This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Just posted this over at supertopo, wondering your thoughts as well!
Hello everyone, I just thought up an anchor and would like some feedback if would be so kind
As far as I can tell it is completely redundant for all components (protection, cord, crabs). Also I think it adheres to SERENE without sacrificing dynamic equalization for no extension (of course adherence with SERENE only applies to protection failure, not cord failure etc). Even better than that, it uses minimal gear, or as minimal as it could with the above properties.
There is a slight bit of extension. It is equal to half the distance between the failing protection and the protection attached to the failing protection with the extension limiter strand. But this is half or less (depending on how close the protection is) of what other designs yield.
The two and three protection versions are below (3 protection version only needs an additional 2 crabs and 1 small sling) as well as a very bad wrong version. Can anybody spot the deficiency in the wrong version?
http://i49.tinypic.com/2lkqyaf.png
http://i48.tinypic.com/e8x4ax.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/23k59mw.png
Hello everyone, I just thought up an anchor and would like some feedback if would be so kind
As far as I can tell it is completely redundant for all components (protection, cord, crabs). Also I think it adheres to SERENE without sacrificing dynamic equalization for no extension (of course adherence with SERENE only applies to protection failure, not cord failure etc). Even better than that, it uses minimal gear, or as minimal as it could with the above properties.
There is a slight bit of extension. It is equal to half the distance between the failing protection and the protection attached to the failing protection with the extension limiter strand. But this is half or less (depending on how close the protection is) of what other designs yield.
The two and three protection versions are below (3 protection version only needs an additional 2 crabs and 1 small sling) as well as a very bad wrong version. Can anybody spot the deficiency in the wrong version?
http://i49.tinypic.com/2lkqyaf.png
http://i48.tinypic.com/e8x4ax.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/23k59mw.png
In reply to gaillard:
Hi G
Please put some profile info up so everyone's got some idea who they're chatting with. A mugshot'll do.
Chow gratzie
A
Hi G
Please put some profile info up so everyone's got some idea who they're chatting with. A mugshot'll do.
Chow gratzie
A
In reply to gaillard: Have you thought about safety though? What if someone comes and cuts the anchor ropes?
I think you need to set landmines around the area, and wrap barbed wire around the ropes.
Stay safe. xxx
I think you need to set landmines around the area, and wrap barbed wire around the ropes.
Stay safe. xxx
Oh forgot to add:
It is fast to setup because the knots that are not clove hitches can be tied before a climb, and it takes minimal cord. Basically to setup it requires 3 clove hitch adjustments, not long.
It is fast to setup because the knots that are not clove hitches can be tied before a climb, and it takes minimal cord. Basically to setup it requires 3 clove hitch adjustments, not long.
In reply to gaillard: Also, you haven't considered the situation that if one of your ropes goes on fire, the other ones will also ignite and you'll die, you need to really think about this.
In reply to gaillard:
Ah, Munchen.
Went to the bierfest this year, fantastic.
You've got some nice mountains quite near by as well.
A
Ah, Munchen.
Went to the bierfest this year, fantastic.
You've got some nice mountains quite near by as well.
A
Also forgot to add:
The clove hitches are there only to adjust length if you have no runners. Once can forgo the clove hitches to adjust and just extend which ever of the three ends you need to to be faster, since it all equalizes out.
The clove hitches are there only to adjust length if you have no runners. Once can forgo the clove hitches to adjust and just extend which ever of the three ends you need to to be faster, since it all equalizes out.
In reply to gaillard:
I thought JL and the test team had shown that extension was not an issue as shock loading was insignificant?
>
Also I think it adheres to SERENE without sacrificing dynamic equalization for no extension (of course adherence with SERENE only applies to protection failure, not cord failure etc). >
>I thought JL and the test team had shown that extension was not an issue as shock loading was insignificant?
In reply to nz Cragrat:
Your right, thats what I read too, but there are a lot of people that feel it has other repercussions, like pulling a belayer off a ledge... Still a lot of people don't believe their findings haha. I do though, and if I had two protection points, I would just use my first diagram without the top runner, simple, friction free, and redundant to cord cut, unlike magic X.
