Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Trad Climbing:
An anchor to analyze
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Trad Climbing

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All


jt512


Nov 9, 2009, 1:02 PM
Post #1 of 159 (8314 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

An anchor to analyze
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

We haven't had a good anchor analysis thread in a while. I saw this one at New Jack City (of all places) this weekend, and thought it might make for some interesting discussion. A climber had rigged this as a TR anchor for his kids. What do you guys think? (Click images to enlarge.)

Overview



Detail






Attachments: overview.jpg (146 KB)
  nut.jpg (132 KB)
  middle2.jpg (113 KB)
  bottom2.jpg (106 KB)


swoopee


Nov 9, 2009, 1:13 PM
Post #2 of 159 (8291 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Posts: 560

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

No AToD, no rope or slings through bolt hangers, no rotten, termite ridden tree stumps. I would say that it is "good enough". Wink


kylekienitz


Nov 9, 2009, 1:21 PM
Post #3 of 159 (8274 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 256

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup. Considering the two pieces were totally bomber and perfectly equalized, it would be alright. However, as it is, if the quickdraws aren't equalized under load then the weight is only on one piece.

I would equalize at least two of those with a sling and then go for it.


TarHeelEMT


Nov 9, 2009, 1:23 PM
Post #4 of 159 (8266 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Nothing but quickdraws. Intersting. That certainly gives you no mechanism for equalization, save for moving the primary placements until it's equalized. He's weighting nothing but one piece at a time, and that second draw in the chain coming from the top nut would have a good chance to open right up if the (loaded) piece below it failed - the whole force of it would come down on the gate in an orientation to open it (not to mention shock loading that piece even if the gate doesn't open).

Did you talk to the guy?


(This post was edited by TarHeelEMT on Nov 9, 2009, 1:24 PM)


raingod


Nov 9, 2009, 1:27 PM
Post #5 of 159 (8259 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 118

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just quickly
The rope end biners are neither opposite or opposed.
One of the 3 pieces is so out of equalization that it will only be weighted if the other fails.
A couple of the biners higher up look to be held gateside to the rock, possibly allowing the gates to be forced open.
I'm not fond of biner to biner chains in this application


budman


Nov 9, 2009, 1:29 PM
Post #6 of 159 (8254 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 165

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Equalization? Metal to Metal? Opposed biners? It's just Natural Selection at it's Finest. Too bad the kids see this as the what to do it. But for a top rope it will more than likely suffice.


madscientist


Nov 9, 2009, 1:29 PM
Post #7 of 159 (8254 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2002
Posts: 159

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Cannot really tell if the pieces are placed correctly, so I won't comment on them.

The draws present several problems. The one attached to the nut is close to an edge that may open it and loading the anchor might introduce some forces in a unusual and unwanted directions.

All the black draws clipped to the left anchor has many issues regarding equalization and gate position. The upper nut is not equalized, and failure of the upper cam could result in unclipping of the upper nut. Could of solved the unclipping issue just by clipping into the lower draw, but this still would not make a great anchor.

Not good enough if my kid was climbing on it.


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 1:32 PM
Post #8 of 159 (8243 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

U Stem Camalot
Old as dirt nylon slings
Wiregate carabiner clipped to another carabiner
Non existent Equalization
C+/B-


dagibbs


Nov 9, 2009, 2:18 PM
Post #9 of 159 (8172 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 896

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Also, how solid is the rock these are in?

I seem to see a second crack coming down from a point a short distance above the upper part of the placement -- is this a flake? How solid/detached is teh flake?


dolphja


Nov 9, 2009, 2:24 PM
Post #10 of 159 (8163 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 18, 2001
Posts: 298

Re: [madscientist] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

madscientist wrote:
Cannot really tell if the pieces are placed correctly, so I won't comment on them.

The draws present several problems. The one attached to the nut is close to an edge that may open it and loading the anchor might introduce some forces in a unusual and unwanted directions.

All the black draws clipped to the left anchor has many issues regarding equalization and gate position. The upper nut is not equalized, and failure of the upper cam could result in unclipping of the upper nut. Could of solved the unclipping issue just by clipping into the lower draw, but this still would not make a great anchor.

Not good enough if my kid was climbing on it.

i'll totally agree with the madscientist on this one about where the biners are facing, questionable placement and equalization. i'm also kinda wondering where the locker is on this anchor, cause i don't see one.


IsayAutumn


Nov 9, 2009, 2:45 PM
Post #11 of 159 (8125 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Bomber.


justroberto


Nov 9, 2009, 3:06 PM
Post #12 of 159 (8101 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [budman] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 3:08 PM
Post #13 of 159 (8095 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?

Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves.


TarHeelEMT


Nov 9, 2009, 3:12 PM
Post #14 of 159 (8089 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?

