|
|
|
|
elnero
Apr 17, 2007, 2:52 PM
Post #1 of 17
(5512 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 191
|
I've done a fair amount of searching and such to figure this out, but no luck. When using the equalette, I understand that you should have one locker on each strand of the 'sliding x portion', 'power point' whatever its called for this contraption. In john longs book it shows people clipped into both lockers with one figure eight. Is it possible/safe/advisable to clip in with other methods?
1. tie a clove onto one strand, clip a tether from your harnes to the other?
2. figure eight into one locker, tether to the other?
3.clove hitch onto both lockers, seperately
4.figure eight into both, tether onto one or two strands
any others?
It seems like with the methods I mentioned, you'd be putting more force onto one strand compared to the other, which I could see possibly being a problem? option 4 seems to do the best job of fixing this.
I ask, because it seems more complicated to adjust how close you are to the anchor, how much movement you're allowed. When I use a cordolette or something else, I usually clove into the powerpoint and clip a tether on the shelf, or an eight and a clove somewhere. This allows me to get the amount of movement around the anchor I'd like. With the equalette it seems that I tie the eight, clip in, and thats it.
It seems like option 4 (fig eight into both strands with seperate locker for each, then using a clove or tether onto both strands to adjust distance) would allow me to stay secure on both seperate strands with the figure 8 for redundancy and such, but still allow me to change my freedom of motion with the clove on a locker on both strands, which would keep the force on both of the strands, instead of one.
Someone smarter than me have a thought on any of that n00bness? I'm pretty new to using this equalette business so I just wanna see if I like it more.
holy cow that was way too long..
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Apr 17, 2007, 2:59 PM
Post #2 of 17
(5501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
I think you're just asking for extra cluster. The use of 1 locker/strand in conjunction with the limiter knots gives you great redundancy, and the sliding properties give you movement. I see what you are saying in terms of adjusting things, but I've never really found the need.
(This post was edited by wanderlustmd on Apr 17, 2007, 3:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jeff_m
Apr 17, 2007, 3:35 PM
Post #3 of 17
(5465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 155
|
There are a few ways to get adjustability quickly and easily with the equalette. The problem is how ingrained the thinking is in terms of the cordelette: here's your big fat master point, clove this and and clip the shelf, end of story.
With the equalette, you need to think more about options using the rope (in my opinion); it will open up all the possibilities you'll ever need. One suggestion is don't tie into the lockers, just run the rope through and clove hitch a locker on your belay loop. Adjust to your stance/position, add another foot, then tie an overhand or fig 8 on the doubled rope between you and the lockers. This will give you an extended power point to either move your ATC for how you want to belay (direct, indirect, redirect) and also open up a clip point for your second.
From another thread, here's another setup, though not adjustable after the fact (this was addressing clip points with the eq.):
Those are just a couple, but start thinking with the rope (away from the master) and I'm pretty sure your problems will disappear.
(This post was edited by jeff_m on Apr 17, 2007, 3:35 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Apr 17, 2007, 3:45 PM
Post #4 of 17
(5447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
elnero wrote: I understand that you should have one locker on each strand of the 'sliding x portion', 'power point' whatever its called for this contraption. In john longs book it shows people clipped into both lockers with one figure eight. Is it possible/safe/advisable to clip in with other methods?............ It seems like with the methods I mentioned, you'd be putting more force onto one strand compared to the other, ..
if i read correctly i see your point - if you turn an X on one of the strands it will be shorter - that is not the method. clip a locker to each strand as they lie - they'll "equalize" fine within limiter knots
(see pic above
|
|
|
|
|
elnero
Apr 17, 2007, 3:52 PM
Post #5 of 17
(5425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 191
|
reg wrote: elnero wrote: I understand that you should have one locker on each strand of the 'sliding x portion', 'power point' whatever its called for this contraption. In john longs book it shows people clipped into both lockers with one figure eight. Is it possible/safe/advisable to clip in with other methods?............ It seems like with the methods I mentioned, you'd be putting more force onto one strand compared to the other, .. if i read correctly i see your point - if you turn an X on one of the strands it will be shorter - that is not the method. clip a locker to each strand as they lie - they'll "equalize" fine within limiter knots (see pic above
Nah, I understand that part, I've got mine rigged with two lockers, one on each strand like your supposed to. My concern was with my other ideas, for example: cloving one and fig 8 on the other. If you use the clove to adjust your distance from the anchor, that strand will be weighted, then break, before the 8 strand gets any weight at all.. i think.
Basically just looking for some methods to keep tied in to both strands, with equal force on both, but still being able to use a clove or something to adjust distance from the anchor.
I like Jeff's answer, and I'd seen that in a different thread.
