|
iamthewallress
Feb 9, 2005, 11:00 PM
Post #26 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
Every now and then when I venture into one of these anchor threads and read some of the hard and fast rules that people swear by, I have to scratch my head and wonder, where do they climb that nature provides such textbook anchoring opportunities, how much gear do they bring, and how far off the deck to they ever manage to get?
Regarding the lack of visual/tactile feedback from cams...How is a cam placed behind a constriction any more likely to rip out than a nut placed behind a constriction? At least the cam stands a chance if the anticipated direction of force was anticipated incorrectly.
Ancors fail sometimes...All flavors of them.
|
|
|
|
|
napoleon_in_rags
Feb 10, 2005, 12:07 AM
Post #27 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 586
|
I may be inexperienced at it, but I definitely prefer passive in a narrow crack. You look at the smaller cams and the range between over and under camming is not that large. It may just be psychological though....
I would say that you should always mix your anchor types though.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 10, 2005, 12:14 AM
Post #28 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: I usually equalize two placements below cruxes and oppose all stopper placements. At anchors i oppose the anchor system. Jesus, you must have a bigger rack than Kate! GO
Or else he just climbs short 5.5s.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 10, 2005, 12:18 AM
Post #29 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: How is a cam placed behind a constriction any more likely to rip out than a nut placed behind a constriction?
Well, the cam could walk further back into the constriction and fall out.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 10, 2005, 1:06 AM
Post #30 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Every now and then when I venture into one of these anchor threads and read some of the hard and fast rules that people swear by, I have to scratch my head and wonder, where do they climb that nature provides such textbook anchoring opportunities, how much gear do they bring, and how far off the deck to they ever manage to get?.
I agree with iamthewallress, there are no "rules" pers se around built anchors - each one is a unique situation. Three nuts, three cams, 1 cam/2 nuts, there is no telling without looking a particular placement. In general I treat all pro, active and passive, exactly the same from a placing, slinging, and anchoring perspective and just use what the rock seems to dictate at any given placement or belay point.
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Feb 10, 2005, 1:20 AM
Post #31 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
In reply to: In reply to: How is a cam placed behind a constriction any more likely to rip out than a nut placed behind a constriction? Well, the cam could walk further back into the constriction and fall out. -Jay
So could a nut.
Biners can come unclipped too.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Feb 10, 2005, 1:30 AM
Post #32 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Use what ever pieces work best, regardless of them being passive or active.
Don't forget your upward pull piece.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 10, 2005, 1:39 AM
Post #33 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: How is a cam placed behind a constriction any more likely to rip out than a nut placed behind a constriction? Well, the cam could walk further back into the constriction and fall out. -Jay So could a nut.
Nuts don't "walk." Having a cam set in a flare walk into a tipped-out position is a pretty common beginner error. I don't see what this has to do with the subject of the thread, though. I was just responding to your question.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
napoleon_in_rags
Feb 10, 2005, 1:42 AM
Post #34 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 586
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: How is a cam placed behind a constriction any more likely to rip out than a nut placed behind a constriction? Well, the cam could walk further back into the constriction and fall out. -Jay So could a nut.
A nut won't become umbrellaed and then be destroyed because the trigger wires can't take the strain. Unless you are using a camalot, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Feb 10, 2005, 1:48 AM
Post #35 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: How is a cam placed behind a constriction any more likely to rip out than a nut placed behind a constriction? Well, the cam could walk further back into the constriction and fall out. -Jay So could a nut. Nuts don't "walk." Having a cam set in a flare walk into a tipped-out position is a pretty common beginner error. I don't see what this has to do with the subject of the thread, though. I was just responding to your question. -Jay
Nuts indeed walk...And when they walk, they sometimes leap! (I've seen many more of them pop out than cams.)
What it has to do with the thread is that every piece has some failure mode. Understanding how the gear works and using it accordingly in light of the protection opportunities that a given anchor zone offers will make you much safer, IMO than blindly following rules.
(FWIW, the 'constriction' that I was imagining in my initial statement was not also a flare...just an otherwise parallel crack that consticted in front of and below the piece without the crack opening up anywhere near the placement allowing a walking cam to just open itself up and tip out or fall out.)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 10, 2005, 2:06 AM
Post #36 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: How is a cam placed behind a constriction any more likely to rip out than a nut placed behind a constriction? Well, the cam could walk further back into the constriction and fall out. -Jay So could a nut. Nuts don't "walk." Having a cam set in a flare walk into a tipped-out position is a pretty common beginner error. I don't see what this has to do with the subject of the thread, though. I was just responding to your question. -Jay Nuts indeed walk...And when they walk, they sometimes leap! What it has to do with the thread is that every piece has some failure mode. Understanding how the gear works will make you much safer, IMO than
Well, the answer to the original question, if I'm not mistaken, has to do with something that rgold brought up in another thread, that is unique to cam-only anchors, especially when equalized with a cordelette. As best as I can recall -- and I'm sketchy on the details -- the argument was this: Say you traverse above and to the right of the anchor and fall directly onto it. The rightmost cam can feel a force with a component parallel to its axis. Since the cam has essentially no holding power in this direction, it can rip out, exposing the next cam to a force in the same direction, with the same consequences for it and the final cam as well. IIRC rgold was arguing that a cascade failure such as this is unique to an all-cam anchor. A single bomber nut somewhere in the anchor prevents this from happening. So, the issue isn't whether a nut is better than a cam; it has to do with the interaction among the cams, when the anchor contains no nuts.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
johnhenry
Feb 25, 2005, 10:52 AM
Post #37 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2002
Posts: 202
|
Jay you lost me there buddy... First you were talking about cams walking and then about static failure in the anchor.