As I understand it, the issue isn't metal on metal, but rather biner on biner - if they get twisted, the gates can press against the other biner and open - a problem that's alleviated by connecting via a sling.


justroberto


Nov 9, 2009, 3:12 PM
Post #15 of 159 (8087 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [TarHeelEMT] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

TarHeelEMT wrote:
Did you talk to the guy?
Doubtful. My guess is it's something Jay rigged up and took pictures of to get all the tardies in a tizzy. Now he's sitting back, enjoying the carnage.


shockabuku


Nov 9, 2009, 3:13 PM
Post #16 of 159 (8085 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4864

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think it looks like shit.

If I was building a TR anchor for the typical kid I would probably incorporate a sliding-x/equallette design because most kids that TR don't seem to stay on route. That would probably solve most of the problems here since, other than the placements, it would be a totally different anchor.

I think the main problem is that he didn't make his kids lead it.

Wait, isn't New Jack City a sport crag? Aren't there top anchors already?


sittingduck


Nov 9, 2009, 3:18 PM
Post #17 of 159 (8072 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If the direction of pull changes, then one of the legs in the anchor would take no load. If the rope now twist those carabiners 180 degrees, so that the loaded carabiner gets the unloaded quickdraw between itself and the rock, the gate on the loaded carabiner could get forced open.

In that case the anchor would suddenly be somewhat scary since they would be top-roping from one open carabiner, backed up by another carabiner that would have the gate facing the rock.


bennydh


Nov 9, 2009, 3:18 PM
Post #18 of 159 (8069 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 1, 2005
Posts: 368

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
TarHeelEMT wrote:
Did you talk to the guy?
Doubtful. My guess is it's something Jay rigged up and took pictures of to get all the tardies in a tizzy. Now he's sitting back, enjoying the carnage.

I hope that is the case, and that he didn't just mutter ::plonk:: as he snapped photos then continued on his way. Unsure

Anyway... that thing is shit.


healyje


Nov 9, 2009, 3:20 PM
Post #19 of 159 (8063 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [jt512] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

You can quibble on all details of the pro and rigging, but it's all just that compared to the real problem here (as a TR setup), which is the lack of opposing gates on rope.


justroberto


Nov 9, 2009, 3:21 PM
Post #20 of 159 (8061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
justroberto wrote:
budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?

Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves.
"Tendency" isn't the word you're looking for. "Minute possibility" is more like it. It would be way down on the list of concerns for the instance above.


budman


Nov 9, 2009, 3:32 PM
Post #21 of 159 (8043 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 165

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

In the olden days, and yes I'm old, the term metal to metal denoted 2 biners clipped together. As someone mentioned they have a tendency to unclip in certain situations. I will be more diligent in the future with my wording. I suggest you climb with a few crusty old dudes and dudettes so as not to let these things fade away. I surely suffer in the writing department as Sister Mary Agony beat it out of me. And yes I came from a time when that not only was legal but encouraged.


dingus


Nov 9, 2009, 3:51 PM
Post #22 of 159 (8002 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17393

Re: [kylekienitz] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

kylekienitz wrote:
In effect it is a two piece anchor with a backup.

Otherwise known as a 3-piece anchor.

DMT


johnwesely


Nov 9, 2009, 4:03 PM
Post #23 of 159 (7980 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [justroberto] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
johnwesely wrote:
justroberto wrote:
budman wrote:
Metal to Metal?
Aluminum biners get loaded over small-profiled metal hangers worldwide countless times a day without incident. Why would this be any worse?

Because two biners clipped together have a tendency to unclip themselves.
"Tendency" isn't the word you're looking for. "Minute possibility" is more like it. It would be way down on the list of concerns for the instance above.

It may be a minute possibility, but so what? Why use a locking carabiner for belaying. It is a minute possibility that it will come undone. It is a top rope anchor. If the route wanders, the thing will jiggle around, and the biners could unclip. I agree with you that it is not the biggest issue with the anchor. The biggest issue is that Jay probably set the thing up himself.


vegastradguy


Nov 9, 2009, 4:13 PM
Post #24 of 159 (7967 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919

Re: [dingus] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cam looks good.

the other side of the anchor (nut and cam) is fine, but the nose of more than one carabiner facing the rock on that arm is worrisome. those two pieces could have been clipped together at the end of the draw on the nut for pretty good equalization- then slung down to the power point for a less cluttered arm.

as for the non-opposed- i'd rather have the gates facing away from the rock in this instance. i'd have also put a locker or two in there, depending on my mood.

of course, as a TR anchor...the gates against the rock is somewhat worrisome, but in all reality, probably not that big of a deal as even open gate, the forces on the anchor arent going to touch the open gate strengths anyway. and you'd have to really get bouncing on that thing to worry about the biner to biner connections...meh, it works. easy enough to clean it up and make it worry free, though.


jt512


Nov 9, 2009, 4:25 PM
Post #25 of 159 (7945 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [johnwesely] An anchor to analyze [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
The biggest issue is that Jay probably set the thing up himself.

I didn't set the anchor up. It was an actual top rope anchor set up by another climber, as I wrote in the OP.

Jay

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Trad Climbing

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$8.55 (10% off)
$210.56 (10% off)
$6.75 (10% off)
$3.15 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook