|
ja1484
May 12, 2007, 3:31 AM
Post #51 of 147
(18242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
Y'know, that second image trenchdigger posted would result in a nice and bomber anchor rig if some company would replace the limiter/finisher knots with tacks. That'd hold everything nice and snug and make sure there was no slippage.
I'd still like limiter knots in front of the tacks, however, to prevent any biners sliding around the master point from attempting to peel the tacked strands apart.
Lastly, please don't make it out of webbing. Webbing is more of a pain in the ass to clove hitch securely, and sometimes the Equalette setup you want is four cloves. 7mm nylon cord please.
|
|
|
|
|
asdf
May 13, 2007, 6:00 AM
Post #52 of 147
(18200 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Posts: 16
|
OK, so I want credit if this catches on; perhaps it can be named the "Reed Variation of the equalette."
picture 1 - tie and overhand where you want the limiter knots to be.
Picture 2 - thread the loose ends through the opposing limiter knots.
Picture 3 - tie a double fisherman's to back up against the overhand knot.
Picture 4 - snug the thing together.
Picture 5 - Presto.
|
|
Attachments:
|
IMG_1027.jpg
(118 KB)
|
|
|
IMG_1028.jpg
(118 KB)
|
|
|
IMG_1029.jpg
(127 KB)
|
|
|
IMG_1025.jpg
(100 KB)
|
|
|
IMG_1023.jpg
(116 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 14, 2007, 6:03 AM
Post #53 of 147
(18142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
asdf wrote: OK, so I want credit if this catches on; perhaps it can be named the "Reed Variation of the equalette." picture 1 - tie and overhand where you want the limiter knots to be. Picture 2 - thread the loose ends through the opposing limiter knots. Picture 3 - tie a double fisherman's to back up against the overhand knot. Picture 4 - snug the thing together. Picture 5 - Presto.
|
|
|
|
|
binrat
May 14, 2007, 2:26 PM
Post #54 of 147
(18112 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155
|
These knots are getting to apoint that it will be hard to inspect. Have you thought of tying a figure eight bend with a bight and tail? I use this often, its easy to make, inspect, and untie once done. Look here for it http://www.ahsrescue.com/pc-1211-105-personal-purcell-prusik-system.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 14, 2007, 3:20 PM
Post #55 of 147
(18098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
binrat wrote: These knots are getting to apoint that it will be hard to inspect. Have you thought of tying a figure eight bend with a bight and tail? I use this often, its easy to make, inspect, and untie once done. Look here for it http://www.ahsrescue.com/pc-1211-105-personal-purcell-prusik-system.aspx
The knot above isn't hard to tie or inspect at all. Tension each strand individually to set the knot and it seems pretty solid (and should be, considering the theory behind the knot).
The problem with the eight bend (including the tail) is the unusual loading of the knot. In the proper equalette loading condition, the eight bend is ideal. But if one arm fails, the eight is loaded "across" the knot in the way an EDK or "flat" overhand bend is loaded. An eight bend in this configuration capsizes easily (with 2 strands, at least). I'm not sure how prone to capsizing the three-strand knot would be when loaded in this way.
So, does anyone have a way to pull test some of these ideas? I'm hoping I'll have a chance to, but it may not be too soon.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 14, 2007, 3:50 PM
Post #56 of 147
(18097 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
To me, any Equalette conversation must take place in the same paradigm as the cordelette conversation (as the former presurposes itself as a substitute for the latter). That paradigm is most commonly known as: SERNE.
trenchdigger wrote: My problem with the current design of the equalette is the lack of a single master point that is redundant...
SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal.
Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant)
Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension)
So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 14, 2007, 4:07 PM
Post #57 of 147
(18086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
fulton wrote: SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal.
And impossible to achieve.
fulton wrote: Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant) Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension) So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.
I'm a firm believer that in most anchors, redundancy is far more important than true equalization. For that reason, I use a standard tied cordelette for most anchors. It's simple, it's quick, and it's solid.
However, there are times when the best equalization you can achieve is indeed important. Those are the cases where the truly equalizing systems shine the most.
What if a redundant system were created that were redundant and equalized well? Why not have your cake and eat it too? Meet the equalette. It does all of this, but at the expense of the "No Extension" clause. Fortunately, it has been determined that extension (especially when minimized with limiter knots) isn't as big a deal as we once thought. I think most will agree that allowing minimal extension in exchange for excellent equalization is a worthy compromise.
As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other. So which is more important?
If you think you have a better way, let's see it.
(This post was edited by trenchdigger on May 14, 2007, 4:10 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
niloc
May 14, 2007, 4:08 PM
Post #58 of 147
(18085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 27
|
fulton wrote: To me, any Equalette conversation must take place in the same paradigm as the cordelette conversation (as the former presurposes itself as a substitute for the latter). That paradigm is most commonly known as: SERNE. trenchdigger wrote: My problem with the current design of the equalette is the lack of a single master point that is redundant... SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal. Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant) Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension) So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.
Not true. A few inches extension with the equalette is not an issue. Equalization is more important than no extension. Do your research, in particular: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1361921#1361921
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 14, 2007, 4:32 PM
Post #59 of 147
(18073 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
trenchdigger wrote: I'm a firm believer that in most anchors, redundancy is far more important than true equalization. For that reason, I use a standard tied cordelette for most anchors. It's simple, it's quick, and it's solid.
Thank you, we agree on this point.
trenchdigger wrote: What if a redundant system were created that were redundant and equalized well? Why not have your cake and eat it too? Meet the equalette.
Here we disagree, see your statement below as to why:
trenchdigger wrote: As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other.
Like I said, trading one problem for another. Don't get all in my face about it - homeboy.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 14, 2007, 4:35 PM
Post #60 of 147
(18068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
trenchdigger wrote: If you think you have a better way, let's see it.
I do not have a better 'way' to solve hypothetical death belays.
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
May 14, 2007, 4:38 PM
Post #61 of 147
(18066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
trenchdigger wrote: asdf wrote: OK, so I want credit if this catches on; perhaps it can be named the "Reed Variation of the equalette." picture 1 - tie and overhand where you want the limiter knots to be. Picture 2 - thread the loose ends through the opposing limiter knots. Picture 3 - tie a double fisherman's to back up against the overhand knot. Picture 4 - snug the thing together. Picture 5 - Presto. Thanks... Nice pix. That's exactly what I was trying to describe in my post: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1595266#1595266. It's one of the best knots I've come up with for the purpose. The other is similar and also a variation of the double fishermans. I'll have to take some pix and post up.
I was experimenting with something similar to these pics on the weekend. (Sorry no pics yet) I used a half a douple fishermans instead of the overhand limiter (keeps the rig more inline than an over hand) and a half a tripple fishermans on the single strand (did this to make the stoper knots aropx equal size). It seems OK, I definitley have to do a bit more research on the strength reduction on these knots, and some drop tests in the field.
I had planned on doing drop tests last Sat, but the Wife and I were laid up with some CO poisening on Sat.... not fun.
I may get a change to do some tests mid week.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 14, 2007, 4:41 PM
Post #62 of 147
(18057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
fulton wrote: trenchdigger wrote: What if a redundant system were created that were redundant and equalized well? Why not have your cake and eat it too? Meet the equalette. Here we disagree, see your statement below as to why: trenchdigger wrote: As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other. Like I said, trading one problem for another. Don't get all in my face about it - homeboy.
Ah, but you you quote the obvious but avoid the important question...
trenchdigger wrote: As far as I can tell, there's no way to have true equalization with no extension. To achieve one of these qualities, you must sacrifice some of the other. So which is more important?
And would you care to explain how a Solid (Sound), Redundant, Equalized, and Minimally Extending anchor is a "hypthetical death belay"?
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
May 14, 2007, 4:44 PM
Post #63 of 147
(18057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Fulton, Either one solves all problems or one solves none? Perhaps you didn't intend to but your posts come across as extreme.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 14, 2007, 5:09 PM
Post #64 of 147
(18039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Ok, well I clearly don't get it.
I thought that this equalette thing is for building belays with less than bomb gear, where a shifting load can be a problem (i.e. hypothetical death belays).
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 14, 2007, 5:10 PM
Post #65 of 147
(18036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
None of this is 'improves' the Equalette. The whole idea of the Equalette is not having a single power point. I see nothing about a single power point worth bastardizing a fairly simple and straightforward design - if anything, it seems more like you're missing the point in pursuit of the comfortably familiar.
As far as equalization vs. extension goes, I thought it had been pretty conclusively established equalization is what we are after while avoiding extension to any degree possible. The mutual exclusivity of the two are inescapable - but equalization is given more weight in the measure in terms of design goals.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
May 14, 2007, 5:17 PM
Post #66 of 147
(18026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
None of this improves the equalette? Then you must have tried the equalette at a hanging belay and don't see the issue so please do share. No offense intended. I'll concede there are different ideas of what constitutes an improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 14, 2007, 5:18 PM
Post #67 of 147
(18025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
fulton wrote: Ok, well I clearly don't get it. I thought that this equalette thing is for building belays with less than bomb gear, where a shifting load can be a problem (i.e. hypothetical death belays).
