Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Trad Climbing:
Sliding double X ??
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Trad Climbing

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


jktinst


Jul 12, 2010, 8:28 AM
Post #1 of 32 (4856 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 88

Sliding double X ??
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I got my initial trad training in France in the early 80s and stopped & re-started trad leading over the years as I moved around (England, W. & E.Canada). For the latest re-start, I decided to read up on the current "gospel"and bought Long&Gaines’ climbing anchors on the recommendation of Colin (niloc on the forum).

This made me realize that, for years, I’ve been doing the sliding X differently than what seems to be the commonly accepted manner (which is to make a single 180deg twist in the middle of a single one of the two strands of the sling and clipping both the straight and twisted strands together). For my part, I twist both strands before clipping them, making sure that I twist them both with the same clockwise (or counter-clockwise) turn. The latter point is vital since, if they are twisted in opposite directions, a failure of one of the two points could let the whole thing unravel.

Reading the book has also led me to think about and hunt for answers on 3-piece self-equalized, low-extension, redundant anchors on this forum & on ST.com but I will leave that for another post. In going through these monster threads on equalizing anchors, I have come across references to something variously referred to as "Craig’s short" or "sliding W" for equalizing 3 placements that is done with two twists but did not come across something like my two-arm "sliding double-X". Searches on various likely keyword combinations (forums & Google) did not turn up anything else either. As a newcomer to this forum trying to catch up on many lengthy discussions going back several years, covering a wide variety of related topics and, most of the time, with key photos no longer available, I may well have missed relevant references and apologize if this has already been covered before.

When I tried the regular sliding X after coming across its first illustration in the book, I thought that my system might actually have some advantages because, even though it introduces 2 twists instead of 1, it forces the crossings of the tape or cord to remain above the central locker and to slide through it side-by-side and in the same direction (and also because it uses up the exact same length of tape or cord on each strand, which could be useful when the strands are tied together with limiting knots).

In the regular configuration, the one twist places the crossing of the strand above the biner initially. However, by making just a half-turn around its main axis, the biner tends to end up in a more balanced and symmetrical position with the strands crossing on the inside of the biner (ie right under the"basket" bar of the biner, assuming you clipped it right side up). In the book, the "clutch effect" was blamed for a) limiting the dynamic equalization under load between two unequal arms of the sliding X, on average and b) occasionally causing much larger differences in the equalization. I would have liked to see a more detailed dissection of this effect in the book or the forum since it seems that different things might happen with the regular sliding X that could play a role in this:

1. If the biner is not allowed to make the half-turn and the crossing of the twisted strand is kept above the biner, the twist on only one strand means that when the strands slide through the biner, they run in opposite directions.
1a. If they run side by side (more likely with cord), the friction they would generate would be relatively small, but
1b. if they run one on top of the other (more likely with tape), with the straight strand jamming the twisted one against the underside of the basket bar, the braking effect in the event of a fall would be very high.

2. If the biner is allowed to make the half-turn, the two strands slide in the same direction but crossing one another on the underside of the basket bar where the loading would, again, increase the friction but, presumably, not to the same extend as in 1b.

The book mentions the possibility of restoring almost perfect equalization by using a large pear anodized biner combined with manually forcing the crossing to stay above it. Again, more details would have been handy since it seems that you could do the latter either by a) preventing the biner from making the half-turn and making sure that the strands remain side-by-side; or b) letting it make the half-turn but adding some sort of divider to move the crossing from under the basket bar to above it and keep it there during the test. It seems more likely that the authors were referring to the latter scenario but it would have been nice to know for sure.

The equalette, with its two central biners and no twisting or crossing makes a lot of sense as a solution to the clutch problem but, having long climbed with a very minimalist rack, I remain interested in 2-piece anchors that do not involve two central biners. It also seems that the sliding X is still in use by people who have adopted other aspects of the equalette but prefer to stick to a single central locker. So I was wondering if an extension-limited sliding double-X might be an option (assuming that it’s not some antiquated and long-discredited throw-back).

Of course, with the double X, you have to pay close attention to which way you twist the strands and, although the crossings are garanteed to stay outside of the biner, there are two of them instead of one for the regular sliding X. Without further drop tests, it's probably anyone’s guess how well the double X would equalize two unequal arms during a fall. My gut feeling would be « probably better than 1b or 2, about on par with 1a and definitely less well than a 2-biner equalette ».