Your right, thats what I read too, but there are a lot of people that feel it has other repercussions, like pulling a belayer off a ledge... Still a lot of people don't believe their findings haha. I do though, and if I had two protection points, I would just use my first diagram without the top runner, simple, friction free, and redundant to cord cut, unlike magic X.
In reply to nz Cragrat:
Neither :P
If you take off the top part, it will extend, however it is far faster to setup, and takes less gear than john longs "quad".
Neither :P
If you take off the top part, it will extend, however it is far faster to setup, and takes less gear than john longs "quad".
In reply to nz Cragrat:
There is no such thing as far as I know, as far as I remember (don't have a copy here) in John longs book, when presented with 2 points he advocated the "quad" which is the length of cord for the equalette doubled (four strands in middle) and you tie two limiting knots (have to) and then clip 2 or 3 strands in the middle.
There is no such thing as far as I know, as far as I remember (don't have a copy here) in John longs book, when presented with 2 points he advocated the "quad" which is the length of cord for the equalette doubled (four strands in middle) and you tie two limiting knots (have to) and then clip 2 or 3 strands in the middle.
In reply to gaillard:
http://splitterclimbinggear.com/Anchors.html
maybe I am using different terminology but the critical point is the two isolated centre strands each with a 'biner.
http://avalonclimbingclub.blogspot.com/2009/09/equalette.html
http://splitterclimbinggear.com/Anchors.html
maybe I am using different terminology but the critical point is the two isolated centre strands each with a 'biner.
http://avalonclimbingclub.blogspot.com/2009/09/equalette.html
In reply to nz Cragrat:
Right that is the critical part, as well as the two knots on either side to guard against cord cuts.
However my aim was to minimize extension and retain all of the equalization, and I think I have done that with the addition of the one sling on top, so I don't think it is that complicated. With 3 protection points I guess it is a bit, but still just as "fast" considering there is less adjusting than a 3 point equalette.
Right that is the critical part, as well as the two knots on either side to guard against cord cuts.
However my aim was to minimize extension and retain all of the equalization, and I think I have done that with the addition of the one sling on top, so I don't think it is that complicated. With 3 protection points I guess it is a bit, but still just as "fast" considering there is less adjusting than a 3 point equalette.
In reply to gaillard:
But if extension is basically nothing to worry about why complicate matters? And besides that the cordelette, despite all it's theoretical failings, has been sucessfuly used for many a year.
But if extension is basically nothing to worry about why complicate matters? And besides that the cordelette, despite all it's theoretical failings, has been sucessfuly used for many a year.
In reply to gaillard:
Well true it has been used for many years, however protection _Has_ failed in reported incidents, so saying it was successful is probably a misnomer. If their anchors had been equalized, perhaps the placements would have held, we will never know... but if it can be made convenient enough, then there is no good reason why not to use an equalizing anchor. So I was trying to figure it out, its a good thing to strive for. Plus with perhaps some other tools besides crabs, and cord, I am sure a very convenient method that equalizes and does not extend is a possibility.
Although I am curious why John Longs equalette was not met with such "its useless" statements, when I believe I have improved on his method on most aspects..
Well true it has been used for many years, however protection _Has_ failed in reported incidents, so saying it was successful is probably a misnomer. If their anchors had been equalized, perhaps the placements would have held, we will never know... but if it can be made convenient enough, then there is no good reason why not to use an equalizing anchor. So I was trying to figure it out, its a good thing to strive for. Plus with perhaps some other tools besides crabs, and cord, I am sure a very convenient method that equalizes and does not extend is a possibility.
Although I am curious why John Longs equalette was not met with such "its useless" statements, when I believe I have improved on his method on most aspects..
In reply to gaillard:
The three point set-up you show has no connection with equalisation, the two left pieces take 25% each and the other the rest. Rgold on Supertopo (who as it happens is probably one of the cleverest people on this earth) has already told you this. If you can´t see this then don´t start designing anchors.
