2 Piece Alpine Anchors

I'm looking for some feedback on a 'how-to' video that I recently helped create (unlisted on YouTube):

youtu.be/XpwY4vLEKYo

This video is aimed at students that are taking courses with SIET (advanced alpine mountaineering courses) and need a brush up on alpine anchors, need to get on the same page as one another in terms of vocab, etc, and need to understand current industry best practices before their course. The vid also serves as a resource for anyone interested in learning more advanced tech skills.

Thanks for the help!
jb

Great vid! easy to follow and has good pros and cons for each not! Nice work

A couple nits otherwise good video.

1) When discussing solid placements you inadvertently use the word strong instead solid. (~1:40 seconds). You also use strong again at 4:05 seconds. Strong means something different than solid. My anchors are strong but their placement may not be solid. Need to be consistent in the message by always using solid.

2) When discussing distribution and having questionable anchor placements you noted that one would want "accurate equalization." (4:25 seconds). Accuracy is the wrong description. You want to minimize the load differential so the anchors are truly equalized.

The video would be alpine if the demo was with screws, pickets, nuts, cams, anything but two nice bomber bolts. You could done the same video at a summer crag.

But make one cut in the cord, Mike13.

With limiter knots you can cut any one point in the cord and it is still intact. Well unless youre talking about the actual rope...

I wonder about this, Josh: "current industry best practices"

When discussing anchors with friends, I have started to talk more about anchors based solely on stance. The context is almost totally rock climbing, usually easy low-angle rock for the second, and of an alpine flavor where time matters.

As being non-redundant under special circumstances can be viewed here as an industry standard, does a stance belay also fit somewhere in the industry standard? Admittedly, this is not the focus of this thread and the vid.

You are right, Mike13. I glossed over the part about the limiter knots and the time stamp ... I was thinking of that earlier rig with just a sliding X.

Mike13 wrote: yes it is. I'm sure Allen here just typed before thinking about it fully. One of the strands is twisted, if that blew it would fall onto the untwisted strand and if the untwisted blows it falls into the twisted. That is assuming your knots stay in place. Nice video, hadn't thought of putting the carabiner into the overhand knot before.

Great video. My only criticism would be, why bring another acronym into the world. ERNEST, SERENE, now STRADS? It seems the main reason for the new acronym is to make the "magic X" fit in to it. The "magic X" is great and with the limiter knots it is absolutely redundant, however my point would be, that these acronyms are generally for beginners. Once they graduate from needing acronyms, then teach them more advanced anchors. A Serene anchor on the ice won't kill you so why change it?

With beginners KISS it.
Keep it simple and stupid;)
The rest of us don't need new acronyms to remind us that our equalizing angles shouldn't be too obtuse.

Great teaching aid though

This is a great well thought out video. Having taught University rock and ice courses as well as guiding for years I love seeing good content and presentation. Well done.
Dallen

Hey Josh,

Edit out the "Okay" from the beginning of each segment. There are at least 6 within the first 6 minutes and continue through to the end. It becomes distracting after the first few and makes the video seem less polished and professional.

Otherwise, nice work!

I was always taught the last method is called a Quad and that an equalette used clove hitches and an "x" in the master point, per JL. Besides that great video, if using for getting peoples terminology on the same page maybe something to clarify.

Josh-

The equalette is not the same as a quad. Otherwise it looks fine.

Great, thanks for the input y'all!

To answer some of the questions that have popped up...

Eric and Matt- I considered calling it the quad, as many folks do, but many folks also call it the equalette. I know the newest AMGA SPI Manual calls it the quad, makes sense due to the 4 strands. Not sure if the difference is worth noting/changing...I'll look into it more.

Nick- I hear ya about the acronym overload. However, I'd love to see ERNEST and SERENE disappear forever- they're much better options out there, especially for alpine anchors. I used STRADS not to fit in the magic x, but to prioritize the most important concepts first. ERNEST puts solid and timely last...not so bueno. And both include 'no extension' somewhere. Is that a rule that we want to teach to novices? That you CAN'T have any extension? Distribution of the load is what I think we should go with.

Stance belays- yeah, you can certainly have a stance that's good enough to belay from, but it's more likely that you'll sit down and hip belay or belay of a munter on your waist. And when in doubt, back up your body with a piece or two.

Psyched to hear more before we put it out there...

I watched it last night. Good vid. I tend to agree about acronym overload.

Forgot to identify the specific location in the video but when you were tying the sliding X you mention flipping over the "middle" strand. There are only 2 strands, so top/bottom or left/right might be more appropriate?

Love it! and really like the graphics and animations. Very well made. Here are my thoughts:

- STRADS -> after thinking about it, I do like this. Not sure if I'll start teaching this over SERENE, but I do like it and I like that it is mnemonically similar to TRAD.

- SWAMP - Love this timely anchor for low angle stuff, my only thought (and something I've been thinking about the regular shelf) is that it seems like it would be easy to triaxial load the carabiner as the vector forces are distributed to the carabiner rather than a knot.

As seen in this video
(1:39) Angles as low as 55º can have a significant impact on the breaking strength of pear shaped carabiners

I would love some more input on this. As I understand it, the shelf doesn't seem as acceptable as a secondary master point as I thought it to be. With that said, I also wonder if anyone has actually broken a carabiner clipped into a shelf due to triaxial loading, so the point could be somewhat mute based on practical experience.

- QUAD - I have always heard and have used the term "quad" for this anchor and equalette for variations that use more than 2 pieces and have 2 or 3 strand at the master point. See Climbing Anchors (Long and Gaines)

Would love input on my concerns about the shelf anchor!

- Jeremy (edited for typing errors)

Hey that's a polished video and good presentation, I enjoyed it. It might be a thought to also present the Reihenschaltung/Banshee belay style. It definitely has certain advantages, and is widely used here in Europe, especially for anchors in ice.

alpenverein.de/chameleon/pu…

cheers

Regarding the bolts, we chose to use bolts so folks that are learning this stuff won't get distracted by the pieces. I mention pieces of varying quality (screws, pickets, etc) to address the best use of each type of anchor. If we showed each anchor on each type of piece that it could be used for, the vid would be way too long.

Jeremy, as far as the SWAMP creating a triaxial load on a carabiner, it all depends on how close the knot is to the carabiner. If the knot is right under the 'biner, it won't create any triaxial load. But the further you move the knot up, the more it will start to happen. To what degree, I don't know- I don't have a differential formula to figure that out with.

My general rule is to keep the knot an inch or two from the 'biner. The tests I've seen done at Petzl show that a little bit of triaxial load (around 15-25 degrees) won't make any real difference in your standard climbing scenario. Professional rescue scenarios are where you need to worry about this stuff the most.

Thanks y'all!

pizza.eater wrote:Hey that's a polished video and good presentation, I enjoyed it. It might be a thought to also present the Reihenschaltung/Banshee belay style. It definitely has certain advantages, and is widely used here in Europe, especially for anchors in ice. alpenverein.de/chameleon/pu… cheers

I didn't think an overhand was acceptable in Dyneema ?

^^^^^^^^
dmmclimbing.com/knowledge/s…

"informed choice" etcetera