I'd agree you're not 'getting it'. The Equalette was designed for normal, everyday use in situations where the anchor isn't two side-by-side bolts at the same level relative to a horizontal line.
|
|
|
|
|
asdf
May 14, 2007, 5:22 PM
Post #68 of 147
(18016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Posts: 16
|
There seems to be two threads in one here. Once with people who are interested in fine tuning a rigging idea and another for people who want to discuss the merits of such a pursuit. I used the rig that was in the pictures above with a guide this weekend. He does not use an equalette, nor had he ever really looked into them before but he inspected the rigging and could not find any issues in regards to the way it was tied. Clipping two strands at the master point was great and it proved a very clean way of putting together a gear anchor. I believe I will keep one tied on my harness when I know I will be putting together many gear anchors. The feedback on how to tie this incarnation of the equalette is great. I'd love to see photos of how others are achieving the same end (descriptions of knots somehow always leave me blank) as well as issues relevant to this topic; keep it coming.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 14, 2007, 5:27 PM
Post #69 of 147
(18012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
healyje wrote: None of this is 'improves' the Equalette. The whole idea of the Equalette is not having a single power point. I see nothing about a single power point worth bastardizing a fairly simple and straightforward design - if anything, it seems more like you're missing the point in pursuit of the comfortably familiar. As far as equalization vs. extension goes, I thought it had been pretty conclusively established equalization is what we are after while avoiding extension to any degree possible. The mutual exclusivity of the two are inescapable - but equalization is given more weight in the measure in terms of design goals.
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought the goal of the equalette was to get closer than ever to SRENE in an anchor system. If the goal was just to have a non-singular master point then you should just clip the individual loops of the master point of a tied cordellete. But what's the benefit of that?
The equalette is just a pain to use a hanging belay. The master points are hard to clip when they're weighted. I'm also curious how others attach an auto-blocking belay device to a redundant part of an equalette anchor. I don't see how it can be done without twisting the equalette into a sliding X (degraded equalization) or using a device that accepts two carabiners (Trango B52 + 2 lockers in an equalette at a hanging belay = cluster F#@%). My idea makes all this much easier while maintaining the benefits of an equalette.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 14, 2007, 5:34 PM
Post #70 of 147
(18006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Cool... I might hold off on using this until some conclusive evidence is found that the knots we're coming up with are strong and safe. They should be, but I wouldn't hang my life on it just yet.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 14, 2007, 5:48 PM
Post #71 of 147
(17994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
trenchdigger wrote: If the goal was just to have a non-singular master point...
Clearly that would be a non-goal and simply a 'found' attribute or byproduct of the Equalette. I personally like both strands being loaded independently and suspect that is no small part of the Equalette's tested performance.
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
May 14, 2007, 5:58 PM
Post #72 of 147
(17983 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
This is one of the ideas I tried this weekend. Sorry for the bad sketch. I also tried it with incorporating the third strand into the fisherman's knots (which is how I curently have one tied at home now).
My question would be how are these knots going to behave when ring loaded? That would only occur if one are of the system failed. And is my bigest concern at them moment with this system. I realize that the limiting knots on an equallet, or quad for that matter, are also ring-loaded if one arm fails.
Does anyone know how well a double fisherman's handels ring loading?
|
|
Attachments:
|
EqualletAlternative1.jpg
(56.3 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 14, 2007, 6:04 PM
Post #73 of 147
(17978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
healyje wrote: trenchdigger wrote: If the goal was just to have a non-singular master point... Clearly that would be a non-goal and simply a 'found' attribute or byproduct of the Equalette. I personally like both strands being loaded independently and suspect that is no small part of the Equalette's tested performance.
Apologies... that's how I interpreted:
healyje wrote: The whole idea of the Equalette is not having a single power point.
Interesting thought about the equalette's performance being associated with clipping each strand individually. I'm not sure I'd agree though. Just because the strands are loaded independently doesn't necessarily mean they're loaded evenly. Even in the standard equallete conficuration, the load should be distributed as evenly if you were to clip both strands with the two carabiners (essentially what I'm doing, except I added a third strand to build redundancy back into the system.) Definitely woth testing, though.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
May 14, 2007, 6:17 PM
Post #74 of 147
(17966 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
healyje wrote: trenchdigger wrote: If the goal was just to have a non-singular master point... Clearly that would be a non-goal and simply a 'found' attribute or byproduct of the Equalette. I personally like both strands being loaded independently and suspect that is no small part of the Equalette's tested performance.
It's an interesting discussion and the amount of caution being expressed by many seems about right.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 14, 2007, 6:37 PM
Post #75 of 147
(17950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Solve in a unified way.
Equalization vs. Extention
Equalization vs. Redundany
Redundancy vs. Extension.
All three variables to be concidered EQUALLY important.
Best solutions should be able to sustain at least 2 failures (i suspect that real world cordelettes generally meet this 'standard' of redundant).
Now that ya'll have some direction, try to solve without calling me stupid or an asshole.
fulton wrote: To me, any Equalette conversation must take place in the same paradigm as the cordelette conversation (as the former presurposes itself as a substitute for the latter). That paradigm is most commonly known as: SERNE. trenchdigger wrote: My problem with the current design of the equalette is the lack of a single master point that is redundant... SoundEqualizedRedundantNoExtention = ideal. Cordelette = SoundRedundantNoExtention (not equalized, but very redundant) Equalette = SoundEqualized[Redundant?] (obvious problems with extension) So, you've basically traded one problem for another, and 'solved' nothing.
(This post was edited by fulton on May 14, 2007, 6:40 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
