|
|
|
|
ontario_guide
May 25, 2004, 7:40 PM
Post #76 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 526
|
WOW! I have no idea how you got that first photo. It's actually from a course we were doing. It wasn't acutally desinged to do anything other than to have fun setting up a whole bunch of anchors to have the guys practice equalizing and to show them the myriad of possabilities for anchor placement. The anchors are not extended over the edge becuase I wanted them to have an easier time equalizing. Furthermore, they were setting up a "rappel line" so the ropes are dead tied to the anchor.
On this anchor I basically told them to build something that would hold several trucks and this is what they came up with. It was pretty funny at the time watching all this but they did learn a bunch about equalizing! Believe it or not, all of the anchors were perfectly equalized.
Oh ya, it only took 4 hours too! Good group of guys and a load of fun!
That made me laugh seeing that up there! Where have I been?
|
|
|
|
|
l0wnsl0
May 25, 2004, 7:56 PM
Post #77 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2004
Posts: 59
|
http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/photos/jump.cgi?Detailed=30357
from a thread a while ago
|
|
|
|
|
sarcat
May 25, 2004, 8:00 PM
Post #78 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
To much of a nOOb setup. Don't count on that climbers anchor. His dad's maybe but not his.
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
May 25, 2004, 9:21 PM
Post #79 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
In reply to: WOW! I have no idea how you got that first photo. It's actually from a course we were doing. It wasn't acutally desinged to do anything other than to have fun setting up a whole bunch of anchors to have the guys practice equalizing and to show them the myriad of possabilities for anchor placement. The anchors are not extended over the edge becuase I wanted them to have an easier time equalizing. Furthermore, they were setting up a "rappel line" so the ropes are dead tied to the anchor. On this anchor I basically told them to build something that would hold several trucks and this is what they came up with. It was pretty funny at the time watching all this but they did learn a bunch about equalizing! Believe it or not, all of the anchors were perfectly equalized. Oh ya, it only took 4 hours too! Good group of guys and a load of fun! That made me laugh seeing that up there! Where have I been?
I just happened to be looking up a certain location in the routes db and came across this photo. I thought it would be perfect for analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
May 25, 2004, 9:28 PM
Post #80 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
In reply to: what knot do you use to equalize if not a clove hitch
I've seen the clove hitch used to equalize, but here it is a single point tie-in.
In reply to: i did a search and found this thread: Click Here the clove hitch doesnt slip at all. it fails completely at roughly 5000lbs.
Thnaks for the link, I guess the John Long book is wrong. Still if a clove hitch is 60% of rope strength, wouldn't an eight be a little bit stronger? I suppose you are already at the strength limit of some of the other components, so it may not matter. Which would be easier to untie?
I know about using a clove hitch for self-belay and assumed that there would be some slip, but that would just make it a bit more dynamic. Plus you would have a backup for soloing.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
May 26, 2004, 4:57 PM
Post #81 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: I feel the clove hitch is inadequate as a single tie-in as it can slip with as little as 1000 lb of force, depending on the rope, etc... References: Climbing Anchors; MTFOTH
MFOTH doesn't get everything right. The clove hitch in dynamic rope does not slip at all. It breaks at 13--14 kN, about the same as an overhand knot or a single bowline. Since the rope tension in a dynamic rope in a factor two fall is about 9kN, this is an adequate breaking strength. The adequate strength and lack of slipping in clove hitches tied in dynamic rope has also been noted by Tom Moyers.
The misunderstanding about clove hitches slipping probably comes from their unpredictable behavior in static ropes, where slipping can occur at forces as low as 4--5 kN in certain ropes typically used for marine purposes. This is an issue if you are using static ropes as fixed lines.
A reference for these claims can be downloaded from this site.