Call me crazy, I have never had a cam or a nut walk in my anchor. There should be no casual movement there with which to dislodge it (except maybe a solo anchor...).
Expanding flakes or just generally crappy rock is the most likely thing to make a cam fail in an anchor. I think most people would be very suprised with how big and solid some expanding flakes seem.
Anyhow,
Climb safe,
john
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Feb 25, 2005, 5:52 PM
Post #38 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
There's one thing I want to add in response to the debate on self-equalizing vs. non-extending anchors. This also applies to the idea cams are somehow unique in having no strength parallel to the direction that they're placed.
People can get caught up in the idea that the rigging needs to be able to adapt to different angles of pull, to the point that they forget that the individual PIECES need to be strong against those directions of pull. In other words, so what if your sliding X can adjust to a sideways pull, if that pull will just pluck all your nuts or cams out of their downward-facing placements.
Just as an anchor needs to have at least one piece that can take a strong upward pull (for all those non-factor 2 falls) it needs to have at least one solid piece that can take a pull from any other anticipated direction. Probably not a cam, unless you have an extra cam specifically set to protect against, say, a sideways pull if the anchor is for a traversing pitch. This same logic applies, maybe to a lesser extent, to nuts.
Besides bolts and pins, nothing is omni directional (although i like well-set hexes, because they can come close). So you need to study what the possible directions of force are going to be, and make sure your anchor has at least something that can take that force--and hopefuly something that will take the force before it rips all the other pieces out, leaving you and your partner dangling from a directional.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 25, 2005, 6:21 PM
Post #39 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Jay you lost me there buddy... First you were talking about cams walking and then about static failure in the anchor. Call me crazy, I have never had a cam or a nut walk in my anchor. There should be no casual movement there with which to dislodge it (except maybe a solo anchor...). Expanding flakes or just generally crappy rock is the most likely thing to make a cam fail in an anchor. I think most people would be very suprised with how big and solid some expanding flakes seem. Anyhow, Climb safe, john
I'm afraid you lost yourself. The argument against the all-cam anchor has nothing to do with cams or nuts walking. That was something that Iamthewallress brought up. The argument is concern over lateral forces on the anchor in a factor-2 fall. See my last post.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ricardol
Feb 25, 2005, 7:30 PM
Post #40 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1050
|
.. i am amazed at over half the answers in this thread.
-- there should be a way to evaluate the advice given - like maybe next to each poster there should be a counter, or how many trad pitches they've led, etc, etc -
.. There is nothing wrong with 3 cam anchors ... you CAN tell if a cam is bomber ..
.. to those of you out there who feel like they can't tell when their gear is bomber and when it isn't .. take up aid climbing .. it will teach you that skill fairly quickly.
.. as far as when to worry about your anchor -- worry about it when the pieces aren't solid, when they are sitting behind a creaking flake, or a separated block. .. etc..
.. i am with walress on this one -- no hard rules for climbing ..
|
|
|
|
|
enjoimx
Feb 25, 2005, 8:11 PM
Post #41 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 378
|
In reply to: Two very experience climbers died in southern California last year when a 3 cam anchor ripped. I think the accident was written up in Climbing. I will try to find a link to the story
Was this the case where the cams were placeed under a "large" boulder atop the rock?
Remember that cams push outward something like five times the downward force they feel. So if you generate a force of 1000 pounds downward on the cam, it will push outward with 5000. This is enough to instantaneously rock a boulder quickly back and forth enough for the cams to pop, then when the boulder is later examined, it appears nothing was wrong with the placement.
Be wary of camming under "giant" boulders at top of route.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Feb 25, 2005, 8:14 PM
Post #42 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
[quote="ricardol to those of you out there who feel like they can't tell when their gear is bomber and when it isn't .. take up aid climbing .. it will teach you that skill fairly quickly.
No, it teaches you when something will hold. If anything, it teaches you that marginal placements are ok (aiding). That's something everyone I know who aid's cautions against.
You want to know what bomber is? Set pieces in an overhanging crack and start falling. If it blows out, you know whats not bomber.
