This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Is there anything wrong with using a cordalette that isnt a loop, i.e. taking some cord (7 mill ok?), and clipping each end into the anchor, with other anchors clipped into the middle if there are any, then taking all the strands together and making the loop? Why do most people use a loop is 7 mill not considered strong enough on its own? I cant see any realistic fall breaking it so long as you dont climb above the belay.
cheers
cheers
1
13
In reply to Red Rover:
No but then it's called one of these:
http://andy-kirkpatrick.com/articles/view/the_snake_cord
Al
No but then it's called one of these:
http://andy-kirkpatrick.com/articles/view/the_snake_cord
Al
Post edited at 14:49
8
In reply to Red Rover:
I think a loop is the only practical way of getting the 22kN ish rating for slings.
I made a 7mm static single strand with a fig 8 loop at each end but it was very bulky compared to a wild country cordalette.
I think a loop is the only practical way of getting the 22kN ish rating for slings.
I made a 7mm static single strand with a fig 8 loop at each end but it was very bulky compared to a wild country cordalette.
In reply to Red Rover:
I think what you are describing will work fine, but surely it's less hassle to use a dyneema sling (and perhaps less bulky than 7mm cord)?
I think what you are describing will work fine, but surely it's less hassle to use a dyneema sling (and perhaps less bulky than 7mm cord)?
In reply to treforsouthwell:
Cord does however have the advantage of having some dynamic properties..
Al
Cord does however have the advantage of having some dynamic properties..
Al
7
In reply to GridNorth:
Fair point, I suppose it might save the day if the anchor was dodgy or the leader fell close to the anchor
Fair point, I suppose it might save the day if the anchor was dodgy or the leader fell close to the anchor
In reply to Red Rover:
This looks relevant to your original question
youtube.com/watch?v=qF4A85CPr8c&
This looks relevant to your original question
youtube.com/watch?v=qF4A85CPr8c&
4
In reply to zimpara:
What makes you think that?
I've used a snake cord for years and there is no way I would consider a loop.
> A loop is just simpler all around.
What makes you think that?
I've used a snake cord for years and there is no way I would consider a loop.
6
1
In reply to GridNorth:
"Once upon a time in the dim and distant past, there existed such things as Snake Slings"
Alive and well, and living in the USA under the name "web-o-lette":
http://www.mtntools.com/cat/mt/webolette/webolette.html
"Once upon a time in the dim and distant past, there existed such things as Snake Slings"
Alive and well, and living in the USA under the name "web-o-lette":
http://www.mtntools.com/cat/mt/webolette/webolette.html
In reply to Red Rover:
Sadly I can't see the diagram in Andy's blog. But reading this it's clear that its not ideal to use a single strand of 7mm.
"The most important thing to remember when using this Cord is that if you use just a single strand of it alone it’s only good for 10kN. What you’re aiming for is to have a double strand of cord going from the primary protection pieces to the power point HMS, in order to give you maximum strength. Due to the way the cord works you will always have at least one doubled strand and ideally you should have two. "
I'll also give you the end of his piece
"Obviously the most solid way of setting up a belay is via your ropes and the same goes for the fastest way also, just plug in two pieces and clip in via a couple of clove hitches. Often things aren’t so straightforward and not everyone’s got a brain that can work out how to employ their ropes to build a perfect belay and so it’s in these grey areas where the Snake Cord comes into play."
Sadly I can't see the diagram in Andy's blog. But reading this it's clear that its not ideal to use a single strand of 7mm.
"The most important thing to remember when using this Cord is that if you use just a single strand of it alone it’s only good for 10kN. What you’re aiming for is to have a double strand of cord going from the primary protection pieces to the power point HMS, in order to give you maximum strength. Due to the way the cord works you will always have at least one doubled strand and ideally you should have two. "
I'll also give you the end of his piece
"Obviously the most solid way of setting up a belay is via your ropes and the same goes for the fastest way also, just plug in two pieces and clip in via a couple of clove hitches. Often things aren’t so straightforward and not everyone’s got a brain that can work out how to employ their ropes to build a perfect belay and so it’s in these grey areas where the Snake Cord comes into play."
In reply to Red Rover:
In my book on big walling this is how the suggest to use cord belay. So tie fig8 on the ends of the cord. On the end two pieces you only have a single strand but your cord reaches further because it's not double backed. If it is good enough for a big wall belay, I'm sure it's fine for trad
In my book on big walling this is how the suggest to use cord belay. So tie fig8 on the ends of the cord. On the end two pieces you only have a single strand but your cord reaches further because it's not double backed. If it is good enough for a big wall belay, I'm sure it's fine for trad
In reply to Red Rover:
Is there a genuine reason why you need one at all?
Can't you use the climbing rope? It's much more versatile, can be any length you want it, the size of it is really reassuring and you can't drop it.
I only really climb single pitch, and have done very little winter or alpine so perhaps I'm missing something.
Is there a genuine reason why you need one at all?
Can't you use the climbing rope? It's much more versatile, can be any length you want it, the size of it is really reassuring and you can't drop it.
I only really climb single pitch, and have done very little winter or alpine so perhaps I'm missing something.
In reply to deacondeacon:
A cordelette is much easier than using the rope if one person is doing all the leading. TBH that's the only real advantage I've found.
Edit: This is because the second can just clip the central point rather than swapping the ropes. Perhaps useful when climbing as a 3 too.
> Is there a genuine reason why you need one at all?
A cordelette is much easier than using the rope if one person is doing all the leading. TBH that's the only real advantage I've found.
Edit: This is because the second can just clip the central point rather than swapping the ropes. Perhaps useful when climbing as a 3 too.
Post edited at 07:37
5
1
In reply to Red Rover:
Hi, using a cordelette made of an open rather than a closed loop is common. As others have said it isn't as strong, but allows one to reach further to possibly better placements. If the placements are close enough then just clip both ends to the same placement. With a closed loop the knot forming the loop can keeping getting in the way when you tie the big overhand, having the ends clipped to the placements stops this.
A pile of photos on how to use a cordelette can be found here:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/dac33/high/6TheBelay.htm#belaysthatlargelydontuset...
Hi, using a cordelette made of an open rather than a closed loop is common. As others have said it isn't as strong, but allows one to reach further to possibly better placements. If the placements are close enough then just clip both ends to the same placement. With a closed loop the knot forming the loop can keeping getting in the way when you tie the big overhand, having the ends clipped to the placements stops this.
A pile of photos on how to use a cordelette can be found here:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/dac33/high/6TheBelay.htm#belaysthatlargelydontuset...
In reply to deacondeacon:
Lots of reasons to use one. But very few times when they are necessary.
1. direct belaying (i.e. a reverso-style belay device in guide mode). Although you can use the rope to do this, it is complex.
2. climbing in a 3, especially if you plan to swap who is leading.
3. escaping the belay. Although the chances of you needing to do this in an emergency are so low it wouldn't be worth using a cordelette just to make this faster, there are lots of times when escaping is useful. e.g. you might have to rap down to remove stuck gear when climbing with a novice (this happens to me a lot); you might fancy top roping the pitch after having led it (this is the training principle suggested in the book "how to climb 5.12").
4. you are going to haul or bivvy off the anchors.
5. you think the second might have an issue, so you might need to escape.
6. you just prefer doing it that way. A lot of people just like the way it looks cleaner and the belay less of a complex mess.
One advantage of cord rather than a big dyneema sling is that it is better as a source of abseil tat. It also doesn't blow around in the wind so much as you are trying to coil it back up. It is also cheaper.
> Is there a genuine reason why you need one at all?
Lots of reasons to use one. But very few times when they are necessary.
1. direct belaying (i.e. a reverso-style belay device in guide mode). Although you can use the rope to do this, it is complex.
2. climbing in a 3, especially if you plan to swap who is leading.
3. escaping the belay. Although the chances of you needing to do this in an emergency are so low it wouldn't be worth using a cordelette just to make this faster, there are lots of times when escaping is useful. e.g. you might have to rap down to remove stuck gear when climbing with a novice (this happens to me a lot); you might fancy top roping the pitch after having led it (this is the training principle suggested in the book "how to climb 5.12").
4. you are going to haul or bivvy off the anchors.
5. you think the second might have an issue, so you might need to escape.
6. you just prefer doing it that way. A lot of people just like the way it looks cleaner and the belay less of a complex mess.
One advantage of cord rather than a big dyneema sling is that it is better as a source of abseil tat. It also doesn't blow around in the wind so much as you are trying to coil it back up. It is also cheaper.
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
You can mitigate this to some extent by using one of the 'single-strand' pieces as the 1st runner of the next pitch. That way the single strand would never be subject to a factor 2 fall (which, realistically is the only situation that could cause problems).
> Sadly I can't see the diagram in Andy's blog. But reading this it's clear that its not ideal to use a single strand of 7mm.
You can mitigate this to some extent by using one of the 'single-strand' pieces as the 1st runner of the next pitch. That way the single strand would never be subject to a factor 2 fall (which, realistically is the only situation that could cause problems).
1
In reply to Red Rover:
Not really. Potentially a bit weaker than using a loop but that's weighed against the ease of including and properly equalising a 3rd or 4th piece you might otherwise have skipped.
Personally I've never seen the point 9 times out of 10 I just use the rope whether I'm leading on or we're swapping, it's strong, trivially easy and I don't have to buy or carry extra crap.
jk
> Is there anything wrong with using a cordalette that isnt a loop, i.e. taking some cord (7 mill ok?), and clipping each end into the anchor, with other anchors clipped into the middle...
Not really. Potentially a bit weaker than using a loop but that's weighed against the ease of including and properly equalising a 3rd or 4th piece you might otherwise have skipped.
Personally I've never seen the point 9 times out of 10 I just use the rope whether I'm leading on or we're swapping, it's strong, trivially easy and I don't have to buy or carry extra crap.
jk
2
In reply to DaveHK:
Sorry I didn't really explain myself. I can understand how they're used, and why.
It's just personally, I can flip leads, or climb in blocks quickly and easily just with the rope anyway, so I'm not going to carry an extra bit of 'special' gear just for this purpose.
Perhaps for tasking someone who's never been climbing before up a multipitch it could be handy but tbh I doubt I'd bother.
Sorry I didn't really explain myself. I can understand how they're used, and why.
It's just personally, I can flip leads, or climb in blocks quickly and easily just with the rope anyway, so I'm not going to carry an extra bit of 'special' gear just for this purpose.
Perhaps for tasking someone who's never been climbing before up a multipitch it could be handy but tbh I doubt I'd bother.
In reply to Red Rover:
Although nobody really knows how much such things matter, the "snake" cordelette does intrinsically alter load distribution and might encourage load inequalities precisely because of its extra "reach." This is because the tension in the cordelette arms is roughly inversely proportional to their length (so if one arm is twice as long as another, the piece it is rigged to will get half the load). This effect can be either mitigated or exaggerated by the fact that a double strand is stiffer than a single strand, and this will shift more of the load to the double strand. So having an extra-long double strand might be "good," but an extra-long single strand might be "bad," in terms of a distributed load that is more or less equal on each piece.
As I suggested at first, no one knows how much we should care about such potential inequalities, other than to realize that your so-called "equalized" anchor isn't in general even close to being equalized. Personally, I don't worry about such things, but still prefer methods that aren't going to exacerbate load inequality if I can exercise that preference without faffery. This means no snake cordelettes for me. It also means that on those occasions when I use a cordelette (most of the time I anchor with the rope), I use dynamic material for the cordelette (6 or 7mm nylon cord) and mitigate the long-arm issue by using static slings on far-way pieces so that my always-double cordelette arms are more nearly equal in length.
I only use cordelettes when "guiding" less experienced climbers, so that I have to do all the leading, for leading in blocks, which I rarely have occasion to do, and for parties of 3 in which the leading is shared and two followers climb at the same time as much as possible. I've retired from big-wall climbing (too much damn work), where cordelettes can indeed simplify complex anchor arrangements, but even in that case I know some very expert big-wall climbers who prefer to rig their anchors almost entirely with the climbing rope.
Although nobody really knows how much such things matter, the "snake" cordelette does intrinsically alter load distribution and might encourage load inequalities precisely because of its extra "reach." This is because the tension in the cordelette arms is roughly inversely proportional to their length (so if one arm is twice as long as another, the piece it is rigged to will get half the load). This effect can be either mitigated or exaggerated by the fact that a double strand is stiffer than a single strand, and this will shift more of the load to the double strand. So having an extra-long double strand might be "good," but an extra-long single strand might be "bad," in terms of a distributed load that is more or less equal on each piece.
As I suggested at first, no one knows how much we should care about such potential inequalities, other than to realize that your so-called "equalized" anchor isn't in general even close to being equalized. Personally, I don't worry about such things, but still prefer methods that aren't going to exacerbate load inequality if I can exercise that preference without faffery. This means no snake cordelettes for me. It also means that on those occasions when I use a cordelette (most of the time I anchor with the rope), I use dynamic material for the cordelette (6 or 7mm nylon cord) and mitigate the long-arm issue by using static slings on far-way pieces so that my always-double cordelette arms are more nearly equal in length.
I only use cordelettes when "guiding" less experienced climbers, so that I have to do all the leading, for leading in blocks, which I rarely have occasion to do, and for parties of 3 in which the leading is shared and two followers climb at the same time as much as possible. I've retired from big-wall climbing (too much damn work), where cordelettes can indeed simplify complex anchor arrangements, but even in that case I know some very expert big-wall climbers who prefer to rig their anchors almost entirely with the climbing rope.
Post edited at 13:30
3
In reply to Red Rover:
I see three main reasons why a "snake cord" is better than a WC Cordelette:
1. It's whatever length you choose it to be, long or short, cut it to length.
2. It's ab tat.
3. It's more likely to withstand a small amount of shock loading than Dyneema.
Why a Cordelette is better than a snake cord:
1. It's CE certified.
2. Lighter (almost certainly)
3. Less bulk (probably)
I see three main reasons why a "snake cord" is better than a WC Cordelette:
1. It's whatever length you choose it to be, long or short, cut it to length.
2. It's ab tat.
3. It's more likely to withstand a small amount of shock loading than Dyneema.
Why a Cordelette is better than a snake cord:
1. It's CE certified.
2. Lighter (almost certainly)
3. Less bulk (probably)
In reply to rgold:
Load in the different arms is determined by angles rather than lengths.
For example for the load in a 2 m arm is the same as the load in a 1m arm (or 10m arm) if they're at the same angle to the load.
Edit - failed attempt at ASCII art
Load in the different arms is determined by angles rather than lengths.
For example for the load in a 2 m arm is the same as the load in a 1m arm (or 10m arm) if they're at the same angle to the load.
Edit - failed attempt at ASCII art
Post edited at 17:03
In reply to rgold:
I'd not really thought about this much until this Easter when I used an cliff stop stake and a nut on one of my ropes. The ratio of the lengths was about 50 to 1. What a disaster.
I'm delighted that you have mentioned the benefit of using dyneema to reduce this effect. I saw a thread where it was being denounced as the devils spawn as it didn't strecth. I didn't dare say that this property helps equalise the tension between anchors
> Although nobody really knows how much such things matter, the "snake" cordelette does intrinsically alter load distribution and might encourage load inequalities precisely because of its extra "reach." This is because the tension in the cordelette arms is roughly inversely proportional to their length (so if one arm is twice as long as another, the piece it is rigged to will get half the load). This effect can be either mitigated or exaggerated by the fact that a double strand is stiffer than a single strand, and this will shift more of the load to the double strand. So having an extra-long double strand might be "good," but an extra-long single strand might be "bad," in terms of a distributed load that is more or less equal on each piece.
> As I suggested at first, no one knows how much we should care about such potential inequalities, other than to realize that your so-called "equalized" anchor isn't in general even close to being equalized. Personally, I don't worry about such things, but still prefer methods that aren't going to exacerbate load inequality if I can exercise that preference without faffery. This means no snake cordelettes for me. It also means that on those occasions when I use a cordelette (most of the time I anchor with the rope), I use dynamic material for the cordelette (6 or 7mm nylon cord) and mitigate the long-arm issue by using static slings on far-way pieces so that my always-double cordelette arms are more nearly equal in length.
I'd not really thought about this much until this Easter when I used an cliff stop stake and a nut on one of my ropes. The ratio of the lengths was about 50 to 1. What a disaster.
I'm delighted that you have mentioned the benefit of using dyneema to reduce this effect. I saw a thread where it was being denounced as the devils spawn as it didn't strecth. I didn't dare say that this property helps equalise the tension between anchors
In reply to elsewhere:
But if 2 anchors on the same line but one is 1m back and the other 2m back then any load will be split in the ratio 2:1 in favour of the nearer anchor. Assuming that material obeys Hooke's law and that each one is on a separate strand of the same material
> Load in the different arms is determined by angles rather than lengths.
> For example for the load in a 2 m arm is the same as the load in a 1m arm (or 10m arm) if they're at the same angle to the load.
> Edit - failed attempt at ASCII art
But if 2 anchors on the same line but one is 1m back and the other 2m back then any load will be split in the ratio 2:1 in favour of the nearer anchor. Assuming that material obeys Hooke's law and that each one is on a separate strand of the same material
1
In reply to zimpara:
Hooke´s law is roughly physics for 11 year olds (or whatever age it is they start teaching physics in school nowadays).
CB
Hooke´s law is roughly physics for 11 year olds (or whatever age it is they start teaching physics in school nowadays).
CB
2
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
The stretch can also help to distribute the load on the anchors if the exact angle of loading hasn't been well predicted and you also have to account for the stretch helping to reduce the peak force. Its no where near as simple in the general case as you seem to be presenting IMO.
The stretch can also help to distribute the load on the anchors if the exact angle of loading hasn't been well predicted and you also have to account for the stretch helping to reduce the peak force. Its no where near as simple in the general case as you seem to be presenting IMO.
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
That's a special mathematical case (zero angle to the load) where you can have all the load in the short arm, all in the long arm or anything in between including 2:1 as you describe. You would have equal loads in each arm if the load was on a caribiner that could slide whilst captive (so it doesn't fall of the end if one anchor fails).
https://www.petzl.com/US/EN/Sport/Installing-an-equalized-belay-station?Act...
Overall it's angles that really count (except when all angles are zero & anchors/load are in line) and you are right that a long stretchy arm may not get much load until the belayer is pulled off their initial stance.
That's a special mathematical case (zero angle to the load) where you can have all the load in the short arm, all in the long arm or anything in between including 2:1 as you describe. You would have equal loads in each arm if the load was on a caribiner that could slide whilst captive (so it doesn't fall of the end if one anchor fails).
https://www.petzl.com/US/EN/Sport/Installing-an-equalized-belay-station?Act...
Overall it's angles that really count (except when all angles are zero & anchors/load are in line) and you are right that a long stretchy arm may not get much load until the belayer is pulled off their initial stance.
In reply to Red Rover:
As ever with online discussion things that are typed are taken too literally
The load on the anchor in a belay is determined by a combination of angle and strand lengths.
It has always been obvious to me that the angle between anchors will determine the proportion of the load expereinced by each anchor. It was also part of the SPSA course. However the relative length of strands effect has only recently dawned on me. I'm not of course saying that angle has no effect or is unimportant I'm simply saying that clearly length of strand is another factor to consider
I have to say I've never liked the look of systems where equalising the failure of one anchor results in slack being suddenly introduced into the system. Such a system seems to mean that a single anchor failing will result in the other anchor having to stop 2 people, one of whome may not have any dynamic line between them and the anchor. Equalising with a knot would always seem preferable to me.
As ever with online discussion things that are typed are taken too literally
The load on the anchor in a belay is determined by a combination of angle and strand lengths.
It has always been obvious to me that the angle between anchors will determine the proportion of the load expereinced by each anchor. It was also part of the SPSA course. However the relative length of strands effect has only recently dawned on me. I'm not of course saying that angle has no effect or is unimportant I'm simply saying that clearly length of strand is another factor to consider
I have to say I've never liked the look of systems where equalising the failure of one anchor results in slack being suddenly introduced into the system. Such a system seems to mean that a single anchor failing will result in the other anchor having to stop 2 people, one of whome may not have any dynamic line between them and the anchor. Equalising with a knot would always seem preferable to me.
In reply to elsewhere:
This is false if the angle is zero, i.e. if the pieces are in a vertical crack. When a load is applied the arms stretch. The tension in the arms (approximated by Hooke's Law) is proportional to the percentage stretch, and it is the tension in the arms that transmits load to the anchors.
The two arms, will displace down by the same amount, which is the amount the power point moves down. Consequently, the arms lengthen by the same absolute amount, but the 2-meter arm is twice as long as the other and so its percentage elongation is half the percentage elongation of the 1-meter arm. The result is that the 2-meter arm develops half the tension of the one-meter arm and the piece on the two-meter arm gets half the load of the piece on the one-meter arm.
When there is an angle between the two arms, the situation is more complicated, since the power point will move horizontally as well as vertically. Since the long arm develops less tension for any absolute amount of elongation, the power point will tend to drift towards a vertical line running through the anchor with the shorter arm. So rigging with, say, two unequal arms that are symmetric with respect to a center line will not end up symmetric when loaded. The angles do contribute to the loads, but in a dynamic way, since they are changing during loading. If the long strand is very much longer than the short strand, then the final loaded configuration will have the short strand hanging virtually vertically below its anchor and taking most of the load.
> Load in the different arms is determined by angles rather than lengths.
> For example for the load in a 2 m arm is the same as the load in a 1m arm (or 10m arm) if they're at the same angle to the load.
This is false if the angle is zero, i.e. if the pieces are in a vertical crack. When a load is applied the arms stretch. The tension in the arms (approximated by Hooke's Law) is proportional to the percentage stretch, and it is the tension in the arms that transmits load to the anchors.
The two arms, will displace down by the same amount, which is the amount the power point moves down. Consequently, the arms lengthen by the same absolute amount, but the 2-meter arm is twice as long as the other and so its percentage elongation is half the percentage elongation of the 1-meter arm. The result is that the 2-meter arm develops half the tension of the one-meter arm and the piece on the two-meter arm gets half the load of the piece on the one-meter arm.
When there is an angle between the two arms, the situation is more complicated, since the power point will move horizontally as well as vertically. Since the long arm develops less tension for any absolute amount of elongation, the power point will tend to drift towards a vertical line running through the anchor with the shorter arm. So rigging with, say, two unequal arms that are symmetric with respect to a center line will not end up symmetric when loaded. The angles do contribute to the loads, but in a dynamic way, since they are changing during loading. If the long strand is very much longer than the short strand, then the final loaded configuration will have the short strand hanging virtually vertically below its anchor and taking most of the load.
1
In reply to rgold:
Yes, provided you could actually in real life equalize the strands...
There's been quite a bit of talk and testing about snake-a-lette or cordelette equalization, and as far as I remember, a static equalization doesn't really work. You only get true equalization with a sliding config, in which the, still Hooke's Law comes into play.
So in short, make the gear in the anchor good enough, and most likely a snake-a-letter, rope or cordelette (or a bunch of slings) will be good enough...
BTW. who ever stated that a cordelette is CE-rated... you can't rate stands . True, if you're using think enough cord, you can get it to be strong (22kN, so akin to a sling), but in all honesty, 22kN is not really needed. Because if that is the force a falling climber generates, well said climber will not need to worry about anything... their back will break quite a bit earlier.
> This is false if the angle is zero, i.e. if the pieces are in a vertical crack. When a load is applied the arms stretch. The tension in the arms (approximated by Hooke's Law) is proportional to the percentage stretch, and it is the tension in the arms that transmits load to the anchors.
Yes, provided you could actually in real life equalize the strands...
There's been quite a bit of talk and testing about snake-a-lette or cordelette equalization, and as far as I remember, a static equalization doesn't really work. You only get true equalization with a sliding config, in which the, still Hooke's Law comes into play.
So in short, make the gear in the anchor good enough, and most likely a snake-a-letter, rope or cordelette (or a bunch of slings) will be good enough...
BTW. who ever stated that a cordelette is CE-rated... you can't rate stands . True, if you're using think enough cord, you can get it to be strong (22kN, so akin to a sling), but in all honesty, 22kN is not really needed. Because if that is the force a falling climber generates, well said climber will not need to worry about anything... their back will break quite a bit earlier.
In reply to Red Rover:
I've noticed a few times that French/Italian guides who I've shared belays with have been using this type of single strand cordalette and thought that it looks pretty handy. Despite the xenophobic drubbing they sometimes get on here, they are clearly professionals who have thought about what they are doing... last example I can think of being a couple of French aspirants we followed on Scotch on the Rocks.
Will
I've noticed a few times that French/Italian guides who I've shared belays with have been using this type of single strand cordalette and thought that it looks pretty handy. Despite the xenophobic drubbing they sometimes get on here, they are clearly professionals who have thought about what they are doing... last example I can think of being a couple of French aspirants we followed on Scotch on the Rocks.
Will
1
In reply to Red Rover:
Thanks for the advice everyone, sorry I didnt reply earlier I've had a lot of work on. I'll be climbing as a 3 fairly often so I need a direct belay, and I just feel happier if I'm independent from the belay rather than having it made out of my ropes. I'm not too bothered about the finer points of equalisation as I agree with andy kirkpatrick's view that 'its complicated and nobody knows for sure so just use good anchors and put another in if you're not sure', i. e. redundancy is more important (I think its in 1001 tips for climbers). If you use a single strand for more than 2 anchors then you've actually got a double strand coming from the anchors that aren't on the left and right hand sides anyway haven't you? And if there's only 2 anchors I can just make a loop.
I never find the sling cordalettes to be long enough, are they designed for bolted belays or something?
Thanks for the advice everyone, sorry I didnt reply earlier I've had a lot of work on. I'll be climbing as a 3 fairly often so I need a direct belay, and I just feel happier if I'm independent from the belay rather than having it made out of my ropes. I'm not too bothered about the finer points of equalisation as I agree with andy kirkpatrick's view that 'its complicated and nobody knows for sure so just use good anchors and put another in if you're not sure', i. e. redundancy is more important (I think its in 1001 tips for climbers). If you use a single strand for more than 2 anchors then you've actually got a double strand coming from the anchors that aren't on the left and right hand sides anyway haven't you? And if there's only 2 anchors I can just make a loop.
I never find the sling cordalettes to be long enough, are they designed for bolted belays or something?
In reply to Red Rover:
I think my sling cordellet from wild country is 4.8m, so longer than a normal cord cordellet
I think my sling cordellet from wild country is 4.8m, so longer than a normal cord cordellet
In reply to 19G:
I was wrong when I said it was 1001 tips for climbers, I think it was actually 'high: advanced multi pitch climbing'. The gist of it was, that as equalisation of more than 2 pieces is uncertain (see lots of posts above), redundancy is more imortant i.e. just whack a couple more in and have good anchors.
I was wrong when I said it was 1001 tips for climbers, I think it was actually 'high: advanced multi pitch climbing'. The gist of it was, that as equalisation of more than 2 pieces is uncertain (see lots of posts above), redundancy is more imortant i.e. just whack a couple more in and have good anchors.
Post edited at 12:19
1
In reply to Red Rover:
Indeed it was. In the book I was trying to get over the point that one real problem with some people using a cordelette (by the way, I often use one) is what I termed cordelette blindness: trying to find anchors within the radius of the cordelette rather than looking further afield for the best anchors. This also happens with people who have read books or watched videos where belays are made from slings. You see cordelette blindness often at the top of UK crags: someone trying to equalise two of three wires rather than walking 5 yards to sling a big tree or boulder.
> I was wrong when I said it was 1001 tips for climbers, I think it was actually 'high: advanced multi pitch climbing'. The gist of it was, that as equalisation of more than 2 pieces is uncertain (see lots of posts above), redundancy is more imortant i.e. just whack a couple more in and have good anchors.
Indeed it was. In the book I was trying to get over the point that one real problem with some people using a cordelette (by the way, I often use one) is what I termed cordelette blindness: trying to find anchors within the radius of the cordelette rather than looking further afield for the best anchors. This also happens with people who have read books or watched videos where belays are made from slings. You see cordelette blindness often at the top of UK crags: someone trying to equalise two of three wires rather than walking 5 yards to sling a big tree or boulder.
3
In reply to David Coley:
Oddly enough you also the the build and anchor from 5 pieces all minimun 10 m apart from british learned climbers... while there is perfect 3 pieces on 2 cracks within 180cm slings reach . While the former might work well on short single pitch stuff, it really isn't what you're supposed to do on longer granite multipitches, where the logical stand is quite often 50 to 60m apart... So you need every cm of the rope just to reach the next belay.
> You see cordelette blindness often at the top of UK crags: someone trying to equalise two of three wires rather than walking 5 yards to sling a big tree or boulder.
Oddly enough you also the the build and anchor from 5 pieces all minimun 10 m apart from british learned climbers... while there is perfect 3 pieces on 2 cracks within 180cm slings reach . While the former might work well on short single pitch stuff, it really isn't what you're supposed to do on longer granite multipitches, where the logical stand is quite often 50 to 60m apart... So you need every cm of the rope just to reach the next belay.
3
In reply to David Coley:
Haha, "cordelette blindness" is not just a UK disease---I've seen multiple cases in the USA. It is often combined with "guide plate blindness," in which the climber builds a crappy anchor that will put their guide plate at chest level rather than a far better but very low anchor that isn't suitable for guide-plate belaying.
Haha, "cordelette blindness" is not just a UK disease---I've seen multiple cases in the USA. It is often combined with "guide plate blindness," in which the climber builds a crappy anchor that will put their guide plate at chest level rather than a far better but very low anchor that isn't suitable for guide-plate belaying.
In reply to 19G:
I'm guessing the book is How to Big Wall Climb by Chris MacNamara, http://www.supertopo.com/packs/howtobigwall.html .
I know Chris Mac is a fan of the "snake" cord; see for example youtube.com/watch?v=2q2PdnAAy6w& .
> Bit off-topic, I know, but do you mind if I ask which book this was?
I'm guessing the book is How to Big Wall Climb by Chris MacNamara, http://www.supertopo.com/packs/howtobigwall.html .
I know Chris Mac is a fan of the "snake" cord; see for example youtube.com/watch?v=2q2PdnAAy6w& .
Post edited at 04:07
In reply to rgold:
It's not that, it's High by Andy Kirkpatrick and David Coley
Sorry David, I never read the names of who's posted what and didnt realise it was you that wrote half the book!
It's not that, it's High by Andy Kirkpatrick and David Coley
Sorry David, I never read the names of who's posted what and didnt realise it was you that wrote half the book!
In reply to GridNorth:
Every time you deploy the snake cord, you need to have this blasting in your head: youtube.com/watch?v=qEURV-eag6c&
> No but then it's called one of these:
> Al
Every time you deploy the snake cord, you need to have this blasting in your head: youtube.com/watch?v=qEURV-eag6c&
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...