As for the pictured 3-point anchor, unlike most of the responders so far, I'd give it an F, because it is configured to be a prime candidate for cascade failure, in which far from being equalized, each piece takes the full impact in turn, with the least reliable piece loaded to initiate the cascade. The big angle between strands 1 and 2 means that a relatively high force component will be applied to the strand on the fixed pin, whose reliability is unpredictable in general. (Someone said this pin is only a backup, but I do not believe that to be true. The other two pieces are to the right of a vertical line drawn through the power point, which means that the pin will have to be loaded, whether or not the arm to it looks tight.) This particular pin looks old and rusted and so could easily fail at low loads. If it does fail, then the entire load will come on the middle piece, the camalot (there will be no load on the tricam), and if that fails, there will be a swinging load on the tricam, which is the type of load mostly likely to dislodge it.
This is the type of anchor they find on the dead party at the base of the cliff and wonder how three equalized pieces could have been so poor as not to be able to handle a third of the load each.
Without getting in to what other pieces, possibly not available, might have been placed, this anchor could have been improved if the cordalette had been tied so that the power point lay directly between the right two pieces, thereby at least equalizing them and relegating the fixed pin to the role of an (unlikely) last gasp backup if the equalized double anchor failed.
Added in Edit: Two further points.
1. Given the fact that this is a marginal anchor for a big impact, the leader's rope absolutely must not be redirected through the anchor.
2. Again, because of the marginal nature of the anchor, the leader should work to get in some really bombproof protection as soon as possible at the start of the next pitch.
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
May 26, 2004, 9:45 PM
Post #82 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
bump
|
|
|
|
|
kpalsson
May 26, 2004, 9:50 PM
Post #83 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2004
Posts: 127
|
tedc: re throwing a quicklink around the existing tapes and rapping on, why would you do that, (using up a quicklink, and relying on potentially not so nice webbing) when you could use just the two big fat bolts with rap rings? Is 4 bolts really that much better than 2?
Cheers,
Karl P
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
May 26, 2004, 10:18 PM
Post #84 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
In reply to: tedc: re throwing a quicklink around the existing tapes and rapping on, why would you do that, (using up a quicklink, and relying on potentially not so nice webbing) when you could use just the two big fat bolts with rap rings? Is 4 bolts really that much better than 2? Cheers, Karl P
My Bad.
Didn't notice the rap rings.
You are absolutely right. This is already set up to rap. Just thread and go.
Thanks for the catch.
|
|
|
|
|
far_east_climber
May 27, 2004, 12:02 PM
Post #85 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 873
|
http://groups.msn.com/...=4675473938407584657
Here you go -
5 placements (from left to right)
1. #3 slcd (forged)
2. #4 FCU
3. Large hex
4. #5 WC nut in bottleneck
5. #4 nut (poor)
The first placement is secured with a figure of 8 and the following placements are secured with clove hitches. Each pony tail is pre-equalised and tied off with a figure of 8 clipped to a locker.
Also on the locker is a munter's hitch with a stopper secured with another locker.
This was a rap anchor and then the munter was used to easily switch onto top rope belay once the climber had finished cleaning the pitch.
Pros, cons, what do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
allenperry
May 27, 2004, 12:33 PM
Post #86 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2003
Posts: 13
|
In reply to: Here you go - 5 placements (from left to right) 1. #3 slcd (forged) 2. #4 FCU 3. Large hex 4. #5 WC nut in bottleneck 5. #4 nut (poor) The first placement is secured with a figure of 8 and the following placements are secured with clove hitches. Each pony tail is pre-equalised and tied off with a figure of 8 clipped to a locker. Also on the locker is a munter's hitch with a stopper secured with another locker. This was a rap anchor and then the munter was used to easily switch onto top rope belay once the climber had finished cleaning the pitch. Pros, cons, what do you think?
It's good to know how to use the rope for your anchor. Two things though, you might want to consider, in my opinion, are:
* Tie an overhand knot for the power point, creating a single clipping point. It's bulky with a rope, but your biner looks a bit "full" with all those individual strands, maybe even a tad cross-loaded.
