Three point anchor - The Saga Continues

Brian L. wrote: Bowline on a Bight is easier to untie?

Even that would be better than all this crap being suggested, the 8 can still have strength when one cord is severed, not the bowline.

Eric Moss wrote:Incidentally, agent Smith also presents some interesting three point anchors using Purcells, which I would like to discuss.

You're fucking joking, right?

Morgan Patterson wrote: Even that would be better than all this crap being suggested, the 8 can still have strength when one cord is severed, not the bowline.

Sure. Why not.

I commented on some other thread a few years ago that, while the BoB's two central strands are clearly stronger than a single strand for a masterpoint, they are not redundant since if one (and only one) were to get severed, the other would likely slip right out of the loop and go too. That said, it's obviously a DAV favourite and it seems to lend itself well to threading additional bights for additional arms.

The eight would work too but to get a double-stranded MP, you have to do your eight on a bight on 2 slings (or one big one doubled). Doing it on one sling and making 2 short bunny ears for the MP would have the same redundancy issue as the BoB.

jktinst wrote: I commented on some other thread a few years ago that, while the BoB's two central strands are clearly stronger than a single strand for a masterpoint, they are not redundant since if one (and only one) were to get severed, the other would likely slip right out of the loop and go too.

I'm concerned about this, too. Much like the equalette/sliding x limiter knots, it depends where the primary cord failure is. Successive failures are not necessarily independent.

Eric Moss wrote: I'm concerned about this, too. Much like the equalette/sliding x limiter knots, it depends where the primary cord failure is. Successive failures are not necessarily independent.

So you need backups for your backups in order to be happy? Redundanception? Have fun lugging all that shit to the crag and dealing with all the hassle. Perhaps if you actually spent some time climbing you would straighten out your priorities...

eli poss wrote: So you need backups for your backups in order to be happy? Redundanception? Have fun lugging all that shit to the crag and dealing with all the hassle. Perhaps if you actually spent some time climbing you would straighten out your priorities...

It's not more gear. I'm talking about using different knots.

Ya'll got it figured out yet? Or need another 1000 posts to figure out that if you spend all the time faffing about with these macramé setups, you'll be finishing in the dark, if you don't have a forced bivy.

It's called climbing, not macramé engineering. So climb. If I've got two bomber pieces, I clove the rope to one, put my tether on the other, use the third to backup one of the other two connecting them with whatever is the right length that I already have on the rack. Draw, sling, biner, whatever. I've had maybe a handful of anchors in a 25 year climbing career that I really needed to equalize because they were suspect or marginal placements. More commonly, I've downclimbed to a less comfortable place to belay, instead of trying to rig some contraption at a stance or ledge that only offers poor placements.

Do you equalize a bunch of stuff when placing regular pro? If your a macramé guy, why not? Plenty of time where if that piece fails, you deck or hit a ledge, and hopefully you can slam in a second piece nearby as a backup. You equalize that? Doubtful.

For me, my choice is redundant, safe, fast, escapable.

Is Burchy ever going to get to fight someone?

Jason Todd wrote:Is Burchy ever going to get to fight someone?

Me! woodson after school 3'oclock beeotch

Eric Moss wrote: It's not more gear. I'm talking about using different knots.

Why not no extra gear?

What advantages does all this complication give you?

patto wrote: Why not no extra gear? What advantages does all this complication give you?

Greater redundancy is the idea. You could tie a double water loop instead or a triple bowline, as discussed here:
igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSE…

OK, enough. I'm calling you out, Eric.

Do you even climb?
Are you a troll?

Pics of you or it didn't happen. Your profile is nothing but your anchors. I call bullshit.

Stitch, let rest. I have enjoyed the hell out of Etic's posts. I can't wait for his next thread. That 3 point Purcell Prussic anchor thing is hysterical.

Rick Blair wrote:Stitch, let rest. I have enjoyed the hell out of Etic's posts. I can't wait for his next thread. That 3 point Purcell Prussic anchor thing is hysterical.

If you are getting entertained, then it's worth it.

I called troll 2 pages ago. Still funny.

FYI

I like to girth hitch about 20 rubber bands together, but only for bolted anchor situations where the v angle is mildly obtuse. An added advantage is you don't run into that annoying jerk from your PAS when you reach for your dropped phone during the belay.

Seth Jones wrote: Isn't it amazing how people keep enabling this pointless conversation to go on? 11 pages of reinventing a perfectly good wheel.

Agreed. At the same time, I'm glad that other experienced climbers weigh in.

Why? Because noobs have a habit of resurrecting old, worn out threads and thinking they've discovered something new and improved. They look at some odd idea and, having little experience, think "why not?" Then they show their noob friends - who perpetuate the idea.

That photo of the Purcell Prusik 3-point anchor was from a forum under "Practical Knots". "Practical" knots. Seriously?

While this thread is merely entertaining, how many of you remember the "Alpine Quickboys" thread on rc.com? Experienced climbers repeatedly wrote how dangerous the idea was. Whether that was a troll or a just a noob, the admins determined that it was dangerous enough that they nuked the entire thread.

wivanoff wrote: While this thread is merely entertaining, how many of you remember the "Alpine Quickboys" thread on rc.com? Experienced climbers repeatedly wrote how dangerous the idea was. Whether that was a troll or a just a noob, the admins determined that it was dangerous enough that they nuked the entire thread.

This sounds interesting, please tell.

David Coley wrote: This sounds interesting, please tell.

re: "Alpine Quickboys"

Someone had posted a method of connecting the lead rope through protection points without using carabiners. Basically, nylon on nylon. The premise was to save weight. Had to be a troll. And a dangerous one.

A bunch of us jumped on that and an admin nuked it.

Stich wrote:OK, enough. I'm calling you out, Eric. Do you even climb? Are you a troll? Pics of you or it didn't happen. Your profile is nothing but your anchors. I call bullshit.

Aren't you a little old to be acting like an elitist jerk online?

Eric Moss wrote: Aren't you a little old to be acting like an elitist jerk online?

So are you pulling the Trump tax return dodge?
You can't reveal your climbing accomplishments because the IRS is investigating?

Maybe you are a much stronger climber than Stich and you are the one being elitist?
Enlighten us please!