"There is a slight bit of extension. It is equal to half the distance between the failing protection and the protection attached to the failing protection with the extension limiter strand. But this is half or less (depending on how close the protection is) of what other designs yield."
Rubbish, if the points are vertically orientated and the upper one fails the extension will be the same distance as the separation (dynamic equalisation means the loads must be equal in ANY direction of pull).
Plenty of people think the whole system is rubbish but John Long wrote it all in a book so we simply didn´t buy it or a cordalette instead of discussing it on the internet!
The three point set-up you show has no connection with equalisation, the two left pieces take 25% each and the other the rest. Rgold on Supertopo (who as it happens is probably one of the cleverest people on this earth) has already told you this. If you can´t see this then don´t start designing anchors.
"There is a slight bit of extension. It is equal to half the distance between the failing protection and the protection attached to the failing protection with the extension limiter strand. But this is half or less (depending on how close the protection is) of what other designs yield."
Rubbish, if the points are vertically orientated and the upper one fails the extension will be the same distance as the separation (dynamic equalisation means the loads must be equal in ANY direction of pull).
Plenty of people think the whole system is rubbish but John Long wrote it all in a book so we simply didn´t buy it or a cordalette instead of discussing it on the internet!
In reply to jimtitt:
Thanks for the post.
Do you have any proof or some quick vector math that can display what you are talking about with the equalization?
If the top two protection points are where the smaller V is, then the extension is still small. What you are talking about is if you put the right most protection point, on my diagram at the top, which would be silly.
Fair point !
Thanks for the post.
Do you have any proof or some quick vector math that can display what you are talking about with the equalization?
If the top two protection points are where the smaller V is, then the extension is still small. What you are talking about is if you put the right most protection point, on my diagram at the top, which would be silly.
Fair point !
In reply to gaillard:
This just looks like some over complicated horrow show where you are more likely to get it wrong trying to do the thing. Think cold, tired, stressed and hungry...
This just looks like some over complicated horrow show where you are more likely to get it wrong trying to do the thing. Think cold, tired, stressed and hungry...
In reply to gaillard: and why not use rope/cord to connect all the anchors, pull the slack between each anchor and tie a big overhand to use as masterpoint?
ok it might be not SERENE but at least it's ERNEST...
ok it might be not SERENE but at least it's ERNEST...
In reply to gaillard:
I haven´done anything so simple as that for over 40 years! It is called pulley theory. The load either side of a pulley must be equal. For load X then the load each side must be equal therefore X/2 or 1/2X. If you now arrange a pulley on one side of the first pulley both sides on this must also be equal, thus 1/2X divided by 2 or1/4X.
Your statement regarding extension is still incorrect unless you are going to define the failing and not failing gear. Once you define a piece as not failing then what is the point of the rest of the gear?
> (In reply to jimtitt)
>
> Thanks for the post.
> Do you have any proof or some quick vector math that can display what you are talking about with the equalization?
>
> Thanks for the post.
> Do you have any proof or some quick vector math that can display what you are talking about with the equalization?
I haven´done anything so simple as that for over 40 years! It is called pulley theory. The load either side of a pulley must be equal. For load X then the load each side must be equal therefore X/2 or 1/2X. If you now arrange a pulley on one side of the first pulley both sides on this must also be equal, thus 1/2X divided by 2 or1/4X.
> If the top two protection points are where the smaller V is, then the extension is still small. What you are talking about is if you put the right most protection point, on my diagram at the top, which would be silly.
>
In the real world you don´t get the choice of where the better or worse gear is. >
Your statement regarding extension is still incorrect unless you are going to define the failing and not failing gear. Once you define a piece as not failing then what is the point of the rest of the gear?
