Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab:
$40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure.
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Lab

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All


Mark_Hudon


Apr 7, 2012, 8:48 PM
Post #51 of 92 (4570 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2010
Posts: 80

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So true, I rise above it.

Tongue


Partner cracklover


Apr 7, 2012, 8:51 PM
Post #52 of 92 (4570 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [iknowfear] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

iknowfear wrote:

Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Cheers,

Well, the jury is still out, so it's a bit presumptuous of me to do so, but it *is* fun to think about. It would be nice to keep the money in The Lab. I wonder if anyone would like to host and judge the homemade cam competition this year. I could offer the $$ as a first prize, maybe even chip in another ten to make it an even $50.

I dunno, anyone have other interesting suggestions (assuming the OP forks over the $$)?

GO


USnavy


Apr 8, 2012, 5:17 AM
Post #53 of 92 (4539 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2661

Re: [] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Interestingly enough, I actually had two O&O biners open up on me the other day. I set up a slackline with solid gate ovals connecting the slackline to my master point. When I walked across the line I noticed both gates were open as they were being compressed together by the slackline. The back and fourth swinging of the slackline pushed the gates in the open position and the biners were further compressed which held them in the open position. Granted I still had 2,700 lbs of strength which is not something I am going to exceed on a 50 foot slackline. But it was interesting that I was able to inadvertently open two O&O oval solid gate biners.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 8, 2012, 5:18 AM)


Mark_Hudon


Apr 8, 2012, 8:47 AM
Post #54 of 92 (4523 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2010
Posts: 80

Re: [USnavy] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So what are the chances of anyone dying due to this "problem", oh, let's say in the next 30 years vs. me driving 775 miles to Yosemite this spring?


bill413


Apr 8, 2012, 2:43 PM
Post #55 of 92 (4482 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Very well explained & illustrated.


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 3:40 PM
Post #56 of 92 (4473 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [bill413] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

And irrelevant.


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 3:42 PM
Post #57 of 92 (4471 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [USnavy] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
But it was interesting that I was able to inadvertently open two O&O oval solid gate biners.

This isn't an application where I'd ever employ two stacked biners in any configuration.


Partner cracklover


Apr 8, 2012, 5:57 PM
Post #58 of 92 (4447 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
And irrelevant.

Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Thanks!

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 8, 2012, 5:57 PM
Post #59 of 92 (4446 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [bill413] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bill413 wrote:
Very well explained & illustrated.

Thanks!

GO


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 7:32 PM
Post #60 of 92 (4427 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Not when threads like this one convey to less experienced people the wrong impression, which in this case is that there is any disadvantage to using a couple of non-locking biners or draws as a TR anchor.


squierbypetzl
Moderator

Apr 8, 2012, 7:51 PM
Post #61 of 92 (4413 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Not when threads like this one convey to less experienced people the wrong impression, which in this case is that there is any disadvantage to using a couple of non-locking biners or draws as a TR anchor.

Having the rope can come free from the anchor is a pretty significant disadvantage in any system, and if cracklover proved it can happen then his claims warrant some looking into.

Personally, I've always used and will very likely continue using 2 opposed non-locking (non wire gate) biners on an equalized cordelette for any toprope anchors I have to set up. Knowing that it's not only possible but plausible for the rope to come free in certain scenarios can only make me safer and therefore a better climber and instructor.


(This post was edited by squierbypetzl on Apr 8, 2012, 8:20 PM)


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 8:43 PM
Post #62 of 92 (4398 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [squierbypetzl] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

squierbypetzl wrote:
healyje wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Not when threads like this one convey to less experienced people the wrong impression, which in this case is that there is any disadvantage to using a couple of non-locking biners or draws as a TR anchor.

Having the rope can come free from the anchor is a pretty significant disadvantage in any system, and if cracklover proved it can happen then his claims warrant some looking into.

Personally, I've always used and will very likely continue using 2 opposed non-locking (non wire gate) biners on an equalized cordelette for any toprope anchors I have to set up. Knowing that it's not only possible but plausible for the rope to come free in certain scenarios can only make me safer and therefore a better climber and instructor.

You'd think that climbing would get smarter over the decades, but instead it seems to be getting dumber the better the gear gets. The perceived prioritization around safety seems to be getting completely ass-backwards as time goes on instead. Look, there is just no circumstance where rope is going to come out of two opposed non-locking biners without doing something stupid and ill-advised in the setup. The whole thread is a 'the sky is falling sort of deal' and a real disservice to those who don't know any better.


