, tell us a little bit more about yourself so that I can understand where your wealth of knowledge comes from.


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 10:50 AM
Post #34 of 54 (3604 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

Re: [ncrockclimber] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Everything I've said comes from books. Written fact. Sure, you can set up and old double redundant death triangle and be fine but to teach a new climber that would be stupid. You're in the beginner section gentlemen. Hell, you can set it up on some spinning hangers and cut the belay loop a bit and you'll be fine. But learning that stuff comes with practice. How many of you started on an American triangle? How often do you still do it on multi-pitch routes and hangdog from rusted 70's buttonheads all day or dryvins? Ive given trustable word to keep someone safe. Is it rule? no. But id let him figure that out with experience. And if I'm so arrogant, why are you guys making fun and trying to top me?


bearbreeder


Oct 4, 2012, 10:56 AM
Post #35 of 54 (3597 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i pretty certain this is a troll

feed him at yr own risk Tongue


patto


Oct 4, 2012, 10:59 AM
Post #36 of 54 (3594 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1451

Re: [ncrockclimber] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ncrockclimber wrote:
chasetherabbit, you seem to feel very comfortable providing "guidelines" to other climbers and pointing out the errors in their thinking. What is your experience level? How long have you been climbing? Please, tell us a little bit more about yourself so that I can understand where your wealth of knowledge comes from.

Seems like he's either read John Longs book or has been 'mentored' by somebody who has.

1. Double bolts.
2. One locking carabiner wouldn't worry me. But 2 is great peace of mind.
3. Damn you John long. Lets not start this.


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 11:04 AM
Post #37 of 54 (3591 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

Re: [bearbreeder] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I was trying to be helpful to the original poster. i may have come off rude but i know it isnt safe for him to be setting anchors with the questions he asked. I provided him with good word to help and of course i got the, "nuh-uh, you can do this and be fine," response. Sorry i wasted your time... that you responded to.


bearbreeder


Oct 4, 2012, 11:15 AM
Post #38 of 54 (3584 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

if you really had any relevant climbing experience you would know that the a cord/sling tied SERENE is perfectly safe and in fact is what many if not most guides use for TR anchors ... and is what they teach students

its that simple ... only people who want to show off, complete newbies or the totally anally retentive would argue about the "safeness" of a SERENE anchor on 2 good bolts for TR

TR anchors on bolts aint rocket science ... except to those who want to pretend it is because they cant brag about anything better

Crazy


JimTitt


Oct 4, 2012, 11:23 AM
Post #39 of 54 (3579 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The reality is we all think the anchor shown is as good as it gets, and itīs certainly better than nearly all of us use in our daily climbing since most of us belong to the "two draws" school of thought.
Using a sliding-X in a top-rope anchor is the sign of a fool.


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 11:23 AM
Post #40 of 54 (3579 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

Re: [bearbreeder] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

And i agree with that. I used a cordelette the other day on a 3 point anchor. My main issue was that the beginner saw a photo and claimed he was going to use it on every 2 bolt anchor. That's the problem. And if your kid said something like that you'd prolly say,"... well not every 2 bolt anchor." I tried. Forget i said anything.


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 11:26 AM
Post #41 of 54 (3577 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

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

Hold on a sec... where did i... its around here somewhere... aHA!!! Her it is. Your pedastel.


bearbreeder


Oct 4, 2012, 11:30 AM
Post #42 of 54 (3573 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i cant think of any good 2 bolt TR anchors that a good cord length and a tied off knot wouldnt be suitable for in squamish off the top of my head, and i know quite a few of em


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 11:33 AM
Post #43 of 54 (3570 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

Re: [bearbreeder] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Youve never backed up sketchy bolts before in squamish?


bearbreeder


Oct 4, 2012, 11:40 AM
Post #44 of 54 (3564 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chasetherabbit wrote:
Youve never backed up sketchy bolts before in squamish?


are you so utterly "unsafe" that you set up TR anchors for newbies on sketchy bolts ... i dont ... if the anchors are sketchy for TR ... walk away

i guess you dont follow yr " Did come off a bit arrogant I'm sure but safety is what were all looking for" rule except for the arrogant part

Wink


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 12:07 PM
Post #45 of 54 (3554 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

Post deleted by chasetherabbit [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


csproul


Oct 4, 2012, 12:13 PM
Post #46 of 54 (3552 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1767

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chasetherabbit wrote:
Hold on a sec... where did i... its around here somewhere... aHA!!! Her it is. Your pedastel.
You do realize that you are arguing with the person who probably knows more about bolts and anchors than just about anyone on the planet, right? I doubt that many have done more to test anchor theory/performance than Jim.


bearbreeder


Oct 4, 2012, 12:23 PM
Post #47 of 54 (3441 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chasetherabbit wrote:
... i feel dumber having even talked to you. . . I said nothing about me.