*We cant tell from your photo just how secure that formation is you have all your gear under, but it's a good idea to 'spread your chips around', maybe that piece far left could have been used instead of a third in the horizontal.
One other thing. You could have tied the munter off with a mule knot and an overhand back-up. Eliminating the need for that additional locker and making it easier to turn the rappell into a 'lower' should the need arise.
Of course, analyzing flat, limited view pictures has real limitations.
Perry
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
May 27, 2004, 1:32 PM
Post #87 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
It is good to see the rope used for rigging the anchor. However, you used way too much rope. Several pieces have two strands of rope when only one is necessary. Consider the following: take the rope to the first piece, clove hitch (or whatever), and then run to rope to the next piece, rather than back to the power point. Clove into this next piece and then run the rope back to the power point, two pieces- two strands. Repeat as appropriate.
I'm sure I'll get flamed, but I generally don't like cordellet/ webolet/ powerpoint anchors. I prefer two ropes (twins or doubles) and constructing my anchor with the ropes. I know it lacks some benenfits of the power point, but the efficiency and gear minimization is preferable to me.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 27, 2004, 4:43 PM
Post #88 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Re: The Far_East_Climber anchor.
1. The anchor uses too much rope.
2. The yellow FCU is not aligned with direction of loading.
3. There are too many attachments to the master locking carabiner. If this anchor were to be seriously loaded, the fact that there are four bights of rope tied into the small end of the biner would result in the biner being loaded with outward-directed forces, for which it is not designed.
4. In spite of there being 5 pieces, all of your eggs are in one basket, in that they all rely on the assumption that the one feature they are all around is bombproof. As someone else mentioned, if multiple features exist sometimes it is better to make use of them. Hard to tell from this photograph whether this would be true in this case.
5. Probably more legs than necessary. If I could get a good #3 SLCD, a good #4 FCU, and a good large hex, I'd likely stop there.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 27, 2004, 4:45 PM
Post #89 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Re: The Far_East_Climber anchor.
1. The anchor uses too much rope.
2. The yellow FCU is not aligned with direction of loading.
3. There are too many attachments to the master locking carabiner. If this anchor were to be seriously loaded, the fact that there are four bights of rope tied into the small end of the biner would result in the biner being loaded with outward-directed forces, for which it is not designed.
4. In spite of there being 5 pieces, all of your eggs are in one basket, in that they all rely on the assumption that the one feature they are all around is bombproof. As someone else mentioned, if multiple features exist sometimes it is better to make use of them. Hard to tell from this photograph whether this would be true in this case.
5. Probably more legs than necessary. If I could get a good #3 SLCD, a good #4 FCU, and a good large hex, I'd likely stop there.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 27, 2004, 5:17 PM
Post #90 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
In reply to: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=32865 The branch on the left is a little slack. All the peices were good. If the belayer was out-wieghed by the leader significantly than you would want a peice for upward pull tied in tight to the power point. As is plenty good enough.
Its my preference to have only one type of pro (eg cams only, or nuts only) in a given crack, at least that close together. Expando can have some interesting side effects. Amongst other things, if that block on the right is not completely solid, load the anchor and that high nut falls out. Secondarily, it looks like you could get a good big piece (#2 camalot or a #7 hex) into that slot above the central corner/crack thing. Which would be better than the slack backup nut idea and would give you 3 solid full time pieces.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
May 27, 2004, 5:20 PM
Post #91 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
This thread needs a new picture...
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
May 27, 2004, 5:57 PM
Post #92 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
:shock: This is not safe. With my X Ray vision, I can tell one of those knots is not tightened sufficiently. Furthermore, there should be more webbing used, and perhaps some cord and short pieces of static line. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Jun 10, 2004, 6:10 PM
Post #93 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
bump
As a attempt to keep this thread alive i took my digicam and took some photos of anchors. Here ya go.
Qwert´s Anchor One
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=33882
Anchor was used for toproping.