Jeff, when you swap leads, the second(new leader) just clips a locker your new 'rope powerpoint'? when you lead in blocks, I guess your second clips into the lockers on the equalette, and you break down all that rope to start leading again?
|
|
|
|
|
elnero
Apr 17, 2007, 4:07 PM
Post #6 of 17
(5399 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 191
|
Stoke of genius? What do you guys think of tying the figure eight, clipping in with both, and then clipping my PAS to the figure eight loop to adjust if I need to? seems like the weight would still be distributed on the two strands equally, not really created a bigger cluster on the equalette either. similar to Jeffs method of making a new powerpoint with rope.
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Apr 17, 2007, 4:10 PM
Post #7 of 17
(5395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
Just clove the two lockers. There was a recent thread about this, I didn't read the whole thing but it seems to be common practice. Watch for slippage depending on the size/shape of the lockers you are hitching
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...wo%20biners;#1573012
Jeff, that's a cool idea, I hadn't thought of that and might give it a shot. Like someone mentioned above, it might be a pain to undo if you aren't swinging leads and it eats up rope...
(This post was edited by wanderlustmd on Apr 17, 2007, 4:11 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jeff_m
Apr 17, 2007, 5:26 PM
Post #8 of 17
(5318 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 155
|
Yes, it does work best for swinging leads or top belaying from a point away from the anchor. It can eat up some rope, but I haven't had a problem yet. What I've been doing in other situations is usually this. Or, if the pro points are close, double the equalette into a quad and you'll have two strands for each locker, or a single strand for each and two additional for your second.
|
|
|
|
|
niloc
Apr 17, 2007, 9:34 PM
Post #9 of 17
(5266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 27
|
Here's what I am playing with right now, as discussed in this thread. I am using two biners on each strands and a very short sewn sling in each biner to create a new powerpoint loop.
In the past I have been using a single masterbiner clipped in the equalette powerpoint with a sliding-x. I don't like this because 1- the masterbiner is not redundant and 2- there are more chances it won't be loaded correctly because multiple biners will be clipped in the masterbiner. With a typical pear-shaped biner, loading it on the gate side (not the short axis) reduces it's strength by as much as 50%.
So, this setup correctly distributes the load on both strands, correctly load the biners plus the new powerpoint loop is easier to manage, especially under tension as in a hanging belay.
It's a bit more gear but ... I'm not really the minimalist kind either. I haven't used it for real yet.
Colin.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Apr 17, 2007, 10:33 PM
Post #10 of 17
(5234 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
Yeah, everyone is making this far too messy.
Jeff is onto something with using 4 biners on the powerpoint. It's similar to my preferred method, which is as follows:
8 on a bight into the master lockers. Belay second up. When second arrives, he ties an 8 in a bight, clips it to two lockers, clips the lockers into the master point.
Belay off.
both climbers Re-rack, pack exchange, etc.
Second puts leader on belay.
Leader breaks down their respective master point lockers and 8 and starts the next pitch.
Essentially, the same thing Jeff does, but I make the second rig their own extra biners and 8. If efficiency is a concern, there's no harm in the leader rigging two extra biners while belaying.
No need to bring extra gear into the equation. You're just adding potential failure points and creating unecessary clutter.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Apr 17, 2007, 11:07 PM
Post #11 of 17
(5214 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
I really wish the rebellion against the cordelete would die down, because these alternatives are ludicrous.
SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtension:
Well, I believe that Equalization is a myth, or at least an unlikely ideal, that said: the difficulties presented by the pursuit of Equalization should not cause one to abandon SoundRedundantNoExtension - as all these equalettes seem to.
|
|
|
|
|
jeff_m
Apr 18, 2007, 12:09 AM
Post #12 of 17
(5189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 155
|
No, I don't see this as a rebellion against the cordelette. The cordelette is excellent for most (I used one to top rope some kids on Sunday).
I guess it boils down to peace of mind. Have you ever been at a belay with a cordelette and needed to change your stance/position? Even half a foot and, uh-oh, looks like we're weighting one piece now. If you have the time and patience (and your second doesn't mind going off belay for a bit while you re-tie) then great. Or, if you're totally calm and happy with that one piece, then good on ya.
After seeing the testing results in the Long/Gaines book, and how much better the equalization is---along with using it, testing it, finding solutions to some shortcomings and changing how I rig and think about rigging---it does trump the cordelette.
Sound? Yes. Redundant? Yes. Equalized? Not perfect, just better. No extension? Well, that's as much of a myth as equalization if you want to split hairs. I guess I just like having as many options as possible for as many situations as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
ipear
Apr 18, 2007, 12:21 AM
Post #13 of 17
(5177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Posts: 29
|
I've just been twisting one strand and clipping both, turning it into another sliding x at the powerpoint. Works fine and gives the second a single power point to clip into, as well as a good spot to clip reversos/guides/grigris.
|
|
|
|
|
timm
Apr 18, 2007, 12:34 AM
Post #14 of 17
(5167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2005
Posts: 314
|
fulton wrote: I really wish the rebellion against the cordelete would die down, because these alternatives are ludicrous. SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtension: Well, I believe that Equalization is a myth, or at least an unlikely ideal, that said: the difficulties presented by the pursuit of Equalization should not cause one to abandon SoundRedundantNoExtension - as all these equalettes seem to.
fulton, I'm in the same camp as you.