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or criticisms.

Stéphane

(This post was edited by jktinst on Jul 15, 2010, 9:01 AM)


johnwesely


Jul 12, 2010, 8:53 AM
Post #2 of 32 (4832 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5343

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wow, that was long.


acorneau


Jul 12, 2010, 10:15 AM
Post #3 of 32 (4791 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jktinst wrote:
I got my initial trad training in France in the early 80s and stopped & re-started trad leading over the years as I moved around (England, W. & E.Canada). For the latest re-start, I decided to read up on the current "gospel"and bought Long&Gaines’ climbing anchors on the recommendation of Colin (niloc on the forum).

This made me realize that, for years, I’ve been doing the sliding X differently than what seems to be the commonly accepted manner (which is to make a single 180deg twist in the middle of a single one of the two strands of the sling and clipping both the straight and twisted strands together). For my part, I twist both strands before clipping them, making sure that I twist them both with the same clockwise (or counter-clockwise) turn. The latter point is vital since, if they are twisted in opposite directions, a failure of one of the two points could let the whole thing unravel.

Reading the book has also led me to think about and hunt for answers on 3-piece self-equalized, low-extension, redundant anchors on this forum & on ST.com but I will leave that for another post. In going through these monster threads on equalizing anchors, I have come across references to something variously referred to as "Craig’s short" or "sliding W" for equalizing 3 placements that is done with two twists but did not come across something like my two-arm "sliding double-X". Searches on various likely keyword combinations (forums & Google) did not turn up anything else either. As a newcomer to this forum trying to catch up on many lengthy discussions going back several years, covering a wide variety of related topics and, most of the time, with key photos no longer available, I may well have missed relevant references and apologize if this has already been covered before.

When I tried the regular sliding X after coming across its first illustration in the book, I thought that my system might actually have some advantages because, even though it introduces 2 twists instead of 1, it forces the crossings of the tape or cord to remain above the central locker and to slide through it side-by-side and in the same direction (and also because it uses up the exact same length of tape or cord on each strand, which could be useful when the strands are tied together with limiting knots).

In the regular configuration, the one twist places the crossing of the strand above the biner initially. However, by making just a half-turn around its main axis, the biner tends to end up in a more balanced and symmetrical position with the strands crossing on the inside of the biner (ie right under the"basket" bar of the biner, assuming you clipped it right side up). In the book, the "clutch effect" was blamed for a) limiting the dynamic equalization under load between two unequal arms of the sliding X, on average and b) occasionally causing much larger differences in the equalization. I would have liked to see a more detailed dissection of this effect in the book or the forum since it seems that different things might happen with the regular sliding X that could play a role in this:

1. If the biner is not allowed to make the half-turn and the crossing of the twisted strand is kept above the biner, the twist on only one strand means that when the strands slide through the biner, they run in opposite directions.
1a. If they run side by side (more likely with cord), the friction they would generate would be relatively small, but
1b. if they run one on top of the other (more likely with tape), with the straight strand jamming the twisted one against the underside of the basket bar, the braking effect would be very high.

2. If the biner is allowed to make the half-turn, the two strands slide in the same direction but crossing one another on the underside of the basket bar where the loading would, again, increase the friction but, presumably, not to the same extend as in 1b.

The book mentions the possibility of restoring almost perfect equalization by using a large pear anodized biner combined with manually forcing the crossing to stay above it. Again, more details would have been handy since it seems that you could do the latter either by a) preventing the biner from making the half-turn and making sure that the strands remain side-by-side; or b) letting it make the half-turn but adding some sort of divider to move the crossing from under the basket bar to above it and keep it there during the test. It seems more likely that the authors were referring to the latter scenario but it would have been nice to know for sure.

The equalette, with its two central biners and no twisting or crossing makes a lot of sense as a solution to the clutch problem but, having long climbed with a very minimalist rack, I remain interested in 2-piece anchors that do not involve two central biners. It also seems that the sliding X is still in use by people who have adopted other aspects of the equalette but prefer to stick to a single central locker. So I was wondering if an extension-limited sliding double-X might be an option (assuming that it’s not some antiquated and long-discredited throw-back).