My concerns are: only one locker, angle of the webbing might be a bit large, and the edge is not that good for the rope.
Qwert´s Anchor Two
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=33883
Anchor was used for toproping.
My concerns are: crappy image quality :lol: , rope running over a edge.
Qwert´s Anchor Three
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=33884
Anchor was used for hauling and jugging. The Brown rope was used to haul my comfy chair up the rock, while i was jugging up and down on the green line to get photos of it for an arts project.
the piece on the left is a tricam and the piece on the right is a bomber glue in bolt. The tricam mainly serves the purpose of seperating the two ropes, so that the hauling rope couldnt melt the jugging rope.
My concerns are: nothing, since this anchor was constructed by me ;)
Now what are your oppinions?
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
taino
Jun 10, 2004, 6:21 PM
Post #94 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
For the first picture, the only good thing is that at least the tree looks bomber. However, they're one-piece-to-failure on everything else. :wtf:
Add another length of webbing to make it two points (I can't tell for sure, but the tree looks bomber), add another locking biner, and extend the webbing so that it runs over the rock edge - not the rope running over the rock edge.
For the second picture, I can't tell what the webbing is attached to. However, there should be a powerpoint tied in the webbing, and it should be extended over the edge. Looks like there's only one biner, as well.
What tool set up that third anchor...? :wink:
Nice anchor. Two biners opposite and opposed, magic X with an overhand in the long side to protect against shockloading, two bomber pieces, overhand on bight... :angel:
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jun 10, 2004, 7:06 PM
Post #95 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
Is it just me, or is there just a single sling from the anchor point to the rope in both Qwert 1 and Qwert 2? In both instances the slings aren't close to long enough. There is only a single locking biner in both pictures, and in the first anchor the gate's facing the rock. If you're only going to use one biner (even a locker), might as well face the gate away from the rock.
My best guess with Qwert 2 is it's a Fixe ring anchor with a sling girth-hitched to it. From there, the overly short sling is connected with one locking biner to the rope, which is rubbing over the edge. As with image one, there is no redundancy.
Qwert 3: If the bolt failed (I know, big if), I'd be interested to see how the tricam loaded. In that instance you'd also have the weight on your haul line hit the tricam. It looks like the crack could certainly take more pro if you felt the need (which you obviously didn't). While you're probably fine, another piece wouldn't hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
ropeburn
Jun 10, 2004, 7:34 PM
Post #97 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2003
Posts: 594
|
Q # 1
No redundancy.
PP not extended far enough.
Use of single HMS locking biner. Gate facing rock. Rope on gate side (Inferior strength).
Q # 2
No redundancy.
Sling girth hitched to what looks like a single wired stopper. :shock: Makes more sense if it was a ring bolt, but the image quality is lacking the detail needed to determine.
PP not extended far enough.
Use of single HMS locking biner.
Q # 3
Carry on.
I would only climb on Q # 3. Take a little extra time and set a decent TR anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
mustclimb69
Jun 10, 2004, 7:55 PM
Post #98 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 479
|
Im never going climbing with Qwert...
One point, edge loading , one biner, sketchy...
at least you got the comfy chair right
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jun 10, 2004, 8:12 PM
Post #99 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: Im never going climbing with Qwert... One point, edge loading , one biner, sketchy... at least you got the comfy chair right
I didn't necessarily get the idea that anchors one and two were Qwert's. I took the captions more as a reference, as there are multiple anchors in the thread. Maybe he'll clarify. I agree that I would definitely not climb on the first two anchors (although I've rapped off less in an emergency).
mark
|
|
|
|
|
crshbrn84
Jun 10, 2004, 8:41 PM
Post #100 of 135
(18986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 223
|
wow... reading this thread, im not sure if i should say something, laugh, cry, or worry for the lives the people who climbed on some of that madness. esp the first pic. But then again darwin always had a way with people and animals that couldnt addapt. survival of the fittest comes to mind. good luck to you all and be safe.
ps. take some anchor building classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
