|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 27, 2006, 3:56 AM
Post #1 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
So, after some time playing around with my gear, I've come up with this anchoring method that is both self-equalizing and non-extending. When I discovered this I decided to throw it to you guys for analysis, dissection, and a good, old-fashioned flame fest!
It (in the iteration I have pictured) uses a 400cm Wild Country 10mm dyneema cordalette, a double-length 8mm Mammut runner, and 7 carabiners (one for each of the anchor pieces, one for each of the clove hitches, and a powerpoint biner). It also works with my 5mm TechCord cordalette just fine. And, it works with 4 or more anchor points as well, just add extra clove hitches and biners.
Before I get to the photos, here's what I do, in order:
1. Clip the WC sling to each anchor point.
2. Pull them down like I was going to tie a cordalette.
3. At each end of the loops, I tie a clove hitch around another carabiner, keeping them relatively even.
4. Clip the 8mm Mammut runner into each clove hitched biner, and pull those down.
5. Clip each loop with the master point locker, and you're good to go.
Here's a pic of the full setup:
http://i5.photobucket.com/...2/clhessy/anchor.jpg
Here's a pic of the setup with one anchor point dropped:
http://i5.photobucket.com/...y/anchor-dropped.jpg
Notice there is no extension because the clove hitches held the carabiners in place; the powerpoint only shifted to the side. It also allows the powerpoint to be moved around somewhat, as the 8mm runner will slide freely to equalize.
I can set it up in about 2-3 minutes from start to finish, not including gear placement time, so it doesn't take much longer than a cordalette.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
|
el_layclimber
Jul 27, 2006, 4:07 AM
Post #2 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 550
|
I would say that it is fairly bomber, and makes a good run at combining auto-equalization and redundancy. It would be difficult to break.
That said, the weak point of the anchor is in the 8mm "powerpoint" webbing, which has no redundancy. If for some reason it is severed, such as in the case of rock fall, the rest of the anchor doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Jul 27, 2006, 4:17 AM
Post #3 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
the two pieces of pro on the left side are relying on the same feature...
heh.
just kiddin.
looks good, but seems like a lot of gear and a lot of time to setup.
7 biners.
3 shoulder slings.
one huge sling.
i suppose you could do worse, tho.
imho, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 27, 2006, 4:19 AM
Post #4 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
In reply to: looks good, but seems like a lot of gear and a lot of time to setup. 7 biners. 3 shoulder slings. one huge sling. i suppose you could do worse, tho. imho, of course.
One huge sling and one double length sling, and 7 biners.
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Jul 27, 2006, 4:24 AM
Post #5 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
In reply to: I would say that it is fairly bomber, and makes a good run at combining auto-equalization and redundancy. It would be difficult to break. That said, the weak point of the anchor is in the 8mm "powerpoint" webbing, which has no redundancy. If for some reason it is severed, such as in the case of rock fall, the rest of the anchor doesn't really matter.
I second this, but not often a huge concern. Find a way to add some redudancy in at that point and it looks good.
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 27, 2006, 4:33 AM
Post #6 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
I figure that clove hitching the double length runner at each of the middle biners would solve that problem. To me, it's not a concern, and if it is, I will clove them all in.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jul 27, 2006, 5:11 AM
Post #7 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
all wrong
now go back and find out why
|
|
|
|
|
djnibs
Jul 27, 2006, 5:20 AM
Post #8 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 464
|
edit: others have brought up this point. lower 8mm power point webbing...
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 27, 2006, 5:24 AM
Post #9 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
In reply to: all wrong now go back and find out why
I posted it here for input. How about giving a reason as to why you say it's all wrong? Is it because the Acrux 65 isn't wearing a helmet? :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
double
Jul 27, 2006, 5:28 AM
Post #10 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 136
|
How about 2 opposed biners at the power point (or at least a locker). Also, the lower sling will not equalize if it is loaded rapidly in a changed direction (magic x weakness).
Seems pretty complicated, but it is a decent effort. Overkill in my opinion.
Professor Majid, please educate us :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Jul 27, 2006, 5:29 AM
Post #11 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
also, i'd double that bottom pp biner...just cos i like to have 2 of them if i'mma be hangin off of the pp...
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 27, 2006, 5:35 AM
Post #12 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
Notice that I'm hanging a backpack off of it just to keep it hanging with tension, hence a single wiregate. I would of course use lockers for the powerpoint; I'm no n00b.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jul 27, 2006, 5:42 AM
Post #13 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
CHEKITO
read your pm
|
|
|
|
|
shogun
Jul 27, 2006, 6:09 AM
Post #14 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 107
|
In reply to: CHEKITO read your pm
wtf? the op put it on the board for a reason. if you have something to say, share it with everyone as the op did and requested.
otherwise, this thread way of topic for your taste.
-=g=-
|
|
|
|
|
shogun
Jul 27, 2006, 6:10 AM
Post #15 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 107
|
double post...
|
|
|
|
|
the_iceman
Jul 27, 2006, 6:11 AM
Post #16 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2006
Posts: 347
|
Maybe I'm not seeing this right, but doesn't clove-hitching the biners negating the whole self-equalizing bit?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 27, 2006, 6:23 AM
Post #17 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Maybe I'm not seeing this right, but doesn't clove-hitching the biners negating the whole self-equalizing bit?
As shown in the photo, this set-up equalizes just fine. However, if (as suggested) the double-length runner is also clove-hitched at the center three biners, any ability of the rig to self-equalize is gone.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jul 27, 2006, 6:24 AM
Post #18 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
In reply to: Maybe I'm not seeing this right, but doesn't clove-hitching the biners negating the whole self-equalizing bit?
Iceman
You need to go back and look at the photo and ask yourself why he has the clove hitch
|
|
|
|
|
beesty511
Jul 27, 2006, 6:33 AM
Post #19 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 336
|
1)There's too much friction from all the slings trying to slide over the master point biner. It won't equalize. In addition, I wonder whether all that dyneema rubbing against itself could cause the dyneema to melt through.
2) If you aren't concerned with the lack of redundancy in the lower sling, then just use the lower sling configuration directly on all the pieces and eliminate the top configuration.
3) Extension is not much of a danger. Any extension just causes the equivalent of a low fall factor fall on the anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Jul 27, 2006, 6:42 AM
Post #20 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
In reply to: Notice that I'm hanging a backpack off of it just to keep it hanging with tension, hence a single wiregate. I would of course use lockers for the powerpoint; I'm no n00b.
i figured as much, but since it's up there for review...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 27, 2006, 6:47 AM
Post #21 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: 1)There's too much friction from all the slings trying to slide over the master point biner. It won't equalize. In addition, I wonder whether all that dyneema rubbing against itself could cause the dyneema to melt through...
Indeed, hardly a week goes by without reading about another self-equalizing TR anchor set-up melting through.:boring:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 27, 2006, 7:07 AM
Post #22 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
In reply to: 2) If you aren't concerned with the lack of redundancy in the lower sling, then just use the lower sling configuration directly on all the pieces and eliminate the top configuration. 3) Extension is not much of a danger. Any extension just causes the equivalent of a low fall factor fall on the anchor.
The purpose of the upper rig is to eliminate extension if one piece blows. In your proposed scenario in #2, extension is a definite danger. The upper rig also (mostly) isolates the lower sling from (hopefully) sharp rock edges, which is why I'm not overly concerned with the lower sling's lack of redundancy.
Oh, and it equalizes just fine- friction isn't a problem, much less "melting through."
|
|
|
|
|
svilnit
Jul 27, 2006, 8:11 AM
Post #23 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 582
|
In reply to: In reply to: all wrong now go back and find out why I posted it here for input. How about giving a reason as to why you say it's all wrong? Is it because the Acrux 65 isn't wearing a helmet? :roll:
hahahhahhahaha..... :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
sliamese
Jul 27, 2006, 8:23 AM
Post #24 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 29
|
the setup looks fine to me. my question is what advantage does it give? it looks more complicated/confusing than a standard W with more gear requirments.
so yes it is bomber IMO but i cant see any advantage, its not quicker or stronger so i wouldnt use it.
theres 1001 safe ways of doing almost everything. then theres the few good ways.
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 27, 2006, 8:53 AM
Post #25 of 53
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
In reply to: the setup looks fine to me. my question is what advantage does it give? it looks more complicated/confusing than a standard W with more gear requirments. so yes it is bomber IMO but i cant see any advantage, its not quicker or stronger so i wouldnt use it. theres 1001 safe ways of doing almost everything. then theres the few good ways.
The standard W (without a knot) will extend if one anchor point fails. A cordalette doesn't equalize horribly well, and is good in only one direction. This is non extending and self-equalizing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
