SRENE belay anchors...

Like mentioned before I like to use a seperate piece up above me (and the anchor whenever possible) to belay through, when I leave the anchor to lead the second pitch this is usually the first piece I use(just change how it is cliped and sometimes extend the runner depending on how rope drag will be). The only thing that you must remember is that this piece is not always multi-directional so I always get a multi-directional piece ASAP after but for the time being it is safer then factor 2 falling onto the anchor.

BTW Mark, Awsome route! sounds like you and I end up on similar routes.

Jason Kaplan wrote: BTW Mark, Awsome route! sounds like you and I end up on similar routes.

Cool, Classic has to be one of the best pitches I've ever climbed; every move is fluid to the next & protectable (my favorite section is just after the stemming, just lock over lock then move to the layback and fire it to the anchor, way cool).

If you hadn't yet done it, Verschneidung offers a unique (for Eldo) moderate section with some good hand crack & face climbing.

Stumbled across this (not so little) gem of a thread on rc.com...http://www.rockclimbing.com/topic/106467. It's a very long winded but educational discussion of the new take on the common cordelette anchor John Long and company are calling the "Equalette/DuoGlide".

Those of you willing to trudge through the thread want to comment here on the suggestions and anchor ideas presented?

Brian

I think the fear of the cord on rc.com is way overblown. Many of the anchor systems people suggest to replace it are way too complex to make them very useful on a longer trad or alpine route. Also, I find that clusterf*ckage is much reduced on the cordalette if you use it right. For example, in a guiding situation, I will almost always clip myself into the shelf and my clients into the master-point so that I am always on top of them. This reduces the possibility that people will have to tango in order to leave the belay. Or if I'm swinging leads, I will clip into the master-point and have my partner clip into the shelf, for the same reasons.

One thing to remember when clipping into the shelf though; you must have something clipped into the master-point, especially if the loop is short (you can get away with it if you have a foot long loop), because if the knot rolls off the end the shelf falls out of the system. Usually this isn't an issue for me if I'm clipped into the shelf, because I'm belaying off the master-point.

I use the cord for 90% of my anchors, although I'll clove the rope to pieces or throw in sliding-x's, sometimes with load-limiting knots, if the anchor requires it; for example when I must build a 4 or 5 piece anchor or the pieces are far apart so that I cannot tie off the cord without extending and simplifying the anchor somehow.

I almost always tie into my anchors using a clove hitch. To begin with, it is easy to do one handed if you are in a hanging belay. Also, it is easy to adjust so that you can put yourself right at the edge of a ledge or bulge in order to see your second. Since I am almost always belaying off the anchor, I will never have more than body-weight on the knot. I don't remember where I heard it, but somebody told me once that clove hitches don't slip, and that this person had personally tested it (Allan Jolley maybe?). Figure-8's are just far too hard to adjust to the right length. I am often extending myself when the second is climbing, then sucking back up for gear exchange and what-not.

Here is a pic of an intriguing anchor setup relying solely on the use of the cordelette and a couple extra biners. The "mooselette" (from rc.com thread, no idea who came up with it) seems to be very straightforward to setup and meets all the requirements of a SRENE anchor...provided the cord doesn't fail.

The "Mooselette"...

If you're really tired of all this anchor bulls*** you could just solo everything you climb. No messy belays, hassles with knots, or stupid cord to get in your way.

Count (this is all my 2 cents):

#1 looks to me as you have equalization but nothing limiting extension. All the gear is committed to a flake which looks like it could have potential expansion on a downward pull. It does look timely and equalized. If the flake is solid, this configuration looks like a good anchor for traversing. But it looks like there is nothing for an upward pull, which would have to not interfere with the pendulum -- maybe just a piece directly to the Second's harness (I would rather I had the anchor protected to allow the belayer to be more dynamic; as opposed to using the upward directly to the belayer).

#2 Looks reasonable for limited extension. All the gear is committed to one rock feature & nothing protecting an upward.

#1 & #2 look like good angles & look to work with traversing. It looks like we lose the top shelf. #2 looks like a very small main tie-in point to work with. #1, I probably won't have lockers with me.

#3 looks more contrived to do any good in getting up a route. The angle on one of the two main anchor points is not good. It does use the two anchor points to equalize force at the main tie-in & has some limited extension, which is a thought I had for vertical traverse protecting, but I think just a couple of slings would be more timely. Possibly, oak cabinets & trim would enhance the quality of "rock".