so let me get this straight ... here you are moaning and railing against a standard anchor that guides use and teach all the time simply because you want to show off how much you know and think you need an equalette to TR ... i invite you to go ahead and tell the next people you see with a SERENE anchor that theyre doing it all wrong because theyll simply laugh in yr face while you scream on the intrawebs about how "unsafe" it is

go do some real climbing, not the virtual theoretical toppu roperu tofu guy stuff ... and just maybe youll learn to actually climb something and some technical skills

and if you didnt quite get it ... im laughing at yr virtual face right now Laugh


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 12:34 PM
Post #48 of 54 (3435 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

Re: [bearbreeder] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I was not moaning about the set-up in the pic. 2nd post i said it was fine. I get mad when i see beginners looking at anchor pics and then goin climbing. Laugh all you want. Just tried to get someone to not become accustomed to one anchor. Theres more to it.


bearbreeder


Oct 4, 2012, 12:40 PM
Post #49 of 54 (3428 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chasetherabbit wrote:
I was not moaning about the set-up in the pic. 2nd post i said it was fine. I get mad when i see beginners looking at anchor pics and then goin climbing. Laugh all you want. Just tried to get someone to not become accustomed to one anchor. Theres more to it.


thats something you wouldnt know ... as yr running around shouting "UNSAFE ANCHOR, UNSAFE ANCHOR" ...

ever go climbing in an overhung sport climbing area ... can you guess what the "standard" anchor and lower offs are ... youd have a heart attack while screaming at everyone who obviously climbs harder and longer than you ...

Tongue


redlude97


Oct 4, 2012, 3:50 PM
Post #50 of 54 (3359 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chasetherabbit wrote:
Redlude97, not all bolts are bomber. And if you send a beginner off to a crag of 50 sport routes with a pre-tied anchor you're an idiot. Do you suggest that this "beginner" disregard equality on double bolted sport routes?
Say, this beginner decides to go ahead to the local sport crag slapping in his same length cordelette at every 2 bolt anchor. Because nobody disagrees with him he assumes its okay. He doesnt check one of the bolts (that had been drilled improperly) and due to the weight he produces upon falling off the direction of pull he rips one bolt out. Sure, there is little to no extension in a cordelette set-up but does that make it okay? If you're gonna TR from a two-bolt anchor with why not just make it an equalette? Safer, long, no extension, and has a wide arc for traversing. (im just gonna stop writing about this here i dnt want to write a text-book)

If the bolts are bomber, a sliding X on a two bolt anchor is the best-known method. "It is better to dynamically equalize the load on the gear [bolts in this situation] in an effort to prevent failure than to anticipate failure and mitigate the consequence of extension." The extension is longer but according to studies done by John Long, Craig Conally and a member of Rock & Ice magazine, true shock loading with the sliding x cannot occur when there is dynamic rope in the system. Review pages 159-160 in "Climbing Anchors" by John Long and Bob gaines: "Granted, you avoid building anchors that could result in really long extension, but there's little cause to fear ordinary set-ups."

As for the rings, i was hinting upon him to look them up. I was hoping he would read things such as: Do not TR through rings as abrasive in rope abrades it. Aluminum holds 3,400 (rough) pounds new but what if he does that anchor to an abraded ring and falls. Theyre meant for "rappelling." Unless they're solid, no-wear stainless steel or titanium i would hope he had the knowledge to back it up.

I do not wish to pursue an argument but if you feel you need to make your opinion clearer please feel free to enlighten me.
Your go to is a sliding-x for TR? Either the bolts are bomber, in which case anything from a cordellete, quad, or just two draws will be sufficient or one or both bolts are suspect, in which case as bearbreader pointed out, you don't TR off them. You certainly don't use a sliding-x which has massive extension potential. BTW, not everything in a book is fact. Long's assertion that shock loading isn't real has been proven to not be true. Take a look for some of the discussions on the subject in old threads here.

As for the ring anchors, its already been addressed above. You can't clip most biners through the hanger, and the rings are solid and are meant to be clipped. They actually wear well even with lowering because the wear isn't concentrated in one spot like on chains.


chasetherabbit


Oct 4, 2012, 4:13 PM
Post #51 of 54 (1118 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 14

Re: [redlude97] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I respectfully wish for this argument to end as everyone seems to be getting angry with me. I wasn't trying to start a problem. I rarely am online as I climb near daily after work. As a last reply i have only a few things to say.
1: I do not have a "go-to" for any type of anchor. I will say, however, that when it comes to bomber two bolt anchors i usually use a sliding X, or, if i need length but want no extension, i use the equalette. The cordelette I have used as well but in terms of equalization i prefer the equalette.
2: I never had a problem with the anchor above. I did mention (and the obvious reason people yelled at me) that the carabiners were clipped into rings and hinted to the OP to search more in depth on that. I can see how many misunderstood what i was trying to prove. I wasn't saying it was bad but i wanted the OP to see what rings were bad and learn about wear.
3: I am not a know it all like many of you now think but i do wish for everyone to be safe and enjoy climbing. I have actually given people anchor chains when they do a walk-around to set-up a top rope. (Not trying to look cool saying that)
4: I believe it is important still for the OP to read about direction of pull, fall forces and static loading before setting anchors. Equality is important and the cordelette even by looking at being pulled of its direction pulled proves its poor ability at maintaining equality. (Not saying never to do one)
5: I hope you all the best and safest of climbing and apologize for making anyone angry.