Of course, with the double X, you have to pay close attention to which way you twist the strands and, although the crossings are garanteed to stay outside of the biner, there are two of them instead of one for the regular sliding X. Without further drop tests, it's probably anyone’s guess how well the double X would equalize two unequal arms during a fall. My gut feeling would be « probably better than 1b or 2, about on par with 1a and definitely less well than a 2-biner equalette ».

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or criticisms.

Stéphane


^^^ I'm not reading that. ^^^

(But I'll quote it for posterity!)


majid_sabet


Jul 12, 2010, 10:40 AM
Post #4 of 32 (4772 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8344

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

one of you guys put some pictures of these sling Xs together cause this post was anchor thread and a half.


JimTitt


Jul 13, 2010, 5:18 AM
Post #5 of 32 (4669 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 973

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I dozed off for a few minutes after the fifteenth `twist´ but I feel better now.


sittingduck


Jul 13, 2010, 6:21 AM
Post #6 of 32 (4647 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jktinst wrote:
[... ]I twist both strands before clipping them, making sure that I twist them both with the same clockwise (or counter-clockwise) turn. The latter point is vital since, if they are twisted in opposite directions, a failure of one of the two points could let the whole thing unravel. [... ]

Something like this?



jktinst


Jul 13, 2010, 11:04 AM
Post #7 of 32 (4588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 88

Re: [sittingduck] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
I dozed off for a few minutes after the fifteenth `twist´ but I feel better now.

Congratulations! You actually got all the way through the first post and well into the quotation of the 3rd before falling asleep!

sittingduck wrote:
Something like this?

Yeah, exactly like that. Nice drawing. Did you do it yourself or get it somewhere (and if so, where?)


ensonik


Jul 13, 2010, 1:29 PM
Post #8 of 32 (4542 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 14, 2009
Posts: 134

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jktinst wrote:
JimTitt wrote:
I dozed off for a few minutes after the fifteenth `twist´ but I feel better now.

Congratulations! You actually got all the way through the first post and well into the quotation of the 3rd before falling asleep!

sittingduck wrote:
Something like this?

Yeah, exactly like that. Nice drawing. Did you do it yourself or get it somewhere (and if so, where?)

More to the point, and in 25,000 words or less, how is this better?

I just gave it a shot and it doesn't seem to give me more than a single twist. It was also visually harder to verify if it was actually ok.


jktinst


Jul 13, 2010, 2:15 PM
Post #9 of 32 (4517 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 88

Re: [ensonik] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ensonik wrote:
More to the point, and in 25,000 words or less, how is this better?
I believe I covered that in the first 400 words but in fewer still: no clutch effect.


moose_droppings


Jul 13, 2010, 2:23 PM
Post #10 of 32 (4510 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3347

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jktinst wrote:
ensonik wrote:
More to the point, and in 25,000 words or less, how is this better?
I believe I covered that in the first 400 words but in fewer still: no clutch effect.

Isn't that double clutching?


sittingduck


Jul 13, 2010, 3:13 PM
Post #11 of 32 (4481 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jktinst wrote:
sittingduck wrote:
Something like this?

Yeah, exactly like that. Nice drawing. Did you do it yourself or get it somewhere (and if so, where?)

Nice if there are no clutch effect, that means dynamic equalization. Do you back that sling up?

I made the drawing myself. I have not seen the "double sliding x" in any book that I remeber.


dugl33


Jul 13, 2010, 3:57 PM
Post #12 of 32 (4463 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

"The latter point is vital since, if they are twisted in opposite directions, a failure of one of the two points could let the whole thing unravel."

Seems like enough of an argument to not do it your way.


********
edit to add: +1 to sittingduck for the drawing.


(This post was edited by dugl33 on Jul 13, 2010, 4:00 PM)


majid_sabet


Jul 13, 2010, 3:57 PM
Post #13 of 32 (4462 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8344

Re: [sittingduck] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

sittingduck wrote:
jktinst wrote:
[... ]I twist both strands before clipping them, making sure that I twist them both with the same clockwise (or counter-clockwise) turn. The latter point is vital since, if they are twisted in opposite directions, a failure of one of the two points could let the whole thing unravel. [... ]

Something like this?
[image]http://www.home.no/sittingduck/double_sliding_x.jpg[/image]

do you guys see any problems if you loose one of the anchor legs ?