Overall, I don't think I'd use any of them, but that doesn't mean that I say they are bad. In all 3 cases, a couple of knotted slings can create a limited extension sliding x for perfect equalization. And, also the standard cordalette or rope anchor could be more a benefit depending on the situation & terrain.

Thanks Mark...good points.

Having just started leading trad routes, I am trying to gather as much info as possible regarding simple yet effective belay anchors, since I will need to construct some kind of useful anchor someday. The more knowledge the better, I say.

I like the simplicity of the sliding x using 2 slings (with limiter knots) for three anchor points, but I also like the cordelette option since it uses slightly less gear (slings).

Reviving this thread, not to make horse burgers, but to comment on John Long's "equalette" anchor described in his latest Climbing Anchors book. After playing around with gear placements and anchor rigging today, I have mixed feelings about the equalette. Personally, I strive to get a minimum of 3 pieces in for my belay anchors unless the belay provides stout bolts, in which case I'm good to go. Now my beef with the equalette...

If you tie off to 3 (or even 4 pieces) with the equalette using clove hitches, and the direction of anticipated loading changes even by 5-10°, you now have an anchor that is only loading 2 pieces...one on each leg of the equalette. Granted, those two pieces are perfectly equalized, but you have just rendered 1 (and maybe 2) placements useless in the system. If this is the case, why rig an equalette at all on more than 2 pieces? Long states that there is nothing more bomber than the equalette for 2 piece anchors, yet he then goes on to demonstrate how the equalette can be rigged for 3 and 4 pieces. He even states that one of the limitations of the equalette is the fact I mention above.

If I'm missing something here, please set me straight. I know many of you are probably die-hard cordelette fans, but I'd like to get more feedback regarding self-equalizing anchors such as the sliding X, equalette, AE rigs, and the "mooselette" (depicted on the previous page) rather than static or pre-equalized anchors.

Count Chockula wrote:Now my beef with the equalette... If you tie off to 3 (or even 4 pieces) with the equalette using clove hitches, and the direction of anticipated loading changes even by 5-10�, you now have an anchor that is only loading 2 pieces...one on each leg of the equalette. Granted, those two pieces are perfectly equalized, but you have just rendered 1 (and maybe 2) placements useless in the system. If this is the case, why rig an equalette at all on more than 2 pieces? Long states that there is nothing more bomber than the equalette for 2 piece anchors...

OK, getting 2 equalized bomber pieces rated at 10kN in the direct fall-line is good to go (using dynamic belay properties without the pulley effect I think you could drop that to a force of 8kN/each). What you do with the other placements is redundant safety; should something unforeseen occur with your anchor such as: rockfall, rock quality, gear failure, or other rigging mechanical problem -- you've got one or two other placements to back up main anchor failure.

Here are the considerations I look at with good rock quality: timeliness & probability of taking a lead fall directly on the anchor. I find that timeliness is what I look to manage more -- get something in with a cordalette, slings, or rope; & move quick; then protect the anchor as soon as I can while leading the next pitch.

If I lead above the anchor and can't find a placement; I can't fall. I'll either move up or downclimb and beef up the anchor to take the worst fall possible -- which means I'll put in more placements on the anchor, maybe 5-6 pieces, doubling up everything. I have beefed up the anchor a few times, though I ended up not falling. And, in doing this, I usually use one of the active cams in my anchor as my first lead piece to try and keep the factor 2 from occurring.

Trad anchors depend on the situation at hand. You can spend all day trying to get one anchor perfect; but then you could subject yourself to weather, dehydration, nightfall, & possibly the unplanned bivy (not fun at all) if the route you are doing is committing.

(Please keep in mind, previous discussion about the cordalette, leader fall direction, pulley effect, non-dynamic belay -- I believe was the "Bombproof Anchor?" topic is discussion about equalization using limited extension is just critical thought analysis about the assumptions used in accepted force models & my advocacy in those posts is not scientifically proven)

Another thought also with SRENE - you need to look at "A" Angle between placements; Wouldn't EARNEST be a better thought (Or, like I said EARST with Limited Extension to actually achieve that perfect Equalization)?

Mark Nelson wrote: Another thought also with SRENE - you need to look at "A" Angle between placements; Wouldn't EARNEST be a better thought (Or, like I said EARST with Limited Extension to actually achieve that perfect Equalization)?

The best acronym: LESTER

• Limited Extension
• Solid
• Timely
• Equalized
• Redundant

I recommend using a Trango Alpine Equalizer (with backup using the lead rope or another sling) to achieve this. Keeping equalization even if you shift belay positions is a big plus for this setup.

