|
|
|
|
octarine
Apr 24, 2006, 2:08 AM
Post #1 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 48
|
Okay, let's see if I'm understanding this so far:
The cordalette causes unequal loading among the pieces of an anchor. It seems like it is acceptable to use the cordalette with anchors consisting of three or more bomber pieces, where equalization is much less of an issue than redundancy/expediency. Is this correct?
It also seems like it's been emperically proven that the cordelette is completely unacceptable on sketchy anchors where equalization is necessary, and can potentially cause catastrophic anchor failure if loaded under those conditions.
So, my questions as a would be the following:
Since I'm not going to be climbing on anything less than bombproof anchors for a while, is the cordalette still acceptable to use?
If I'm facing a dicey situation where I want an excellent anchor, what is my best alternative in terms of strength, quantity of gear, and simplicity? (remember that I am a n00b and we find ways to mess up turning bread into toast) I've read the threads around the cordalette and it seems like there's been a number of interesting and effective solutions, but I'd like to have a baseline that I can start to branch out from. I realize that there might not be a basic rig that's received general approval- and that John Long will more than likely set the bar in his next book.
Unfortunately, since this is kind of a new thing- I can't just attach myself to a more experienced climber like rookies are supposed to do, since quite a few of the experienced climbers around here still use the cord.
Thanks for the help,
Casey
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Apr 24, 2006, 2:18 AM
Post #2 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: Unfortunately, since this is kind of a new thing- I can't just attach myself to a more experienced climber like rookies are supposed to do, since quite a few of the experienced climbers around here still use the cord.
There's your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
greenketch
Apr 24, 2006, 3:03 AM
Post #3 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2005
Posts: 501
|
I would start with the basic cordolette setup. Than spend some brains cells on really understanding how the limitations come about. Then also consider that the cordolette as a very handy piece of gear for several applications (escapeing the belay, self rescue in many uses).
If you can get better acquainted with the ways to use what you got then, you will go a long way towards knowing what to do with that sketchy anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Apr 24, 2006, 3:11 AM
Post #4 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
The cordelette doesn't necessarily put unequal loads on pieces in an anchor, the problem that comes with cordelette usage is that it's not multi-directional. When you initially set up your cordelette correctly the pieces will be equalized at the initial angle that you set everything up at. As long as you stay at that angle everything is fine. However if you shift to the left or right, or catch a fall and are jerked up, yada yada, the cordelette becomes slack at one or more of it's branches while others become more stressed. Check out John Long's
"Climbing Anchors" and "More Climbing Anchors" for some examples of acceptable and unacceptable uses of the cordelette
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Apr 24, 2006, 4:10 AM
Post #5 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: The cordelette doesn't necessarily put unequal loads on pieces in an anchor, the problem that comes with cordelette usage is that it's not multi-directional. In reply to: When you initially set up your cordelette correctly the pieces will be equalized at the initial angle that you set everything up at. In reply to: As long as you stay at that angle everything is fine. In reply to: However if you shift to the left or right, or catch a fall and are jerked up, yada yada, the cordelette becomes slack at one or more of it's branches while others become more stressed. In reply to: Check out John Long's "Climbing Anchors" and "More Climbing Anchors" for some examples of acceptable and unacceptable uses of the cordelette
The the OP...cordelettes (<- refering to the anchor setup, or Static Equalization, or Pre-Equalization) have worked pretty well for folks, provided the pro is good. What we're learning now is that this manor of building an anchor, does not exploit the combined strength of the pieces in the anchor, but meerly links them all together...to provide backups in the system.
For most of us...our pro is good enough, that having one piece of pro being weighted at at time...hasn't caused many failures, yet. But this is what the cordelette (anchor config) tends to do, and why we're not thrilled about it.
While it historically has been good enough, many of us would like to see a system that better expolits the combined strength of the pieces in our anchors.
To point you in a direction...I would say give the sliding x more consideration. John and Jim have posted data showing that shockloading resulting from a the extension of a piece failing, doesn't really happen. We don't see much larger peak forces on the leg that catches the extension. So, the sliding x looks more attractive.
Cordelettes, as in the loop of cord, are wonderful. Their utility has been stated numerous times, and they can be configured in anchors in better ways than the tradition static equalization, or pre-equalizaion (as I learned it) way that most people rig their anchors.
My recommendation, share this discussion with the more experienced climbers that you do know, and collectively agree on what you think is the best anchor in different situations.
IMO, I used John's "Quad" design on some 2 bolt anchors the other week...and thought it was the best system for such an anchor.
-----
Now, I'm no expert on this...but this is what I've taken from all of the discussion on the site, and some conversations with some people that know a lot more than me. If I'm wrong about something, let me know...but I'm pretty sure my brief little summary above is on track with John L. and Jim E's thoughts.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
treez
Apr 24, 2006, 4:39 AM
Post #6 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2004
Posts: 347
|
Your homework is to read the entire "sliding X, is it really safer" thread. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Apr 24, 2006, 5:13 AM
Post #7 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: Your homework is to read the entire "sliding X, is it really safer" thread. :twisted:
That's not homework, that's a senior project.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
treez
Apr 24, 2006, 5:34 AM
Post #8 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2004
Posts: 347
|
In reply to: In reply to: Your homework is to read the entire "sliding X, is it really safer" thread. :twisted: That's not homework, that's a senior project. Jim
No kidding. Don't save it all for the last night!
|
|
|
|
|
catbird_seat
Apr 24, 2006, 6:51 PM
Post #9 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Posts: 425
|
It is really unfortunate for the beginners that we have created confusion by using the name of a 20 ft piece of cordage (a tool) as though there were only one way of using it. Chances are when you hear "cordellette" in relation to a belay anchor, the speaker is referring to the particular configuration in which all strands of the cordellette are tied-off together using a figure-eight knot to create a "power point", a method that was originally popularized by John Long in his Climbing Anchors books.