I guess the equalette people haven't seen this study
http://www.t-rescue.com/...ng_anchors/index.pdf
where it was found in this study that a self equalizing anchor is poorer than the pre-equalized (cordlette) method of equalization in terms of correctly applying equal force to each leg.
Each method has it's place and it all depends upon the situation what I use.
|
|
|
|
|
niloc
Apr 18, 2007, 2:09 AM
Post #15 of 17
(5144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 27
|
timm wrote: fulton, I'm in the same camp as you. I guess the equalette people haven't seen this study http://www.t-rescue.com/...ng_anchors/index.pdf where it was found in this study that a self equalizing anchor is poorer than the pre-equalized (cordlette) method of equalization in terms of correctly applying equal force to each leg. Each method has it's place and it all depends upon the situation what I use.
Hm. Did you actually read the article or did you draw your conclusion only from the title?
Nevertheless this is an interesting article and upon first look seems in opposition the the more recent tests reported in the latest John Long's book: Climbing Anchors 2nd edition (2006). Let's look a little deeper.
First, the t-rescue article dates from June 2004. Second, and most importantly there is this notice:
<<
Limitations of the study:
This study compared two anchor systems under very specific conditions. These included: a symmetrical anchor system design, a single test load and controlled anchor system loading. Furthermore, the study was restricted to 2-limb anchor systems rigged in a very particular manner. The results of the study may only be valid under similar conditions. Future studies should investigate the validity of these results in terms of the use of these anchor systems with asymmetrical component anchors, under various test loads applied both statically and dynamically and using different approaches to rigging these classes of anchor system.
>>
Read again: a symmetrical anchor system. Personnaly when trad leading I don't encounter too many two points symmetrical anchors. Tests have shown (in latest JL's book) that unequal legs cordelettes do not distribute the load evenly between the legs.
Furthermore, they don't mention anything about the cord type used for the testing. Also I noted that the tests were done by applying a test load of 100kg. That's 220 pounds... What is a 220 pound pull test good for in the context of evaluating anchors dynamics for rock climbing? Not much. What we really want to know is how it will behave with a dynamic load and in the worst case, when shockloaded with a FF2. Believe me, this is far from a 220 pound slow pull.
As noted in JL's book, p.194: <<Slow-pull, static rope testing is a mode followed in many evaluations but one that has questionable relevance to real world climbing falls. Climbers do not lead on static rope and falls do not happen slowly>>
Now, I will not go over all the tests results from JL's latest book - I urge you to purchase it, analyse the results and make your own mind - but I will give you the short conclusion, which is based on real climbing context tests like multiple unequal legs anchors and dynamic loading:
<<
Tests show that the equalette allows nearly perfect equalization between the two arms, and it allow a ratio of equalization between both strands on each arm. While it is impossible (in a practical sense) to achieve perfect equalization between all four placements, the equalette achieves a degree of equalization - along with solid redundancy and very inconsequential extension - to a higher degree than any system tested.
>>
The cordelette still has its place but when trad climbing and building 3+ points anchors I will definitely use the equalette whenever possible until we find something better - backed by real tests.
Colin.
|
|
|
|
|
timm
Apr 18, 2007, 2:20 AM
Post #16 of 17
(5137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2005
Posts: 314
|
niloc wrote: timm wrote: fulton, I'm in the same camp as you. I guess the equalette people haven't seen this study http://www.t-rescue.com/...ng_anchors/index.pdf where it was found in this study that a self equalizing anchor is poorer than the pre-equalized (cordlette) method of equalization in terms of correctly applying equal force to each leg. Each method has it's place and it all depends upon the situation what I use. Hm. Did you actually read the article or did you draw your conclusion only from the title?
Hi Colin,
I did read the study and I did read the limitations. It is a very interesting data point in the study of anchor equalization. But I think that it points out what I said previously ... no one anchoring method is ideal. You have to use your own judgement and experience to choose the best for the situation at hand.
Cheers,
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Apr 18, 2007, 3:11 AM
Post #17 of 17
(5115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
I've been using the equalette for over a year now (since it was announced). I use it on probably 1/2 of the trad anchors I build.
I've tried an extra set of small runners to make a master point but disliked carrying specialty gear. I also think independently tieing into the two lockers (e.g., cordalette and rope) needlessly takes away some sharing of the load.
These days, almost all of the time I tie in to the equalette's lockers with the rope. As has been mentioned, the resulting loop of rope can serve as a power point and/or the second can use two other lockers to attach to the strands as mentioned in the Long/Gaines book.
Bill L
(This post was edited by billl7 on Apr 18, 2007, 3:12 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