In reply to gaillard: It may comply with SERENE but it doesn't comply with KISS
In reply to Howard J: You need an Alpine Cock Ring bro!
http://www.paulraphaelson.com/downloads/acr.pdf
http://www.paulraphaelson.com/downloads/acr.pdf
In reply to gaillard:
Why's it so complicated? Something simple and imperfect is likely to be much better in practice than something complicated to set up but theoretically (marginally) beneficial.
Jim's right about your 3 way rig. It's obvious at a glance why if you mentally replace the krabs with pulleys and mark up the tensions in each cord. There's no need for vector maths, simplify it so it's intuitive by making the cord long or the belay points close together.
jk
Why's it so complicated? Something simple and imperfect is likely to be much better in practice than something complicated to set up but theoretically (marginally) beneficial.
Jim's right about your 3 way rig. It's obvious at a glance why if you mentally replace the krabs with pulleys and mark up the tensions in each cord. There's no need for vector maths, simplify it so it's intuitive by making the cord long or the belay points close together.
jk
In reply to gaillard:
you can't really say it adheres to serene and then say it extends if one of the anchors fails sometimes they are quite far apart.
you can't really say it adheres to serene and then say it extends if one of the anchors fails sometimes they are quite far apart.
In reply to gaillard:
Also, by the way you should never have taught rope between anchors like that, it multiplies the forces between them as the knots slip and tighten if heavily loaded.
Also, by the way you should never have taught rope between anchors like that, it multiplies the forces between them as the knots slip and tighten if heavily loaded.
In reply to gaillard:
I think you forgot the most important part of those set-ups, the head-torch so you can find your way off the crag once you've finished building it...
I think you forgot the most important part of those set-ups, the head-torch so you can find your way off the crag once you've finished building it...
In reply to jkarran:
If you want to be amused then get over to the parallel thread on Supertopo, from cordalettes to transvestite nuns without getting (far) off topic. Cetainly a contender for the thread of 2009!
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1022894/competely_serene_anchor
Jim
If you want to be amused then get over to the parallel thread on Supertopo, from cordalettes to transvestite nuns without getting (far) off topic. Cetainly a contender for the thread of 2009!
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1022894/competely_serene_anchor
Jim
In reply to speekingleesh:
I wouldn't worry he'll never use it. Its the kind of set up and anacronim produced by a thoughtlessly worried armchair theorist.
I wouldn't worry he'll never use it. Its the kind of set up and anacronim produced by a thoughtlessly worried armchair theorist.
In reply to gaillard: Have you ever thought about going climbing? It's quite good fun.
In reply to jimtitt:
You didn't mention the mermaids. We really should have more mermaids on this channel
jk
You didn't mention the mermaids. We really should have more mermaids on this channel
jk
In reply to gaillard:
Have you thought of soloing? No need to worry about anchors or belayers. Totally serene.
Have you thought of soloing? No need to worry about anchors or belayers. Totally serene.
In reply to jkarran:
Making that intellectual leap from serene anchors to mermaids either shows the guys are working on another intellectual level to us or recreational drug use is more widespread over there!
One way or another they brightened my day :~)
Jim
Making that intellectual leap from serene anchors to mermaids either shows the guys are working on another intellectual level to us or recreational drug use is more widespread over there!
One way or another they brightened my day :~)
Jim
In reply to gaillard:
It may or may not, in priciple work. In reality, it's awful. The fact that spotting the difficiency in the wrong version is so difficult demonstrates perfectly why it's awful. Why, oh why would you want to make something so complicated? I don't think I'd have the time to make it, let alone check it, particularly when I'm cold, tired, it's dark, I've not eaten for a few hours. It really looks like one of those probleems you get at christmas with rings and knots and bits of wood that you have to untangle.
Take a look at this - http://www.chockstone.org/TechTips/Cordelette.htm
It may not be perfect, but you'll tie it right every time, it'll be quick, and if done properly, it's pretty unlikely that it'll pull out any placements, unless they're less than body-weight strength (in which, case, yours will will only delay death by taking forever to build). I would much rather second someone using this than your method. 1) I know that they're going to tie it right 2) I won't have frozen to death waiting for them to build it.
Sorry for the criticism, well done for thinking of these things, but this is really not something to be used in reality.
Tim
It may or may not, in priciple work. In reality, it's awful. The fact that spotting the difficiency in the wrong version is so difficult demonstrates perfectly why it's awful. Why, oh why would you want to make something so complicated? I don't think I'd have the time to make it, let alone check it, particularly when I'm cold, tired, it's dark, I've not eaten for a few hours. It really looks like one of those probleems you get at christmas with rings and knots and bits of wood that you have to untangle.
Take a look at this - http://www.chockstone.org/TechTips/Cordelette.htm
It may not be perfect, but you'll tie it right every time, it'll be quick, and if done properly, it's pretty unlikely that it'll pull out any placements, unless they're less than body-weight strength (in which, case, yours will will only delay death by taking forever to build). I would much rather second someone using this than your method. 1) I know that they're going to tie it right 2) I won't have frozen to death waiting for them to build it.
Sorry for the criticism, well done for thinking of these things, but this is really not something to be used in reality.
Tim
In reply to gaillard: Have absolutely no idea why you are trying to make something that in real life is reasonably easy, like link anchors so they fulfill several fundemental principles of a belay, and a. make it so complicated and b. actually manage miss a few of those fundemental principals in the process.
However I am keen to here what SERENE is suppose to stand for.
I will tell you about the IDEAS principle in return!
However I am keen to here what SERENE is suppose to stand for.
I will tell you about the IDEAS principle in return!
In reply to Green Porridge:
Surely no one in their right mind would seriously propose this as a feasible solution... or would they?! Looks like a harmless bit of fun.
> Sorry for the criticism, well done for thinking of these things, but this is really not something to be used in reality.
Surely no one in their right mind would seriously propose this as a feasible solution... or would they?! Looks like a harmless bit of fun.
In reply to gaillard:
You are a liability. I don't understand your diagrams, therefore you are making them more complicated than they need to be. You may still understand them right now, sober in your warm dry home or internet cafe. That's not the point though.
Personally I think the primary reason for lethal failure in any circumstance, is hardly ever, no actually frick it, given how rarely factor two ish falls crop up, cause of death is never ever ever fricking fricking ever due to a subtle mistake in the precision engineering of a fancy "the bestest" belay or abseil anchor "in the world ever", such as you have constructed. It's due to human error.
Can you build those anchors yourself when you're numb and/or have no co-ordination and/or aren't thinking straight? Or have altitude sickness, are distracted, very fatigued, or merely just a bit loopy?
When we are thinking straight as the majority of people reading this now are doing, most of us can set up a safe belay. In my experience, outside of the bolt protected mountains I guess, due to nervousness, fear and the unknown, even most of those people who can't set up a belay are sensible enough to either be really bloody careful or get someone who's better at it to check their work.
When we are not thinking straight, none of us need to set up your belay, and should that proportion of us needlessly seduced by it try to do so, a greater proportion of accidents will occur.
I've witnessed no end of idiots online here over the years but it's a rare event on ukclimbing.com when I come across someone who I not only wouldn't climb with. An incompetent french aquaintance of a friend of mine, may have killed another though his incompetence. But to find someone not only who I would tell all my friends not to climb with, if asked. Or even if they didn't. But someone who I would plea with everyone in the entire world not to climb with? Given that sadly in this day and age, noone will simple ignore you, you sir, need help.
Unless you can shout really loud at him, or take some money off gaillard in order to instruct him, I must recommend: Do not Climb with Gaillard.
Anyway, I learnt something today, just when I thought I knew the limits of human stupidity, I found I didn't. Thankyou ukc.
You are a liability. I don't understand your diagrams, therefore you are making them more complicated than they need to be. You may still understand them right now, sober in your warm dry home or internet cafe. That's not the point though.
Personally I think the primary reason for lethal failure in any circumstance, is hardly ever, no actually frick it, given how rarely factor two ish falls crop up, cause of death is never ever ever fricking fricking ever due to a subtle mistake in the precision engineering of a fancy "the bestest" belay or abseil anchor "in the world ever", such as you have constructed. It's due to human error.
Can you build those anchors yourself when you're numb and/or have no co-ordination and/or aren't thinking straight? Or have altitude sickness, are distracted, very fatigued, or merely just a bit loopy?
When we are thinking straight as the majority of people reading this now are doing, most of us can set up a safe belay. In my experience, outside of the bolt protected mountains I guess, due to nervousness, fear and the unknown, even most of those people who can't set up a belay are sensible enough to either be really bloody careful or get someone who's better at it to check their work.
When we are not thinking straight, none of us need to set up your belay, and should that proportion of us needlessly seduced by it try to do so, a greater proportion of accidents will occur.
I've witnessed no end of idiots online here over the years but it's a rare event on ukclimbing.com when I come across someone who I not only wouldn't climb with. An incompetent french aquaintance of a friend of mine, may have killed another though his incompetence. But to find someone not only who I would tell all my friends not to climb with, if asked. Or even if they didn't. But someone who I would plea with everyone in the entire world not to climb with? Given that sadly in this day and age, noone will simple ignore you, you sir, need help.
Unless you can shout really loud at him, or take some money off gaillard in order to instruct him, I must recommend: Do not Climb with Gaillard.
Anyway, I learnt something today, just when I thought I knew the limits of human stupidity, I found I didn't. Thankyou ukc.
In reply to gaillard:
Everyones favourite nutter has returned with a tour de force of utter genius!
The supertopo thread is brilliant (why can't we embed pictures?), I feel a renewed warmth towards our distant trad cousins.
Gaillard, I myself have something I've been working on and trying to improve. Admittedly, it's been around a while and has so far resisted all attempts at change. but I see no reason to not radically change it completely and ignore generations of logic and design...
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddx35n26_23g8p3cmdj
Everyones favourite nutter has returned with a tour de force of utter genius!
The supertopo thread is brilliant (why can't we embed pictures?), I feel a renewed warmth towards our distant trad cousins.
Gaillard, I myself have something I've been working on and trying to improve. Admittedly, it's been around a while and has so far resisted all attempts at change. but I see no reason to not radically change it completely and ignore generations of logic and design...
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddx35n26_23g8p3cmdj
In reply to gaillard: OK, I'll tell you where I stand. Looks great, but carrying the knitting needles to create it would be dangerous.
So, on that note, I'm out.
So, on that note, I'm out.
In reply to gaillard:
...in the meantime, you've got benighted at the belay due to the time taken to rig it.
Nice idea though.
...in the meantime, you've got benighted at the belay due to the time taken to rig it.
Nice idea though.
In reply to gaillard: All too complicated is my impression.
I'll tell you what I like - I like to be able to adjust a stance. So I use a single fixed point (in theory either derived from a single attachment point or two but very rarely two and using a single sling, equalised using overhand/figure 8) and attach the rope to another fixed point. Because there is adjustment on the rope via the clove hitch used to lock it off I can adjust the position for comfort.
Just run a loop of rope to the other attachment point and clove hitch it back onto a screwgate. Clove hitch on the screwgate gives the adjustment.
It's good to practice tying on with the rope anyway IMO
I'll tell you what I like - I like to be able to adjust a stance. So I use a single fixed point (in theory either derived from a single attachment point or two but very rarely two and using a single sling, equalised using overhand/figure 8) and attach the rope to another fixed point. Because there is adjustment on the rope via the clove hitch used to lock it off I can adjust the position for comfort.
Just run a loop of rope to the other attachment point and clove hitch it back onto a screwgate. Clove hitch on the screwgate gives the adjustment.
It's good to practice tying on with the rope anyway IMO
In reply to gaillard: I do wonder now you have the time to come up with this pointless nonsense.
In reply to all:
Bloody hell! What a great big stinking pile of cynical, sarcastic negativity this thread has turned out to be!
Fair enough, the idea may have been poorly thought-through, without a sound understanding of the physics, and even ignoring that is overcomplicated for most people, but give the guy a sodding break! He's clearly had a bit of a read about some anchor stuff and has had a go at thinking about his own form of anchor system, trying to improve on what he's seen. The fact he's putting diagrams up here and asking about it makes me think (hope) that he's not tried this in reality yet, and wouldn't have done so without getting some nods from more experienced people. I really don't think he deserves to be shot down with the kind of crap that people have been throwing on here.
Fishy1, davidwright, paz, jonny2vests, tatty112, shame on you guys. UKC has the potential to completely destroy my faith in humanity sometimes...
And yes, I have seen gaillard's other posts, and they are all of the same ilk - posts from someone who is keen, enthusiastic, and yet has a few misplaced ideas. If you're not interested, don't get involved in the thread. If you think he needs correcting/educating, reply constructively. It's really not that hard to be a decent human being.
Pete.
Bloody hell! What a great big stinking pile of cynical, sarcastic negativity this thread has turned out to be!
Fair enough, the idea may have been poorly thought-through, without a sound understanding of the physics, and even ignoring that is overcomplicated for most people, but give the guy a sodding break! He's clearly had a bit of a read about some anchor stuff and has had a go at thinking about his own form of anchor system, trying to improve on what he's seen. The fact he's putting diagrams up here and asking about it makes me think (hope) that he's not tried this in reality yet, and wouldn't have done so without getting some nods from more experienced people. I really don't think he deserves to be shot down with the kind of crap that people have been throwing on here.
Fishy1, davidwright, paz, jonny2vests, tatty112, shame on you guys. UKC has the potential to completely destroy my faith in humanity sometimes...
And yes, I have seen gaillard's other posts, and they are all of the same ilk - posts from someone who is keen, enthusiastic, and yet has a few misplaced ideas. If you're not interested, don't get involved in the thread. If you think he needs correcting/educating, reply constructively. It's really not that hard to be a decent human being.
Pete.
In reply to PeteH: Welcome to UKC
In reply to PeteH:
Boo hoo. If you've read the other threads (completely), you'll see how arguments evolved from "Hmmm, ok, that wont really work because..." to "FFS Gaillard, AAAArrrgghhh".
When people continually ignore sensible advice, then their fair game, UKC has always been like that. I like internet forums for their honesty.
And it's not just UKC, read his Supertopo or rc.com threads, same deal if not crueller. Telling him politely don't work.
Boo hoo. If you've read the other threads (completely), you'll see how arguments evolved from "Hmmm, ok, that wont really work because..." to "FFS Gaillard, AAAArrrgghhh".
When people continually ignore sensible advice, then their fair game, UKC has always been like that. I like internet forums for their honesty.
And it's not just UKC, read his Supertopo or rc.com threads, same deal if not crueller. Telling him politely don't work.
In reply to jonny2vests: Telling him politely don't work.
Doesn't it?..and what would it 'working' look like?
Doesn't it?..and what would it 'working' look like?
In reply to Nigel Modern:
Taking on board clear flaws in his argument would be a start.
> (In reply to jonny2vests) Telling him politely don't work.
>
> Doesn't it?..and what would it 'working' look like?
>
> Doesn't it?..and what would it 'working' look like?
Taking on board clear flaws in his argument would be a start.
In reply to gaillard: You know Gailland, you never cease to amaze me. You have yet again invented a problem that does not need solving. No1 you climb on bolts. Bolts very very rarely fail, especially 12mm stainless bolts. Especially on belays which are rarely if ever fallen upon. No2 what was ever wrong with the standard set up? Either take a cordlette and create a power point, or construct from equalised slings or use your ropes, which you don't even have to carry any extra gear for! Your system has MASSIVE loop holes in it. Like the fact that your belay crabs would slide if one of the anchors did fail, thereby shockloading the remaining anchors. Also if the cord was by some miracle, cut then they would be released from the system pitching you to you doom. Thirdly, clove hitchs do not need to be backed up with an eight on a bight. Fourthly you would screw something up along the way. 5thly tieing anchors together has no effect on the system - it is still going to shockload the remaining anchor.