I mean how these loops are running over each other especially if you use spectra or similar materiall


sittingduck


Jul 13, 2010, 7:10 PM
Post #14 of 32 (4424 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [majid_sabet] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
sittingduck wrote:
jktinst wrote:
[... ]I twist both strands before clipping them, making sure that I twist them both with the same clockwise (or counter-clockwise) turn. The latter point is vital since, if they are twisted in opposite directions, a failure of one of the two points could let the whole thing unravel. [... ]

Something like this?
[image]http://www.home.no/sittingduck/double_sliding_x.jpg[/image]

do you guys see any problems if you loose one of the anchor legs ?

I mean how these loops are running over each other especially if you use spectra or similar materiall

Will the effect not be similar to a munter hitch, where the wear of the fabric is not focused on one spot?


jktinst


Jul 13, 2010, 9:26 PM
Post #15 of 32 (4386 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 88

Re: [majid_sabet] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
Seems like enough of an argument to not do it your way.
Well for most of what you do while climbing, there is a right way and any number of wrong ways to do it and it's usually pretty vital that you do them the right way. Is this really so much more complicated than tying a figure of 8 or placing a stopper correctly?

sittingduck wrote:
Nice if there are no clutch effect, that means dynamic equalization. Do you back that sling up?
As I mentioned, I am not actually completely sure of what is meant by the "clutch effect" but a big part of it, at least, seems to be associated with strand-on-strand friction compounded by pressure from above by the biner, which you can't have in the double X.

Again, I believe that the 2-locker equalette is better than either single or double sliding X so, if I need a 2-arm anchor and can spare the lockers, I would go for that. if I couldn't, now that I have read the book, I would use the sliding double X (as I long have) but with limiter knots to minimize extension and provide internal redundancy.

(This post was edited by jktinst on Jul 14, 2010, 4:16 AM)


bill413


Jul 14, 2010, 6:14 AM
Post #16 of 32 (4323 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jktinst wrote:
Well for most of what you do while climbing, there is a right way and any number of wrong ways to do it and it's usually pretty vital that you do them the right way.

No.

most of what you do while climbing, there are a number of right ways and any number of wrong ways to do it and it's usually pretty vital that you do them in one of the right ways.


jktinst


Jul 14, 2010, 6:42 AM
Post #17 of 32 (4307 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 88

Re: [bill413] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bill413 wrote:
No. most of what you do while climbing, there are a number of right ways and any number of wrong ways to do it and it's usually pretty vital that you do them in one of the right ways.

Apologies. You're entirely correct and your post made me realize that my "statement" could be taken to mean that "my" sliding double X is right and the regular one is wrong, which is not at all what I meant. I was simply pointing out that, just because something requires a bit of knowledge and care to execute properly doesn't mean it's bad. We constantly do things while climbing that require knowledge and care and that if done improperly can put our lives even more in danger than they might otherwise be.


bill413


Jul 14, 2010, 8:15 AM
Post #18 of 32 (4269 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jktinst wrote:
bill413 wrote:
No. most of what you do while climbing, there are a number of right ways and any number of wrong ways to do it and it's usually pretty vital that you do them in one of the right ways.

Apologies. You're entirely correct and your post made me realize that my "statement" could be taken to mean that "my" sliding double X is right and the regular one is wrong, which is not at all what I meant. I was simply pointing out that, just because something requires a bit of knowledge and care to execute properly doesn't mean it's bad. We constantly do things while climbing that require knowledge and care and that if done improperly can put our lives even more in danger than they might otherwise be.

This is ture. Smile


dangleme


Aug 21, 2010, 10:50 AM
Post #19 of 32 (3943 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 9, 2007
Posts: 7

Re: [jktinst] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

All I have to say is I've taken a ton of whippers on a sliding x, on dyneema, spectra and nylon, and I've never seen any evidence of any excess heat/wear on my runners.

More importantly, it's never failed.

And I can tell if it's set up right with a simple glance.

Not saying the sliding double x doesn't have merit, but I'll never use it.


subantz


Aug 21, 2010, 11:23 AM
Post #20 of 32 (3929 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247

Re: [dangleme] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

dangleme wrote:
All I have to say is I've taken a ton of whippers on a sliding x, on dyneema, spectra and nylon, and I've never seen any evidence of any excess heat/wear on my runners.

More importantly, it's never failed.

