Do you trust one bolt?
|
Taylor Ogden wrote:J, I have a proposition for you. You stop crying about this non-issue, and I won't force you to climb any routes equipped with the single-rap-ring death anchor. Deal or No Deal?I've got a proposition for you Taylor: bite me. Perhaps you should add a comment that communicates actual information instead of just being a jerk. And to address Matt's last post with the pic of the updated anchor: now that is a well done anchor. Fat quicklinks so the chain is easily switched out, long enough chains so that rope twist is minimal, and truck mussy hooks to boot. Bomber. Cheers for helping out the community with replacement work. |
|
Jim Titt wrote: "Inline chainsets to a single attatchment point are more versatile for installation, use less material and resources, cheaper, HAVE LOWER FRICTION, REDUCE TWISTING and are the system of choice for 99% of applications."Ahhh I hate to break it to you Jim, but disconnecting the hanging chain from the rap ring doesn't use any more material and thus isn't any more expensive. The amount of friction that you reduce is essentially irrelevant and if the setup is vertical with the chains hanging the same length at a minimal angle, then the rope twisting is irrelevant too. What else you got? |
|
J. Albers wrote: Ahhh I hate to break it to you Jim, but disconnecting the hanging chain from the rap ring doesn't use any more material and thus isn't any more expensive. The amount of friction that you reduce is essentially irrelevant and if the setup is vertical with the chains hanging the same length at a minimal angle, then the rope twisting is irrelevant too. What else you got?Look. I think all this comes down to is you don't believe one ring is good enough. Correct? You're saying the 2 separate components make it good enough. Fine. That all comes down to personal preference of your safety level. Jim and others have provided plenty of statistical evidence to indicate a 50kN ring is plenty good enough but you'd prefer "more better". We'll just have to agree to disagree. You'd prefer an anchor like this: Rap Anchor I've got no issue with that. It's a great setup for the most part. Mind you the weakest "links" are probably the QLs... And they both should be flipped so the screw gate is down... However, you don't like these: I as well as others are a-ok with these. This is where we disagree. it's no different than climbers who argue over whether or not you need a locker or not (in a TR anchor for example). Some are fine with two non-lockers where others are insistent that you MUST have two lockers. There's no way to argue personal beliefs well and there's no way to argue what's good enough safety wise. The concept of "less safe" but still "good enough" is a tough area of discussion. So cheers on sticking to your opinion and good luck to you. |
|
BurtMachlan wrote: You are so full of shit we can smell ya from this side of the pond. Increased rope wear? Hahaha seriously? .... Got anything else Jim or is that it?Look, while some may disagree with Jim on a philosophical level (what's good enough or best use/implementation), arguing with the man on things that can be tested and proven is a fools errand. It's pretty much a guarantee that Jim has put more effort, time and testing into these things than nearly ANYONE else posting on the internet forums. It's actually a great thing to have knowledgeable contributors to this and other sites. You may not like what's he's saying but plugging your ears and yelling "nah, nah, nah" doesn't change the fact that Jim knows his facts. Disagree with his philosophies but arguing facts and figures with Jim is foolhardy. I suspect Jim's sarcasm comes from a healthy does of dry british humor and the fact the internet is chock full of "know it all" know nothings spewing "knowledge" that's patently wrong or at best, misinformed. At some point, you toss cordial out the window and just call people out. Regarding friction and rope bending, I suspect Jim knows a thing or two on the topic... Scroll down to the belay device segment. It's not directly related to rap rings but I bet it's in the same realm of study... Belay Device Theory |
|
Taylor Ogden wrote: FBI Agent BurtMachlan, how many times have you taken a whipper and had the bolt you were clipped into fail?http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/?type=route&id=1613 There ya go ginger! There is an example of a bolt failing from a lead fall that happened just a month or two ago. I have also heard of several others, one at the New River Gorge not more than a year ago. Guess its time to head outside your gym and get some real world experience gumball. So obviously not that uncommon but you almost had a valid point there Taylor! Better luck next time. |
|
BurtMachlan wrote: Ahhhh dude stop spraying I am getting soaked over here!!! When did I say anything bad about texas? Stop being so overly defensive.... All I said was "matt from texas" and you automatically took it as an insult. A bit sensitive are we?your entire persona on MtnProj is less than pleasant. Your post was in no way "friendly" so stop kidding yourself that I'm overly sensitive. I've played the big boy climbing forum game for a long time... I know a "spade" when I see one post and call it as such. Other readers, I'm sure, can do the same. Most of your type hang for a while, get bored and move on... |
|
mattm wrote: your entire persona on MtnProj is less than pleasant. Your post was in no way "friendly" so stop kidding yourself that I'm overly sensitive. I've played the big boy climbing forum game for a long time... I know a "spade" when I see one post and call it as such. Other readers, I'm sure, can do the same. Most of your type hang for a while, get bored and move on...Are you sure... All I said was "Matt from Texas" since then you have typed two or three paragraphs and gotten yourself all worked up. Is everyone from texas so overly sensitive? Not to mention you have written close to a book in this thread alone argueing with people about which type of anchor set up is best.... Nothing better to do? |
|
BurtMachlan wrote: redriverclimbing.com/RRCGui… There ya go ginger! There is an example of a bolt failing from a lead fall that happened just a month or two ago. I have also heard of several others, one at the New River Gorge not more than a year ago. Guess its time to head outside your gym and get some real world experience gumball. So obviously not that uncommon but you almost had a valid point there Taylor! Better luck next time.Okay. Because a few cases of failed bolts (yes, I know it happens) means that you should treat every single bolt in the world as if it's about to fail. And really? Name calling? Classy. |
|
Taylor Ogden wrote: Okay. Because a few cases of failed bolts (yes, I know it happens) means that you should treat every single bolt in the world as if it's about to fail. And really? Name calling? Classy.Who said anything about treating "Every bolt as if its about to fail". You implied that bolts failing is unheard of and I cited you an example of a new bolt failing just 2 months ago.(actually the bolt was fine it was the rock that failed) So you are wrong bud. And yes I think its a good idea to be suspicous of bolts especially if there is only one between you and certain death. You have a lot to learn, the real world is not a gym where everything is perfect and manicured. |
|
I just remembered that arguing on the Internet is stupid. Silly of me to forget, really. I apologize for any inflammatory comments I've made in this thread. I'm out. |
|
In certain environments, bolts can be less reliable. |
|
Jim Titt wrote ... |
|
Shralpine wrote: hey man that single-loop-of-cord-master-point isn't redundant, why did you trust it? If you're gonna leave your trash up there at least leave something worth bootying, that's an eyesore and a pain in the ass for the next person leading the pitch.haha, ok, sorry, i'll be sure to leave you something of higher quality next time :) To answer your question seriously.. I made a choice between tying together two pieces of cord or trusting a single loop master point (because this cord was only just barely long enough to reach two bolts). To respond to your statement, the "trash" has been cleaned up by a friend - sorry for the inconvenience, and for the tardiness of my response, I hadn't actually looked at this thread since then.. But to be frank, there's so much trash in the world.. I don't feel bad about leaving that anchor. Sure it probably took a few minutes to clean up, but they got a nice biner for their efforts.. I'm much more bothered by poop on ledges, and poopy toilet paper, and people who are too good to deal with it. or starving children in africa, that's harsh. you know what i mean, man? |
|
Some may fall all day long on a project, on same move on same bolt and same QD. Do you worry for each fall that it will fail? Probably not. Plus you have a string of bolts below it, still attached to your lead rope. BUT things change when I'm on top of a climb, clipped in for a top belay, a rappel or to lower off, being on just ONE bolt. Things seem different then. I've cleaned out all other rope connections to previous lead bolts, thus can't depend on the 'next' bolt to hold my fall. I'm now totally dependant on just one anchor point and I usually don't feel too good about that. Back it up with a throwaway trad piece maybe, if there is a crack nearby for doing so. |
|
Woodchuck ATC wrote:Some may fall all day long on a project, on same move on same bolt and same QD. Do you worry for each fall that it will fail? Probably not. Plus you have a string of bolts below it, still attached to your lead rope.In MANY instances, the bolt below the last bolt you clipped is too far away to provide real protection...not always but very common on routes under 60 feet long. We all frequently "trust" one bolt while leading. That is not to say I think anchors should be one bolt. Two makes perfect sense to me. |
|
dnoB ekiM wrote: In MANY instances, the bolt below the last bolt you clipped is too far away to provide real protection...not always but very common on routes under 60 feet long. We all frequently "trust" one bolt while leading. That is not to say I think anchors should be one bolt. Two makes perfect sense to me.Understood. You gotta be a long way up to consider that next bolt below as a backup' to your fall. I don't even think about it much on sport routes,,after a life of trad' climbs, where 'zipper' effect and multiple pieces coming out usually meant ground fall anywhere on first pitch of a climb. Gotta get up past bolt 3 or 4 I guess for most sport routes to have a catch on a lower bolt if last clip fails. |
|
As a former nuclear safety manager, I'd be interested to get Jim's logic and engineering analysis behind taking a redundant belay anchor and defeating the redundancy at the only point subject to wear and tear. It just seems to be faulty engineering to me. I've seen countless rings worn half way through on belay anchors. To me, two half worn rings are better than one as the risk of both failing simultaneously is still much lower than one failing. Additionally, the point of wear should be easily replaceable without having to undo the rest of the installation. FIXE Trad anchor = poor design |
|
"Additionally, the point of wear should be easily replaceable without having to undo the rest of the installation" |
|
What do you any of you have to live for???
|
|
Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:As a former nuclear safety manager, I'd be interested to get Jim's logic and engineering analysis behind taking a redundant belay anchor and defeating the redundancy at the only point subject to wear and tear. It just seems to be faulty engineering to me. I've seen countless rings worn half way through on belay anchors. To me, two half worn rings are better than one as the risk of both failing simultaneously is still much lower than one failing. Additionally, the point of wear should be easily replaceable without having to undo the rest of the installation. FIXE Trad anchor = poor designWell the first thing to point out is it isn´t what I choose to use, I make a large number of different top anchor systems since nobody agrees what is best. I´ve never installed a ring anchor on any route I´ve equipped either but they are for sure the best selling system and always with a single ring just like the Fixe one. The risk of two worn rings failing versus one worn ring is a false argument in that for either to be worn to the extent of failure they will cut the rope first since less than 4mm² of material is all you need for lowering off. Experientially we have no reports of solid rings failing in a lower-off situation (or any other for that matter) which is a better safety record than the nuclear power industry for sure. The popularity of the single ring system and it´s undeniably excellent safety record makes it hard to raise a convincing argument that two rings are "better" but each to his own I guess. The comparison between the USA and Europe and two-ring and inline systems is difficult to make since you can use hardware store chain and quicklinks so a double-set-up is cheap enough, we have to use certified material and suddenly the attractions of the inline system are clear to the installer. The setup with one ring on a hanger with a quick-link and another on a joined to the chain with a quicklink and joined to the hanger with another would cost 46,38 inc tax over here and the equivalent inline chainset 22.73. The theory that rings rotate and the wear is spread is widespread though I´ve seen enough worn ones to doubt it myself but as I said, the customer decides not me. |