(This post was edited by healyje on Apr 8, 2012, 8:44 PM)


jt512


Apr 8, 2012, 9:24 PM
Post #63 of 92 (4383 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
squierbypetzl wrote:
healyje wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Not when threads like this one convey to less experienced people the wrong impression, which in this case is that there is any disadvantage to using a couple of non-locking biners or draws as a TR anchor.

Having the rope can come free from the anchor is a pretty significant disadvantage in any system, and if cracklover proved it can happen then his claims warrant some looking into.

Personally, I've always used and will very likely continue using 2 opposed non-locking (non wire gate) biners on an equalized cordelette for any toprope anchors I have to set up. Knowing that it's not only possible but plausible for the rope to come free in certain scenarios can only make me safer and therefore a better climber and instructor.

You'd think that climbing would get smarter over the decades, but instead it seems to be getting dumber the better the gear gets. The perceived prioritization around safety seems to be getting completely ass-backwards as time goes on instead. Look, there is just no circumstance where rope is going to come out of two opposed non-locking biners without doing something stupid and ill-advised in the setup. The whole thread is a 'the sky is falling sort of deal' and a real disservice to those who don't know any better.

I disagree with you that this thread is doing a disservice to anyone, including beginners. If a new failure mode is discovered, then we become smarter; if not, we're exactly as dumb as we ever were. In no case do we get dumber as a result of seeking a previously unknown failure mode.

Even if we discover no realistic failure mode in this thread (and I don't think we have), at least we reinforce to beginners the importance of not loading the carabiners over an edge and the advantage of giving the anchor a second look when you get the chance.

Jay


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 9:37 PM
Post #64 of 92 (4372 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [jt512] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

We'll have to agree to disagree - setting up situations that are inherently dangerous and then point out they are inherently dangerous isn't really doing anyone any favor when the thread title is what it is.


billl7


Apr 9, 2012, 6:28 AM
Post #65 of 92 (4329 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I'll continue sitting on the fence as to whether the failure mode you have identified should have been posted. This is not the "Beginner" forum after all. At the same time, I can't say the thread as it is (hind sight) belongs in "The Lab" either. Maybe in Campground?

Bill L


rtwilli4


Apr 9, 2012, 6:45 AM
Post #66 of 92 (4317 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 1867

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
"healyjeYou'd think that climbing would get smarter over the decades, but instead it seems to be getting dumber...

Sadly, that seems to be the case with most things in the world these days.

I think cracklover did a good job or proving that anything is possible, but I wouldn't call it the "discovery of a new failure mode."

I''ll group this in with all of the other people out there who think they are making climbing better by adding this sort of nonsense to a discussion. Sure, the rope came out of both biners; but look how many dumb shit things would have had to be done for there to even be a chance of that happening in real life.

I'll admit, this was entertaining, but it is a complete waste of time to discuss whether or not you have discovered a safer way of TRing (lockers, solid gates, etc). I will continue to use whatever two biners I might have for a TR setup and make sure that my partner doesn't wander all over the entire wall and then climb above the anchor and then ask me to do the same whilst tied into the other end of the rope.


lonequail


Apr 9, 2012, 7:40 AM
Post #67 of 92 (4302 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 8, 2004
Posts: 65

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Nicely done GO. It was a fun and mostly academic question which was asked and satisfactorily answered.

The post-submittal banter as to the probability and relevancy to the climbing community misses the obvious deficiency with how the anchor is set up: The biners are over an edge! ShockedAlthough this setup is within the parameters of the game, it is a good illustration of one reason why the biners should be hanging straight and free. Avoiding lateral loading on the biners is the prime reason.


Partner cracklover


Apr 9, 2012, 8:48 AM
Post #68 of 92 (4275 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [lonequail] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

lonequail wrote:
Nicely done GO. It was a fun and mostly academic question which was asked and satisfactorily answered.

The post-submittal banter as to the probability and relevancy to the climbing community misses the obvious deficiency with how the anchor is set up: The biners are over an edge! ShockedAlthough this setup is within the parameters of the game, it is a good illustration of one reason why the biners should be hanging straight and free. Avoiding lateral loading on the biners is the prime reason.

Thanks!

And yes - good point, that even without the rope escaping from the system, this anchor is already seriously compromised as soon as the biners sit on an edge.

I have to say, I was entirely prepared for folks to try to poke holes in my procedures or what have you, but I never expected this much concern.

It seems that the only people claiming the sky is falling are those who seem to find my post to be a threat to the way you do things.