Aiding does help making placements, I think it helps you see placements a little better (cause your doing it so much). It can help you understand placements more, when you bounce the ever-lovin'-shit out of a placement...it can show you what will hold, then.
I dunno, just get practice one way or another.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 25, 2005, 8:51 PM
Post #43 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Those of you who are arguing that you can tell whether a cam is bomber, or produces sufficient friction, have completely missed the point. No cam can resist much of a force parallel to its cam axis. That, If I recall rgold's argument correctly, is where the potential danger of an all-cam anchor lies.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
tammarak
Feb 25, 2005, 9:04 PM
Post #44 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2003
Posts: 51
|
When bringing up your second consider the direction, force is going to be generated in case of a fall. One thing for special consideration might be if you can't see your second and you know they're traversing. A little slack in the line before a fall can genrate a lengthy plunge. This combined with a pendulum, would be very dangerous with any three point achor, particularly a three cam anchor, as the range of force being applied might exceed the gear's purchase on the rock. Cams like nuts need to be set in the direction of the anticipated fall. Generally I would say three cams is not a good idea unless it's in bomber rock, prefferably spread out and with the second comming up from directly below. An oppositional piece is great as it helps make the anchor muli-directional, and absolutely neccessary to protect against a fall on the next pitch. I like to keep a couple of mid to large hexs for belays. They're light, bomber and save cams for the lead. The real keys in this discussion, I think, are anticipating the direction of applied force and improvisating with what's left on the rack. In ideal situations place ideal anchors, cause if you climb long enough their will be many non-ideal situation to contend with.
|
|
|
|
|
lucas_timmer
Feb 25, 2005, 9:48 PM
Post #45 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 562
|
The problem with cams and nuts are that cams can hold more kN but you can never get the full power out of cams, you can with nuts but they can hold less.Still, you don't have to worry that on of them will break when they are placed bomber and I don't know why 3 cams would fail.
|
|
|
|
|
ricardol
Feb 25, 2005, 10:10 PM
Post #46 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1050
|
In reply to: Those of you who are arguing that you can tell whether a cam is bomber, or produces sufficient friction, have completely missed the point. No cam can resist much of a force parallel to its cam axis. That, If I recall rgold's argument correctly, is where the potential danger of an all-cam anchor lies. -Jay
.. depends on the cam .. i bet Aliens can take ALOT of punishment parallel to their cam axis ..
|
|
|
|
|
abraxas
Feb 25, 2005, 10:55 PM
Post #47 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2005
Posts: 66
|
In reply to: In reply to: Two very experience climbers died in southern California last year when a 3 cam anchor ripped. I think the accident was written up in Climbing. I will try to find a link to the story Was this the case where the cams were placeed under a "large" boulder atop the rock? Remember that cams push outward something like five times the downward force they feel. So if you generate a force of 1000 pounds downward on the cam, it will push outward with 5000. This is enough to instantaneously rock a boulder quickly back and forth enough for the cams to pop, then when the boulder is later examined, it appears nothing was wrong with the placement. Be wary of camming under "giant" boulders at top of route.
With cam angles most often used today, the outward force generated by the cam is about 2 times the force pulling downward on the stem, not 5 times. Other than that, you make a good point.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 25, 2005, 10:57 PM
Post #48 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Those of you who are arguing that you can tell whether a cam is bomber, or produces sufficient friction, have completely missed the point. No cam can resist much of a force parallel to its cam axis. That, If I recall rgold's argument correctly, is where the potential danger of an all-cam anchor lies. -Jay .. depends on the cam .. i bet Aliens can take ALOT of punishment parallel to their cam axis ..
Why?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Feb 25, 2005, 11:37 PM
Post #49 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
My MAIN reason for not using a 3 cam anchor when I can is the following-
Imagine a verticle crack system-
I look at my rack- I look at the anchor placements and I look at the next pitch. Its a good bet that those 0.75 size cams that are PERFECT for the anchor are also PERFECT for the crux- so I slam in a few passive pieces or sling a horn at the cushy belay stance and save the fast-acting cams for the crux.
If it doesnt work that way I use whatever is available-
On the otherhand- imagine a bomber horizontal crack system- Slam in 2 cams (yes- only two!!!) and call it good!
(oh my I'll eat doo doo on this one- cant wait!!!)
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
eride810
Mar 1, 2005, 2:21 AM
Post #50 of 63
(8526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Posts: 25
|
Don't trust a three cam anchor?
What about those two bolts you used on the nth pitch of your last climb? Did you put those there?
Who's to say those two bolts are any safer than pipsqueekspire's two cam belay?
Sure, a correctly placed bolt... and all that.... BUT, did you correctly place it?
In a different light, I'm sure glad I'm carrying cams on a rack instead of a hemp rope and some hobnail boots on my feet
|
|
|
|
|
|