marc801


Oct 4, 2012, 5:48 PM
Post #52 of 54 (1102 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2744

Re: [chasetherabbit] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chasetherabbit wrote:
I respectfully wish for this argument to end as everyone seems to be getting angry with me.
Not so much you but you came off as a know it all.

chasetherabbit wrote:
I wasn't trying to start a problem.

Yet your first two comments to the OP sliced and diced him pretty well. To wit:
chasetherabbit wrote:
Saw this post and literally signed up to rockclimbing.com to reply to it. You are going to get someone hurt.
1: Conforming to one type of anchor on every double bolted anchor spot displays your inexperience.

It's like you wanted to pick a fight, as were some of your replies. And what a surprise - someone in the beginner's forum displaying their inexperience...and you decide to call them on the carpet for it.

chasetherabbit wrote:
1: I do not have a "go-to" for any type of anchor. I will say, however, that when it comes to bomber two bolt anchors i usually use a sliding X, or, if i need length but want no extension, i use the equalette. The cordelette I have used as well but in terms of equalization i prefer the equalette.
You don't have a "go-to" anchor set up yet you "usually use a sliding X" on bomber two bolt anchors. Are you Romney in disguise? And this despite other posters showing the problem with the sliding X in that application.

chasetherabbit wrote:
2: I never had a problem with the anchor above. I did mention (and the obvious reason people yelled at me) that the carabiners were clipped into rings and hinted to the OP to search more in depth on that. I can see how many misunderstood what i was trying to prove. I wasn't saying it was bad but i wanted the OP to see what rings were bad and learn about wear.
You didn't do any of that. All you said was:
chasetherabbit wrote:
4: That pic you posted has carabiners on "RAP" rings...
...which was also factually incorrect.


chasetherabbit wrote:
3: I am not a know it all like many of you now think but i do wish for everyone to be safe and enjoy climbing.
Maybe so, but you write like one.

chasetherabbit wrote:
I have actually given people anchor chains when they do a walk-around to set-up a top rope. (Not trying to look cool saying that)
Then why say it if you're not spraying?

chasetherabbit wrote:
4: I believe it is important still for the OP to read about direction of pull, fall forces and static loading before setting anchors. Equality is important and the cordelette even by looking at being pulled of its direction pulled proves its poor ability at maintaining equality. (Not saying never to do one)

But again, by ignoring the extremely simple pair of draws with lockers on them, you are also advocating a single one-size-fits-all approach - exactly what you accuse the OP of doing. Not every anchor requires textbook perfect equalization. Bomber two bolt sport anchors are one of those.

chasetherabbit wrote:
5: I hope you all the best and safest of climbing and apologize for making anyone angry.
Likewise.


bigredscowboy


Oct 25, 2012, 7:20 PM
Post #53 of 54 (990 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 30, 2007
Posts: 138

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

This has to be the first time i've ever seen the dumb question not get flamed and the one guy willing to point out the obvious inexperience of the OP get flamed constantly


Partner rgold


Oct 26, 2012, 9:37 AM
Post #54 of 54 (940 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1801

Re: [bigredscowboy] Cordellette Anchor Question [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

This discussion puts me in mind of the quote, variously attributed to Will Rogers and Mark Twain,

"It's not what he doesn't know that bothers me ... it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so."

When in doubt, put yer money on Jim Titt folks. Unlike most of the rest of us, he's actually tested the situations he comments on.

And as for books and guides...well, we hope they are right (and over the years there have been spectacular examples when this was not the case), but knowledge evolves and practices adapt, although often very slowly, so that even experienced climbers and guides cling to suboptimal practices for a long time before up-to-date knowledge actually takes hold.

But most suboptimal practices nowadays, when knowledge about climbing practice spreads more quickly, are "good enough," and hysterical remarks about getting people killed are huge exaggerations. Often, a focus on minutiae start people off on long debates, while the most important issues are totally ignored.

This thread is a case in point. The rigging depicted is absolutely fine as long as the bolts are good, and is, of course, worthless if the bolts are bad. So the real question is, what clues are there to help a new climber judge the reliability of a bolted anchor?


Forums : Climbing Information : Beginners

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$175.00 (10% off)
$89.96 (10% off)
$292.46 (10% off)
$242.96 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook