JosephH Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Yep, that schematic is the equalette and it way out performs the cordalette in tests in all configurations except two same-level, side-by-side anchor points where they perform comparably. It is particularly the way to go in a vertical anchor. Of late in the RC thread the equalette has been the jumping off point for pushing that design with the inclusion of some active equalization. Pretty interesting stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Cobra, Â I'd have to see the data and talk with Malcolm and the guy that developed it with Trango (I forget his name off the top of my head) before I'd believe that. Fairly well defies common sense but it wouldn't necessarily be the first time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Â [spotting?] What's so hard about it? Â Your distance [to] the boulderer is ... inversely proportional to how hot they are. Â Most folks probably would throw a gender qualifier in there, but ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kix Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 sometimes we overlap the pads to prevent ankle injuries. but even that is pretty non-controversial. Â no one starts blabbering about lab tests etc... Â the thc and alcohol content discussions can get pretty heated tho, well at least until the bowl has passed a few times, then is pretty low key. Â you can mention boltng cracks and no one will even raise an eyebrow....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Â [spotting?] What's so hard about it? Â Your distance [to] the boulderer is ... inversely proportional to how hot they are. Â Most folks probably would throw a gender qualifier in there, but ...... Â Simple. I don't boulder with guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra_Commander Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I'd have to see the data and talk with Malcolm and the guy that developed it with Trango (I forget his name off the top of my head) before I'd believe that. Fairly well defies common sense but it wouldn't necessarily be the first time... Â Fair enough, I'm trying to get some info from R for R but they are running a seminar in AK right now. They've really no reason to make things up though. R for R's conclusion was that it was definitely not worth the trouble. It may well be the nature of the Trango device is different in some way I can't see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 Yep, that schematic is the equalette and it way out performs the cordalette in tests in all configurations except two same-level, side-by-side anchor points where they perform comparably. It is particularly the way to go in a vertical anchor. Of late in the RC thread the equalette has been the jumping off point for pushing that design with the inclusion of some active equalization. Pretty interesting stuff... Â Just rigged up the equalette at home - pretty impressive. Stayed just about perfectly equalized through at least 180 degrees of rotation, and set up just about as quickly as a cordalette. Maybe there is something new under the sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 There you go... Â Now do this to it... Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 So Joseph - is this more or less the final configuration of the "equalette" that JL was talking about? To rig this thing you'd basically start with a standard cordalette, tie a couple of overhand knots near the middlen with a 1-3 foot gap between them for the sliding portion of the anchor, then take the remaining loop on each side of the knot and clove hitch the loop to one or two pieces? If I'm reading this right it doesn't seem like this would take any longer to rig up than a standard cordalette, and would have some significant advantages. I especially like the clove attachments to the anchor points as it seems like the slippage in the cloves could really help dissipate max loads. I built one of these Equalette anchors using the rail on my mantle. Let's call the anchor points arrayed horizontally from left to right, A, B, C and D. What I found is that once the anchor is equalized by adjustment of the clove hitches, any movement to the left will begin to put all the load on B and D. Movement to the right will begin to load up A and C. If A and B are vertical and C and D are also vertical in a square configuration, the anchor is now perfectly equalizing in the horizontal plane, but now it no longer equalizes in the vertical plane.  If A, B, C and D are linear in a vertical array then you have the opposite of the first case. That is perfect equalization in the horizontal plane by virtue of "pivot", but imperfect equalization in the vertical plane.  The last case is A and B horizontal with C and D also horizontal below A and B, again in a square configuration. This would be the best of all because self-equalization is more important in the vertical plane. Horizontal equalization can be built into the system statically because it is easier to anticipate direction in that plane.  Oh, crap, now I've done it. That was way too technical. What is the take home message for the Equalette? That if you build it in a single linear crack, put the pieces that "share a knot" relatively close to one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I hope you cleaned up the keyboard after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 There you go... Now do this to it...   Interesting. Thanks for posting that, and I appreciate you wading through the spray to provide your input.  Couple of questions:  - What's the downside of just putting a twist in one of the loops that forms the powerpoint and clipping into that, a la the normal sliding X?  -Are those figure eights or overhand knots that the biners are clipped to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 So Joseph - is this more or less the final configuration of the "equalette" that JL was talking about? To rig this thing you'd basically start with a standard cordalette, tie a couple of overhand knots near the middlen with a 1-3 foot gap between them for the sliding portion of the anchor, then take the remaining loop on each side of the knot and clove hitch the loop to one or two pieces? If I'm reading this right it doesn't seem like this would take any longer to rig up than a standard cordalette, and would have some significant advantages. I especially like the clove attachments to the anchor points as it seems like the slippage in the cloves could really help dissipate max loads. I built one of these Equalette anchors using the rail on my mantle. Let's call the anchor points arrayed horizontally from left to right, A, B, C and D. What I found is that once the anchor is equalized by adjustment of the clove hitches, any movement to the left will begin to put all the load on B and D. Movement to the right will begin to load up A and C. If A and B are vertical and C and D are also vertical in a square configuration, the anchor is now perfectly equalizing in the horizontal plane, but now it no longer equalizes in the vertical plane.  If A, B, C and D are linear in a vertical array then you have the opposite of the first case. That is perfect equalization in the horizontal plane by virtue of "pivot", but imperfect equalization in the vertical plane.  The last case is A and B horizontal with C and D also horizontal below A and B, again in a square configuration. This would be the best of all because self-equalization is more important in the vertical plane. Horizontal equalization can be built into the system statically because it is easier to anticipate direction in that plane.  Oh, crap, now I've done it. That was way too technical. What is the take home message for the Equalette? That if you build it in a single linear crack, put the pieces that "share a knot" relatively close to one another.  So are you saying that when the pieces are in a horizontal crack you can move up and down and not mess-up the equalization, and when they are in a vertical crack you can move from side to side and not mess up the equalization?  The main take-away that I've got from the rc.com thread is that cordalettes actually don't equalize worth shit, and no one noticed until now because no one bothered to do any testing, and most people can climb for a lifetime and not have one of their anchors tested by a factor 2 fall. That, and the equalette thingy isn't perfect, but it tests way better than the cordalette nd doesn't take any more time to rig.  I also rigged up the gordolette thingy from the rc.com thread, and that also seems to do a good job of equalizing loads and keeping shock-loading to a minimum of one of the pieces blows.  FWIW I climb on doubles most of the time now, unless there's some reason to do otherwise I just clove hitch one rope to the most bomber piece, connect the other two with a tied-off sliding-X, and clove hitch the other rope to those two and I'm done. If I'm climbing with someone who will have a hard time following the pitch, or the next pitch looks burly, sketchy, or whatever then I'll rig up something and belay from the anchor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Jay, there is no perfect method of building an anchor. All methods have their trade-offs. As long as the pieces that comprise the anchor are separated from one another you cannot have perfect self-equalization and no-extension at the same time. You can only have compromises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 CBS, thanks for the apt analogy to life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Life, birth control, you name it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 YOU WILL ALL DIE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Hopefully I'll die fucking though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 There you go... Now do this to it...   THAT STUPID COAT RACK WOULDN'T HOLD A FACTOR .001 FALL!!! YOU WILL DIE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Hopefully I'll die fucking though. Â Paraphrase of Richard Pryor: Â If you had your choice, would you rather die fuckin' or by freezin' and internal injuries in the bottom of a crevasse? Â I can tell you I'd be in that looooong muthafuckin line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Jay, there is no perfect method of building an anchor. All methods have their trade-offs. As long as the pieces that comprise the anchor are separated from one another you cannot have perfect self-equalization and no-extension at the same time. You can only have compromises. Â GRAMMAR POLICE! Â If you are going to use a 50-cent word, use it correctly. Â The parts compose the whole and the whole comprises the parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Compose, comprise, compromise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Jay, there is no perfect method of building an anchor. All methods have their trade-offs. As long as the pieces that comprise the anchor are separated from one another you cannot have perfect self-equalization and no-extension at the same time. You can only have compromises. Â GRAMMAR POLICE! Â If you are going to use a 50-cent word, use it correctly. Â The parts compose the whole and the whole comprises the parts. But comprise rhymes with compromise. I am not worthy, Mr. Fox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Compose, comprise, compromise. Â and since you're talkin' about dying... decompose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 There you go... Now do this to it...   THAT STUPID COAT RACK WOULDN'T HOLD A FACTOR .001 FALL!!! YOU WILL DIE!!! Are those ordinary figure eight knots? Why do you need separate locking bines on the power point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.