The Devils Lake top rope cluster Fu&k thread...
|
It looks like a disaster first look... |
|
Moldy Anchor - photo by Andy P.
I borrowed Andy P's photo and annotated it, because, depending on the quality of the gear in the upper right, I actually think this is less irredeemably bad than it appears at first blush. Let me pause and say this isn't my anchor, nor would it likely be the solution I would use, or teach. To begin, the masterpoint (labelled #1) appears to be a correctly tied Figure 8 Big Honkin' Knot - this is totally acceptable. From that a doubled-loop of webbing extends (labelled #6). That doubled-loop splits at what appears to be a correctly tied water knot (labelled #5). From the split, a line goes to a reportedly good tree. Another line goes to what appears to be a bowline-on-a-bight (labelled #4) that has its "bunny ears" adjusted to clip what are, hopefully, two good pieces of trad gear. This bowline-on-a-bight ought to have a backup knot. Now, if one ignores the loop of nylon cord (labelled #3) and the jacked tie-off of the tail of excess webbing (labelled #2) this might actually look like a functional anchor. I'm guessing the nylon loop was thrown in as a "directional", but, it does also actually add some redundancy to the system since it's girthed through the doubled-webbing. Still, functional or not, this certainly isn't the cleanest, most-effective solution given the equipment that is visible in the picture. For starters, #5 could be lower (or eliminated entirely) thereby eliminating the need to girth hitch a "directional" into the system. Then the right-hand leg coming off #5 (which would exist even without #5 being tied) could go to either of the pieces. After which #2 and #3 could be combined to link to the additional trad piece creating a fully independent third leg in the system. I think that would be a better solution - although I don't think what's here is terrible (again assuming the individual placements are solid). In summary, at first glance it looks like a total cluster, but when you break it down, I'd have a hard time pointing out which letter in SERENE it violates other than the "E" for "Efficiency" and the "A" for "Aesthetics". |
|
James, you don't have concerns over the nylon cord melting through the webbing? |
|
Ted Pinson wrote:James, you don't have concerns over the nylon cord melting through the webbing?Ted, 1. It takes considerable load, or travel, of nylon over nylon to melt said nylon. The nylon cord isn't under load or moving along the webbing, and there doesn't appear to be a mechanism to create a load or movement. 2. I don't think I would be concerned even if there was a load, as I've seen 5mm prusik loops hold extreme (holding the tension on slackline back before there were pre-rigged kits) force when tied as a prusik around webbing and neither of them looked any worse for the wear. 3. Even if someone outright cut the nylon cord in this photo anchor would still be redundant. 4. Consider the schematic below which, for clarity, eliminates the cord from the system. What's Wrong? 5. Like Doug, I'm most concerned about wear and tear on the webbing if the system is being used across the width of the wall. In the end, my assessment is that the anchor builder was trying to "show off" some knowledge, and, in the end, did what most over-engineering types do and over-engineer a less effective system in place of what could have been simple and elegant. Again, largely a mistake in efficiency and aesthetics. |
|
Nice, James! I hadn't looked at it quite that way, but eliminating the water knot in the middle would vastly improve this. |
|
Doug Hemken wrote:Nice, James! I hadn't looked at it quite that way, but eliminating the water knot in the middle would vastly improve this. My suggestion was to move an anchor point and completely redo the webbing.Thanks Doug! |
|
Nice work James breaking down the goodness and/or badness in this TR setup. I especially liked your citation, at the end, of the anchor builder's possible motivations for creating this anchor.. Ha! |
|
Burt Lindquist wrote:Nice work James breaking down the goodness and/or badness in this TR setup. I especially liked your citation, at the end, of the anchor builder's possible motivations for creating this anchor.. Ha!Ha! Thanks to you too Burt. My competing theory is that it was built by some grizzled veteran who literally gives zero f@#ks what someone thinks or says about his anchor and was just trying to get it done and go climbing. |
|
Ted Pinson wrote:Yeah, that doesn't concern me. The angle's a little weird since that's such a huge ledge so you might get a little bit of force multiplication, but the eventual direction of pull is always the same for TR: down.yeah, I guess as said, it's the big ledge and distance back that the gear is placed that had me concerned on direction of major axis of pull. ,,ya know, vectors and all that physics stuff. |
|
James M Schroeder wrote: Ha! Thanks to you too Burt. My competing theory is that it was built by some grizzled veteran who literally gives zero f@#ks what someone thinks or says about his anchor and was just trying to get it done and go climbing.grizzled old fart? Hey, that would be me ,,but I love just trying to count all the knots on the pic of that set up. I DO try not to put rope to sling , or even nylon sling to sling ever. Use carabiners; that's what they are made for and why you should buy in volume when some online store has them for under 5 bucks each. Load up for your toprope use needs. |
|
WTF? AHHHH! |
|
James M Schroeder wrote: Ted, 1. It takes considerable load, or travel, of nylon over nylon to melt said nylon. The nylon cord isn't under load or moving along the webbing, and there doesn't appear to be a mechanism to create a load or movement. 2. I don't think I would be concerned even if there was a load, as I've seen 5mm prusik loops hold extreme (holding the tension on slackline back before there were pre-rigged kits) force when tied as a prusik around webbing and neither of them looked any worse for the wear. 3. Even if someone outright cut the nylon cord in this photo anchor would still be redundant. 4. Consider the schematic below which, for clarity, eliminates the cord from the system. 5. Like Doug, I'm most concerned about wear and tear on the webbing if the system is being used across the width of the wall. In the end, my assessment is that the anchor builder was trying to "show off" some knowledge, and, in the end, did what most over-engineering types do and over-engineer a less effective system in place of what could have been simple and elegant. Again, largely a mistake in efficiency and aesthetics.Gotcha. Thanks for the detailed response. :) I try to make a habit of avoiding soft goods on soft goods, but it's good to know that there are exceptions. |
|
My "theory of the anchor builder" in this case was someone who was tired, running out of patience and gear, and ended up rethinking their anchor partway through building it. They started off tethered to the tree, got below the edge and found a couple of nut placements, tried to tie it all together with the webbing they were tethered with, got impatient with all that webbing, and decided to add the perlon because they knew they had been impatient. |
|
We of the CMC (Chicago Mountaineering Club) climb regularly at Devil's Lake, and this is the first time I've seen evidence of insufficient anchors. All the rest of you are jealous of our fine Quartize routes here. Billk |
|
Climbed at the lake for nearly a decade and saw plenty of bad anchors, many from CMC'ers. Fortunately many of the sketchy nut placements were backed up by the (now dead) trees. I think the primary problem is that for many of these folks, the only time they ever handle protection in their climbing career is when they setup a top rope anchor, thus severely limiting their overall experience. |
|
Yeah, but just about all of them (except the needle/towers) can be toproped, so you can't blame people for wanting a safe day outside or the ability to project climbs above their level. I've never seen "sketchy" anchors from the CMC; if anything, their anchors are overbuilt (3 legs, even if one of them is a massive tree!), which is understandable because they invite lots of people onto their ropes. |
|
How to Clusterfu&k at the Lake - a long post so I can procrastinate on doing real work today. |
|
Andy, |
|
Here's an example of goddamn mess I had going on top of Ironmongers one day this summer: |
|
Andy. Actually after reading the analysis by James and Doug above (and now your own account), I have to admit I was a bit off/wrong about my comment about your anchor in question. It was a poorly chosen and flippant reaction after only ever giving the photo a weak and lazy ass look see. I was drawn to the loose end tie offs in the anchor and assumed they were meant to be the primary knots in the anchor system.... I must also admit I am more then capable of at times putting together a poorly thought out TR anchor.... I am sure if you ask a few friends they will laugh and agree.... |