It would be less confusing if people would start saying, "cordellette with static tie-off", or something similar, but it's probably too much to hope for.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Apr 24, 2006, 7:17 PM
Post #10 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
^^ Trophy!
I've always called it a pre-equalized tie-off, though I realize now that's a bit of misnomer.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Apr 24, 2006, 7:20 PM
Post #11 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
In reply to: Since I'm not going to be climbing on anything less than bombproof anchors for a while,
how do you know that?
In reply to: If I'm facing a dicey situation where I want an excellent anchor, what is my best alternative in terms of strength, quantity of gear, and simplicity?
the climbing rope is a good first choice!
John longs new book and all the others "set the bar" read um if you have not yet done so.
|
|
|
|
|
funaddic
Apr 28, 2006, 8:17 AM
Post #12 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2002
Posts: 1
|
What about using two shorter cords with a half twist to create equalization. I usually use one cord and several runners with half twists ot equalize my placements and the cord is really for situations where the gear is spread out.
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Apr 28, 2006, 1:33 PM
Post #13 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
In reply to: In reply to: Unfortunately, since this is kind of a new thing- I can't just attach myself to a more experienced climber like rookies are supposed to do, since quite a few of the experienced climbers around here still use the cord.There's your answer.
Unfortunately, no.
As we have seen far too often on this site, and in life, there is a tendency for folks to accept things as safe and optimal just because they have used them for a while. Many climbers were presented with the staticly tied off cordalette as the best way to rig an anchor. It is just in this last month or so that this community has been educated that this system is not the be-all and end-all of anchor systems.
I feel that jimdavis' response to musicman in this thread is very good example of this point.
Just because more experienced climbers do something does not mean that it is safe. It just means that it hasn't killed them yet.
All that said - the cordalette as a tool is excellent. The tied off cordalette as an anchor is good, frequently useful. There may be far better all around anchor systems, and in some situations there are definitely better anchor systems.
[No real answers here, just commentary.]
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Apr 28, 2006, 2:29 PM
Post #14 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
To Jim Davis
Well, I stand corrected, but I'm glad to know, and I thank you for not being a jackass and instead just informed me of what the current knowledge and opinions are. I was only taught how to use cordolettes, got to set up a number of anchors in different situations, but this was all training and done on the ground, so I've never really put a cordolette to good use as I'm just a measly sport climber who doesn't have much use for one at the crags around here. The instruction I received echoed John Long's books, and what a number of websites say about the cordolette as well, so to my knowledge what I had been taught was correct and valuable information, so once again, thanx for not being like most the people on this site and filling me in instead of putting me down.
Kyle
|
|
|
|
|
livinonasandbar
Apr 28, 2006, 2:57 PM
Post #15 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
Hiring and following a certified guide for awhile will be money well spent.
I offer this suggestion (and this is not directed at the previous posts... I haven't read them) because asking for technical advice in this type of forum is like asking, "Is there a God?" or "At what point does a fetus become a human being?" You risk getting a lot of egocentric comments which may or may not be sound. Problem is, how will you know which is which?
Find a credentialed professional and head for the crags.
|
|
|
|
|
antiqued
Apr 28, 2006, 3:57 PM
Post #16 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243
|
In reply to: because asking for technical advice in this type of forum is like asking, "Is there a God?" You risk getting a lot of egocentric comments which may or may not be sound. Problem is, how will you know which is which?
Well, this provides an excellent chance to convince yourself that you do understand. To be able to sort wheat from chaff, read pro and con arguments and comprehend why there is an argument, and who is clearly full of it, means that you may indeed know this particular gem of knowledge. To be unsure is a clear indicator that you are not on top of this particular game.
As a personal example, I've been tradding for 30yrs (with and without a cordelette) and feel up on most things. I read the aid forum stuff for learning, and it is quite apparent to me that I need more practice with aid/big wall just to understand some of the questions!
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Apr 28, 2006, 5:06 PM
Post #17 of 21
(4445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: Hiring and following a certified guide for awhile will be money well spent. I offer this suggestion (and this is not directed at the previous posts... I haven't read them) because asking for technical advice in this type of forum is like asking, "Is there a God?" or "At what point does a fetus become a human being?" You risk getting a lot of egocentric comments which may or may not be sound. Problem is, how will you know which is which? Find a credentialed professional and head for the crags.
There's a lot to be said for hiring a professional guide to show you safe techniques...but I wouldn't expect half of the guides out there to know about the Sliding X thread, and John/ Jim's test data...and those that know about it, probably haven't totally shifted over to that way of thinking yet.
If you guys want to learn these anchor types, your gonna have to figure them out yourself....I don't think many guides will be teaching them anytime soon.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Nov 14, 2008, 9:17 PM
Post #18 of 21
(2527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
You'll shoot your eye out
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Nov 14, 2008, 9:34 PM
Post #19 of 21
(2502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
18 feet plus knot
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Nov 14, 2008, 10:45 PM
Post #20 of 21
(2456 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
Wow, two and a half year old thread...
|
|
|
|
|
brownie710
Nov 15, 2008, 12:02 AM
Post #21 of 21
(2415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2007
Posts: 531
|
angry wrote: You'll shoot your eye out
Angry, your hilarious, that's the funniest thing i've read in a while
|
|
|
|
|
|