My post makes no claims beyond the facts. If you think it does, you are reading into it more than I intended. It certainly does not claim that any time you use two opp-and-opposed biners for a TR anchor that you're likely to have an issue. In fact, if you actually read it, it shows how many specific things have to happen for this particular failure mode to occur. Of course there may be other failure modes. If someone else discovers one, that could be interesting, too.

And for those still foolish enough to think that I'm on a crusade against using two non-locking biners as an anchor: Yesterday I went sport climbing, and used two plain old sport draws at the top of every route I did. Yep, that's means I had a TR anchor with two non-locking biners. And felt perfectly fine about it.

If you're not capable of integrating a potential failure mode into your world view without getting all freaked out, then pardon me for saying, but I think you're wound a little tight, lol.

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 9, 2012, 8:53 AM
Post #69 of 92 (4272 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [billl7] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
I'll continue sitting on the fence as to whether the failure mode you have identified should have been posted. This is not the "Beginner" forum after all. At the same time, I can't say the thread as it is (hind sight) belongs in "The Lab" either. Maybe in Campground?

Bill L

Huh? Sorry, but this is exactly what The Lab is for, as I understand it. Mostly academic discussion and documentation of climbing and gear related subjects, for the purposes of entertainment and enlightenment. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine, but like I said, nobody's making you read it.

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 9, 2012, 8:58 AM
Post #70 of 92 (4268 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree - setting up situations that are inherently dangerous and then point out they are inherently dangerous isn't really doing anyone any favor when the thread title is what it is.

Well that's for each reader to decide for him or herself, no? Like the Lone Quail pointed out - this TR already has issues even before my specific failure mode. If you don't care about the issues I added, then that's fine.

GO


billl7


Apr 9, 2012, 9:48 AM
Post #71 of 92 (4243 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
billl7 wrote:
I'll continue sitting on the fence as to whether the failure mode you have identified should have been posted. This is not the "Beginner" forum after all. At the same time, I can't say the thread as it is (hind sight) belongs in "The Lab" either. Maybe in Campground?

Bill L

Huh? Sorry, but this is exactly what The Lab is for, as I understand it. Mostly academic discussion and documentation of climbing and gear related subjects, for the purposes of entertainment and enlightenment. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine, but like I said, nobody's making you read it.

GO
Hopefully it is not a problem for RC.com as a whole that I did read it and did comment.Smile

Bill L


Partner cracklover


Apr 22, 2012, 6:49 PM
Post #72 of 92 (3978 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [iknowfear] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

iknowfear wrote:
cracklover wrote:
[image]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18053429.jpg[/image]

Cheers!

GO

Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Cheers,

Looks like it's a moot point.

It would appear that dead_horse_flats (the OP) has fled. His last logon was two days after I posted my proof, and he has had no posts here since Apr 2, 2012.

Bummer. But, I suppose, not terribly surprising.

GO


squierbypetzl
Moderator

Apr 22, 2012, 8:43 PM
Post #73 of 92 (3941 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
iknowfear wrote:
cracklover wrote:
[image]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18053429.jpg[/image]

Cheers!

GO

Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Cheers,

Looks like it's a moot point.

It would appear that dead_horse_flats (the OP) has fled. His last logon was two days after I posted my proof, and he has had no posts here since Apr 2, 2012.

Bummer. But, I suppose, not terribly surprising.

GO

Good man, the level of pawwnage you wraught unto his arse was priceless. You completely and legitimately wrecked some know-it-all's argument and advanced the science of climbing. I commend you.


iknowfear


Apr 23, 2012, 2:16 AM
Post #74 of 92 (3911 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 639

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
iknowfear wrote:
cracklover wrote:
[image]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18053429.jpg[/image]

Cheers!

GO

Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Cheers,

Looks like it's a moot point.

It would appear that dead_horse_flats (the OP) has fled. His last logon was two days after I posted my proof, and he has had no posts here since Apr 2, 2012.

Bummer. But, I suppose, not terribly surprising.

GO

meh. weak. but there should be a dead horse joke somewhere...

anyway, thanks for the work and the proof.

cheers!


Gmburns2000


Apr 23, 2012, 5:37 AM
Post #75 of 92 (3886 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15152

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:
This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

Disclaimers.
1. Opposed means opposed.
2. No manually holding the biners to force the rope thru them.
3. No wrapping the rope around the biners unless you can create a situation where this could happen un-intentionally.
4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.
5. No theories, microfractures, CE marks, or alien abductions.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

another anonymous loser in the end, eh?

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : The Lab

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$123.30 (10% off)
$12.56 (10% off)
$19.76 (10% off)
$2.25 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook