Are there any dynamic cordelettes on the market? seems to me that if it works for a climbing rope (distributing and diminishing force)it could work for a cord, runner, draws, the slings on cams, etc. I'm not talking bugee but 2-5% dynamicity would at least soften shocks a bit no?
Should I have kept quiet and just patented this idea?

I guess I don't follow.

I thought Spectra/Dyneema already had that kind of limited elongation. Perlon has much higher elongation.

I think the patent to get would be having the strength, weight, & size of dyneema/spectra combined with the elongation, flexibility, & heat tolerance of perlon; then you'd have the rigging material.

Blue Water makes a 20 ft 7 mm dynamic cordelette:

Dynamic Cordelette 7mm x 20ft

I'm curious as to what people think of this versus standard 7 mm nylon cordelette.

I don't see the need for a dynamic cordelette. If you're belaying a leader on a multi-pitch climb, you should be tied into the anchor with the climbing rope as your primary attachment. If the leader falls at the start of the next pitch before getting in any pro (a big no-no but it has happened), resulting in a factor-2 fall, the dynamic attachment of the belayer to the anchor, via the climbing rope and knots, will absorb some of the energy of the fall. Additional energy absorption by the cordelette itself is not needed, in my opinion.

The big no-no: attaching yourself to the anchor with just a static tie-in (daisy chain, sling) instead of the climbing rope, when you're belaying a leader on a multi-pitch climb.

I use the Mammut Dyneema Cordelette. Lightweight, compact, strong. Not dynamic, but that's not important to me.

Sorry, Ron beat me to it, but here it goes again:

I believe that all this discussion about dynamic and static materials for cordelettes might stem from the latest edition of John Long's Climbing Anchors book. In it he makes a big case for using plain nylon cord, 7mm, for the cordelette rather than the Spectra blends such as Titan 5.5mm. Reason being that the nylon stretches and the spectra does not.

This is less of an issue when there is several feet of climbing rope in play, but apparently a serious concern when say, some one slips at the anchor while tethered with their static daisy chain. Or worst case, in a fall directly onto the anchor while leading (the fall factor 2 scenario). John Long writes that any amount of stretch in the cordelette is better than the virtually zero stretch of the spectra.

I love the cordalette, its utility applications are diverse enough so that I carry 2 and forgo the specialized anchor rigging. I wish the 5.5s had more elongation, but the nylon sheath helps tremendously for other than anchor rigging uses.

My thought on a varied rigging using slings depends on the situation. I will go with a redundant limited extention sliding X if I thought a traversing runout lead off the anchor was a possibility. So I'd just use my slings.

I also love the dynamic climbing rope anchor, simple, strong, elastic, easy & fast for lead swapping.

Any case, I haven't found a need for specialized anchor rigging.


I go with the rope as the anchor tie-in primary, good idea, give yourselves a shock absorber with a simple clove, then the sling/PAS for the redundant.


Don't fall on the anchor (while leading). With all the posts generated, myself included & responsible for a great deal of discussion, not falling on the anchor is really what the #1 rule should be.

Avery et. al.,

I am not sure it is wise to use a screamer as a power point tie-in. Screamers reduce forces but when they extend all the way they instantly become static and that increases the load on the anchor dramatically. I have to admit that this would be a very high energy fall, but it is possible.

In their product literature, Yates recommends only using the screamer on marginal pro, although they don't strictly forbid its use on an anchor.

I can also think of a few cases where it would be detrimental for the belay to be dynamic--when the position of the belayer could cause him to lose control of the belay (hitting a wall or going over an edge) if there was alot of stretch in the system.

I like and use what Mark suggested--tie into the power point with the rope and PAS clipped for redundancy.

Hope I am not repeating something here. A stretchy cordelette would be cool in the fact that when you move around, a normal cordelette may only be loading one piece very much. With a little stretch, when you move around a little the stretch will allow the cordellete legs to slightly change length and it will distribute its force over all pieces more evenly.

The ultimate cordelette would be like a sliding x with no problem if a leg breaks or a piece pulls and it would be infinitely lightweight and pack up really small.

Most forces on the cordelette are static since they are used mainly to hang off of and belay a second on TR basically. During leader falls the cordelette is usually unloaded, not loaded more (the case for an upward pull piece).

What about using a "equalizing figure-eight" or “bowline on a bight” with a cordalette?

I've used these configurations with the rope and believe that they would work well with a cordalette, though I’ve only seen them promoted as methods for creating equalized belay anchors using the climbing rope.

Both knots provide better equalization than a static overhand knot in the cordalette and would probably add some dynamics to the rigging as well. Does anyone see a problem with using a cordalette this way?

Cordelette's are so gay!

I hope my partner reads the comments in this thread about not belaying the leader directly off the anchor... I've had a difficult time convincing her to lead-belay off her harness.

Ron -- Yeah, knots will absorb some level of energy. I probably don't give them quite as much credit as I should, but I also tighten mine quite well at the start. I guess I figure the belayer is the most dynamic part of a normal belay.

Mark and Lee -- my typical setup is the same as yours. Perhaps in the future I'll leave my PAS with a couple inches more slack than I do currently.

Lee -- That was Twight's approach. I have used this, maybe 3 times, when I've had a crummy anchor (e.g. a #4 BD stopper was the best piece in the belay); however, it's not a regular technique. I do think it's worthwhile for the right situation, though.

I did have a partner fall on pro with a screamer in Alaska. He was also wearing a 50lb pack. It was a small fall, and only ripped the screamer about an inch or less. Also note that if the screamer does fully extend, it has acted as a load limiter up until full extension. It will never shock load more than it would have without the screamer, and in reality, that force must be much less after the screamer activates. Have a close look at the design -- no extension beyond the last thread ripping.

I'll quote a brief excerpt from Mark Twight's "Extreme Alpinism". Note the bolded phrase below. I don't go for everything he has written in his book, but still think his words carry a wealth of knowledge about alpine climbing (read: not always applicable to cragging).

"Carry five or six quick draws on the rack, with three of them featuring a shock-absorbing design. Yates, Wild Things, and others manufacture such load limiters. They restrict the impact force on any one piece of protection with a system of stitching that begins to rip at 500 pounds of force and continues to rip as long as more than 500 lbs of force is applied. When fully ripped, the sling will still hold 4,000 lbs. To our knowledge no one has fully ripped a load limiter in the mountains (or if they have, they didn't live to tell).

A load-limiting sling may keep the force of a fall low enough to prevent a suspect piece from pulling out. When used in the belay system, a fall directly onto the belay anchor probably won't rip it. A follower pushed off the belay by an avalanche probably wouldn't pull the belay either. That's why the magic number of load-limiters to carry is three: one for a suspect piece and one for each belay. The manyfold increase in security for the rope team fully justifies their extra weight."

Edit to add: Maybe I don't understand the Alpine Equalizer well. It seems if you blow one 'arm', you lose one other arm, as well -- if you haven't added a knot. Suddenly it's too complex of a gadget for my liking. When using doubles, I always avoid the webolette (cordelette) where possible, and go for two ropes to two points. One sliding x runner, a second directly to the piece. The given here is that my pieced are pretty central and it's easy to predict the direction of force on the anchor. Seems way quicker and more simple.

I completely agree with the arguments against the AE. Without knots the equalization is rendered useless if one of the pieces blows. This realigns the device and shockloads the remaining pieces. With a cord tied off with a Fig8 on a bight, the force is merely transferred to the other pieces if one goes. The AE would require knots.
In terms of speed and efficiency, any competent anchor builder can use the cord as quickly as the AE.
RE: Screamers, I took a 20foot fall onto a screamer last year on slightly less than vertical ice and was very surprised to not have any stitches pop on the screamer. I weighed in at 180lbs with gear on and even on a less than vert fall, was surprised I did not create enough force to activate it. The screw held anyways.

A couple of points of clarification regarding equalization and shockloading on the AE in the event of a piece failing:

-- equalization doesn't disappear if one leg blows; the load is just equalized between the two remaining legs.

-- using an AE without limiter knots or clove hitches, there is theoretically going to be a shock load if one leg fails. In practical terms, though, shock load is minimal or non-existent. Recent tests on sliding-X anchors (and by extension, the AE, which is just a modified sliding-X) have shown that friction in the system mitigates shock loading to a great extent, especially if the legs of the anchor are short in the first place. If the legs are long, the aforementioned limiter knots or clove hitches can be used without compromising equalization.

Everything's a trade-off, and one solution doesn't work for all situations. If equalization isn't critical (e.g., a bolted belay), a cordelette with figure-8 on a bight is perfectly adequate. But in cases where equalization is vital, some variation on the AE or sliding-X is probably a better idea.

JL

These responses seem to imply that a cord cannot be equalized properly. This, I do not understand. As long as it is set in the direction of pull, AE vs. cord will be the same in terms of equalization. The friction in the AE system is not enough to avoid a shock load, and the short legs of the system are its down fall where more intricate or disparate anchors are concerned. Why not carry a cord which can has many more optios, especially if a rescue situation arises?