And I can tell if it's set up right with a simple glance.

Not saying the sliding double x doesn't have merit, but I'll never use it.
LIAR its a toprope set up or a anchor for multi-pitch climin. WHIPPERS MY ASS LIAR


dangleme


Aug 21, 2010, 11:36 AM
Post #21 of 32 (3922 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 9, 2007
Posts: 7

Re: [subantz] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

subantz wrote:
dangleme wrote:
All I have to say is I've taken a ton of whippers on a sliding x, on dyneema, spectra and nylon, and I've never seen any evidence of any excess heat/wear on my runners.

More importantly, it's never failed.

And I can tell if it's set up right with a simple glance.

Not saying the sliding double x doesn't have merit, but I'll never use it.
LIAR its a toprope set up or a anchor for multi-pitch climin. WHIPPERS MY ASS LIAR

... or, when you climb on crappy placements, set up gear for a multi-directional load on a traverse.

And, yes, as you say multi-pitch. Or really any route that wanders, i.e. plugging two bad micro nuts in a y-crack before running out the left-leaning splitter.

Do you need me to explain these further?

That rig is used for much more than TR anchors.


(This post was edited by dangleme on Aug 21, 2010, 12:29 PM)


subantz


Aug 21, 2010, 12:22 PM
Post #22 of 32 (3909 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247

Re: [dangleme] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dangleme wrote:
subantz wrote:
dangleme wrote:
All I have to say is I've taken a ton of whippers on a sliding x, on dyneema, spectra and nylon, and I've never seen any evidence of any excess heat/wear on my runners.

More importantly, it's never failed.

And I can tell if it's set up right with a simple glance.

Not saying the sliding double x doesn't have merit, but I'll never use it.
LIAR its a toprope set up or a anchor for multi-pitch climin. WHIPPERS MY ASS LIAR

... or, when you climb on crappy placements, set up gear for a multi-directional load on a traverse.

And, yes, as you say multi-piych. Or really any route that wanders.

Do you need me to explain these further?

That rig is used for much more than TR anchors.
Not for u top rope tough guy.
Belay or anchor?
U LIAR


chilli


Aug 21, 2010, 12:38 PM
Post #23 of 32 (3902 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 400

Re: [subantz] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

subantz wrote:
LIAR its a toprope set up or a anchor for multi-pitch climin. WHIPPERS MY ASS LIAR

A) IMO: sliding-X as anchor = dumb when other low-extension or non-schockloading systems exist for anchor (cordalette/equalette/quad/rope/take yer pick) [even when bolts exist @ anchor (see quad). only exception i'm wiling to make is x on one weak leg of cordalette]

B) double-X carries no significant advantage with regard to point A without limiter knots, which reduce directional movement of sliding-x anyway

C) sliding-X IS used MUCH more to equalize 2 pieces en-route than for TR anchor by anyone with sense (IMO), so whippers DO happen.

edited to add stuff in [.] for clarification


(This post was edited by chilli on Aug 21, 2010, 12:49 PM)


dangleme


Aug 21, 2010, 12:39 PM
Post #24 of 32 (3900 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 9, 2007
Posts: 7

Re: [subantz] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

subantz wrote:
dangleme wrote:
subantz wrote:
dangleme wrote:
All I have to say is I've taken a ton of whippers on a sliding x, on dyneema, spectra and nylon, and I've never seen any evidence of any excess heat/wear on my runners.

More importantly, it's never failed.

And I can tell if it's set up right with a simple glance.

Not saying the sliding double x doesn't have merit, but I'll never use it.
LIAR its a toprope set up or a anchor for multi-pitch climin. WHIPPERS MY ASS LIAR

... or, when you climb on crappy placements, set up gear for a multi-directional load on a traverse.

And, yes, as you say multi-piych. Or really any route that wanders.

Do you need me to explain these further?

That rig is used for much more than TR anchors.
Not for u top rope tough guy.
Belay or anchor?
U LIAR

Wow, your ignorance is amazing. You are one of those guys who use cams in nut placements and doesn't even know it.


subantz


Aug 21, 2010, 1:23 PM
Post #25 of 32 (3877 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247

Re: [dangleme] Sliding double X ?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm winning
Are you getting baited into a flame war.
Idonknow. Maybes yes, maybes no

First page Previous page 1 2 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?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook