The Devils Lake top rope cluster Fu&k thread...

Hey, you young pups need to quit bouncing around and let us old dogs get back to our naps ... the weather is finally turning crisp and sunny, which is perfect napping weather!

Lol. Woodchuck, unfortunately, the disappearance of trees is most likely due to their constant use as anchors...one of the other advantages of gear anchors I didn't want to brig up earlier. The trees in the rest of the park seem to be doing fine, and rope abrasion is known to damage and eventually kill trees.

Ted Pinson wrote:Lol. Woodchuck, unfortunately, the disappearance of trees is most likely due to their constant use as anchors...one of the other advantages of gear anchors I didn't want to brig up earlier. The trees in the rest of the park seem to be doing fine, and rope abrasion is known to damage and eventually kill trees.

yeah, it was a big sudden disappearance of every tree atop Brintons, Diagonals, Congratulations etc. and other areas near there all at once back sometime in 90s' Had used them for years, with care. But I think they got overused, and maybe a bad summer, draught, whatever, somehow killed them all off around the same time. It was like someone had removed them the next time I was up there. But other trees I've used for 40 years just get bigger and show no sign of wear. It depends on the kind of tree I'm sure. At one time, I knew what colored webbing pairs I had would fit a certain climb from a certain anchor used. Now I'm guessing and trying several alternatives each time up there.

I have yet to see evidence of girdling on a tree at Devils Lake. I think the biggest impact climbers have on trees (at the Lake) is the same one that hikers have - soil compaction.
If you want to see what anchor damage to a tree looks like, you should look at photos from the Gunks. There we were clearly girdling stuff.

Woodchuck ATC wrote: yeah, it was a big sudden disappearance of every tree atop Brintons, Diagonals, Congratulations etc. and other areas near there all at once back sometime in 90s' Had used them for years, with care. But I think they got overused, and maybe a bad summer, draught, whatever, somehow killed them all off around the same time. It was like someone had removed them the next time I was up there. But other trees I've used for 40 years just get bigger and show no sign of wear. It depends on the kind of tree I'm sure. At one time, I knew what colored webbing pairs I had would fit a certain climb from a certain anchor used. Now I'm guessing and trying several alternatives each time up there.

sounds like we need a new guidebook for tr anchors at DL? i think jugs is the man for the job. or maybe james? ;)

dewpoint low enough for climbing yet guys?

I do believe some of the smaller cedar, twisted little low 'krumholtz' kind of trees atop the East Bluff from way back that are now gone,,probably did suffer some girdling effect. But agree for the most part it never affected many of our usual anchor trees. As for an 'anchor guidebook'...think how fast that would go out of date, with dead trees, rocks that move or cracks that change size and wont' hold the nuts or cams they once did. That would be like telling someone exactly what pieces to take along on an entire route. And probably subject to some kind of legal action for you saying that a certain combination listed in such a guide, would be sufficient to hold as an anchor. To each his own, and hopefully a lot of practice and instruction precedes any noob' from trying to come out and set up ropes on their own.

Please stop. Just stop. Off topic. Please return to the topic, or start a new thread....porn pics of anchors only!

Mike, DP doesn't matter anymore, got out the tools and fruit boots today. Scratchy, scratchy. slipperiness *almost* doesn't matter. Game on for winter.

I'll be on the lookout next weekend up at the lake for clustered f'd setups and try to get some incriminating pics to share here. They are often pretty hilarious to see, if not dangerous hopefully.

At first glance I read that as "dangerously hopeful", a great phrase for a lot of bad technique.

yeah, that didn't read well. Hopefully safe', probably entertaining to see and document to pass on the errors as lessons to learn from.

jon jugenheimer wrote:

Yikes... I think those steel biners say it all! i get the second one though, rope over lip makes more friction and since they can't extend over the lip (no gear) then they throw in a pully to offset the extra lip drag. Genius!

Michael.P wrote: I can't spot the big error on the first one except that i can imagine the stoppers wiggling out of the crack. Is there anything else i'm missing?

Are all 3 nuts behind a detached block? -- if any force pulls it at all, the whole anchor is out...

What I don't understand is the balanced rock TR setup. ?????

Chris treggE wrote: Are all 3 nuts behind a detached block? -- if any force pulls it at all, the whole anchor is out... What I don't understand is the balanced rock TR setup. ?????

Reduce friction of rope running over edge, of course!

Michael.P wrote: I can't spot the big error on the first one except that i can imagine the stoppers wiggling out of the crack. Is there anything else i'm missing?

Yeah, my problem with the first one too, is all are placed in same crack system(s) on same block so to speak. If it moves in the slightest for one to fail, the rest all could go too. AND all are tiny wires, nuts. Oh, and those are single non locking carabiners on each of the placements too. You want a bunch of single nuts placed, then plan on purchasing and using a large number of locking carabiners to each placement too please. Or get doubled up gates on your ovals.

Nothing big in place, and my usual plea: why oh why don't people invest a few pennies for the cost in some major one inch webbing footage to anchor back to something bigger. Do 'new' anchors classes delete web use? Do they ONLY insist and show them methods a foot from the edge with tiny nuts? Or are these classes taught by convenience, meaning that the cracks are there at the edge, and their budget did not allow for the guides to purchase a large selection of nuts, cams, wedges, stoppers, wires, roped pieces and webbing to do a whole shabang' of assorted anchor set up methods. All I see are tiny nuts combined with cracks close to the edge, a cordelette or a short piece of static line and the popular master point for all to arrive at.

Top of D'Arcy's, or Easy Overhang? They will eventually crimp those wires, but it looks plenty strong and redundant.

I'm surprised you didn't get the setup on Stretcher ... hey Rick, if you read this, send me an email and let's go climbing sometime.

Where is James with those business cards when you need him?

Doug Hemken wrote:Top of D'Arcy's, or Easy Overhang? They will eventually crimp those wires, but it looks plenty strong and redundant. I'm surprised you didn't get the setup on Stretcher ... hey Rick, if you read this, send me an email and let's go climbing sometime. Where is James with those business cards when you need him?

And once those wires are crimped', then you might as well just save them for repeat use only on that set up for toprope each and every time. At least it should set fast as you know they all fit and are shaped to fit the rock already. I don't recall that many small cracks atop of Easy O', but do use that fat crack set back for a perfect fit 11 hexcentric in the past.

Woodchuck ATC wrote:I'm surprised you didn't get the setup on Stretcher ...

I'm more surprised my bad anchor at the top of Zig Zag escaped this thread after I sewed it up thinking I was going to get stung and fall while getting swarmed and had no gear left. Jon must have walked by it to take that first picture since it was up around the same time - definitely wasn't my finest anchor. Maybe the bright green cord on easy o distracted him.

Eh, first one doesn't bug me too much. Did they test the rock to make sure it wasn't loose? Granted, if it IS loose, then that's hella jive, as only one of the nuts is actually in a separate crack system, but...it's a toprope.

#2 on the other hand...wtf?!

jon jugenheimer wrote:

That a seatbelt? :P