You know Paz was harsh but I tend to agree with him, you need to get out, actually do some climbing and become experienced. This thread shows that you have no concept of how belays work in real life and no understanding of the real risks. Can I suggest you go on some sort of course before you really do yourself some damage? The last thread with prussick loops designed to catch a high impact fall was ridiculous, this one is just absurd. I sincerely hope that you are not the Mystery Toad taking everyone on every forum in the world for a trollish ride...
You know Paz was harsh but I tend to agree with him, you need to get out, actually do some climbing and become experienced. This thread shows that you have no concept of how belays work in real life and no understanding of the real risks. Can I suggest you go on some sort of course before you really do yourself some damage? The last thread with prussick loops designed to catch a high impact fall was ridiculous, this one is just absurd. I sincerely hope that you are not the Mystery Toad taking everyone on every forum in the world for a trollish ride...
In reply to mike kann:
I don't think so Mike. Unless he's at it with at least 2 other climbing forums as well.
> (In reply to gaillard) I sincerely hope that you are not the Mystery Toad taking everyone on every forum in the world for a trollish ride...
I don't think so Mike. Unless he's at it with at least 2 other climbing forums as well.
In reply to gaillard:
Holy Shite!
I couldnt even tell you if that works or not.
Just checking that you had rigged it right would need a checklist.
I suspect that just one small mistake, could be disastrous? Dunno, but I wouldnt want to try to knit this together, with anchors spread out like shit in a field, or for that matter any anchors at all.
Will it help me when I have plugged my rack into frozen choss, and have to lash 2 tied-off bodyweight only ice screws and a frozen daisy stalk into a decent anchor, while its dropping dark with frayed nerves?
That is just the sort of situation where you want something like this to solve the problem, but you cannot do it because;
a) you cannot think straight
b) your frozen
c) you have no gear left
Dont want to be negative but KISS has already been mentioned.
Holy Shite!
I couldnt even tell you if that works or not.
Just checking that you had rigged it right would need a checklist.
I suspect that just one small mistake, could be disastrous? Dunno, but I wouldnt want to try to knit this together, with anchors spread out like shit in a field, or for that matter any anchors at all.
Will it help me when I have plugged my rack into frozen choss, and have to lash 2 tied-off bodyweight only ice screws and a frozen daisy stalk into a decent anchor, while its dropping dark with frayed nerves?
That is just the sort of situation where you want something like this to solve the problem, but you cannot do it because;
a) you cannot think straight
b) your frozen
c) you have no gear left
Dont want to be negative but KISS has already been mentioned.
In reply to PeteH:
Y'know Pete, initially I was with you...'everyone is being a bit harsh' I thought...then I clicked on gaillard's links in the OP...!!!!!!!!!....Oh Lordy!...
Let him have it I say!...
(...while obviously wishing him a long, safe and simple climbing life)
Y'know Pete, initially I was with you...'everyone is being a bit harsh' I thought...then I clicked on gaillard's links in the OP...!!!!!!!!!....Oh Lordy!...
Let him have it I say!...
(...while obviously wishing him a long, safe and simple climbing life)
In reply to gaillard: Judging by your posts i would suggest climbing may not be the sport for you. You are obviously risk averse and while you share some characteristics with most climbers (being a complete pedant) you are applying them in the wrong places.
In reply to mike kann:
I actually hope that he is, because if his posts are genuine, he must be one very confused individual. This must surely be a mega-troll.
> I sincerely hope that you are not the Mystery Toad taking everyone on every forum in the world for a trollish ride...
I actually hope that he is, because if his posts are genuine, he must be one very confused individual. This must surely be a mega-troll.
In reply to gaillard: I'm convinced he IS a troll. One of the best I've seen. I congratulate you, sir. Your subtle mastery of the medium is impressive.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...