My acronym of choice is KISS.

Uh, guys? Doesn't the mooselette incorporate two separate American Death Triangles (quite the accomplishment)???? I would NOT be happy if I arrived at the anchor and saw this thing. WAAAY easier, better, and safer ways to do the job.

My advice? Lots of good climbers and engineers have spent years and years working out and documenting good anchor building systems. Learn from them and don't try inventing new, weird jury-rigged-looking things like the mooselette. The more complicated something is, the harder it is to do right and to check to make sure it's right. Rope, webolette, cordelette, none of these take very long after a proper amount of practice. Use one of these... please.

First, let me say I did not come up with (or name) the "mooselette". However, after rigging this anchor in a few different orientations and having heard of it being used in a variety of climbing anchor situations, including hanging portaledges, it is not only easy to build, but I don't see an ADT in there anywhere. It employs more of a pully effect which avoids the static, oblique stresses in a typical ADT. It also does a nice job of limiting extension using the two limiter knots in the middle leg. It is probably not my first choice for an anchor rigging technique, however.

The cons of the mooselette (at least for me) is the clugey power point as it has the tendency to bind when adjusting for change in direction of pull. It also only works for 3 anchor placements. I'd prefer something more versatile. Then again, I also carry an AE, which is only good for 2-3 placements and is neither redundant or extension limiting unless limiter knots are tied, which negates the equalization. Situations will certainly dictate which components of SRENE (or whatever acronym you prefer) you are willing to compromise for a given anchor.

After playing around with the equalette, I am beginning to like it more and more. Once you get each leg pseudo-equalized by feathering the cloves hitches, it really does distribute forces rather nicely. The point I made a couple posts above seems less of an issue now, as Mark pointed out, it still provides solid redundancy even if all legs aren't tensioned simultaneously during a load direction change.

It works very well to equalize loads across 3 or more placements that may not be in a tight grouping as well. If you have 2 dicey placements, you can always rig a sliding X with limiter knots on those two pieces and then attach the remaining pieces using the equalette. This provides great equalization across all placements while shoring up and equalizing the two less-than-bomber pieces.

Everytime I think about the natural rock feature (trad) anchor topic I go right back to:

The climbing rope, the typical cordalette, or a couple of knotted slings for a sliding x.

I can make these 3 simple applications work for anything trad.

Though, my favorite anchor is the choice of: BFT, BFR, or BFBs.

OK, here you go. If you do a force analysis, I'll be you'd find that the red and yellow triangles experience the same forces as in the classic ADT set-up.

Kevin Stricker wrote: My acronym of choice is KISS.

Mark Nelson wrote:I find that timeliness is what I look to manage more -- get something in with a cordalette, slings, or rope; & move quick; then protect the anchor as soon as I can while leading the next pitch.

In the final analysis, this approach is most likely the best. Put in several bomber pieces, tie them together quickly in a reasonable fashion, and tell your partner "Off Belay". Speed and efficiency is an important part of safe climbing. It can mean the difference between getting down before dark or before weather sets in, and an unpleasant epic.

Climbers have been belaying safely off less-than-perfect anchors since the beginning of roped climbing. Use your judgment when building an anchor, but above all, don't waste time building a Cadillac anchor when a Chevy will do.

Ron Olsen wrote:Climbers have been belaying safely off less-than-perfect anchors since the beginning of roped climbing. Use your judgment when building an anchor, but above all, don't waste time building a Cadillac anchor when a Chevy will do.

Good reality check. For me, the main criteria for an anchor is, "is it good enough?" Most of the time, three well-placed pieces and an Alpine Equalizer is good enough. And it's quick to set up and take down, which is usually an important consideration.

JL

Understood.

It seems from reading the replies in this thread that I am the only climber relatively new to trad climbing on these boards (or just the only one willing to ask questions where the answers are perceived as common knowledge).

While much of this information may be second nature (or unnecessary) to many of you, I am still trying to find out what works for me and what works best for the routes that I climb, and the situations I am likely to encounter as I start pushing the grades.

Personally, I have been less than impressed with the standard "cordelette" anchor (blasphemy!), and feel there are other effective methods of rigging anchors that don't require much more gear or time to setup...the equalette being one of them.

Chockula out.

Kevin Craig wrote:If you do a force analysis, I'll be you'd find that the red and yellow triangles experience the same forces as in the classic ADT set-up.

Kevin, if you do force analysis of the ADT you find this: Let alpha_i be the i-th angle of the triangle. Let alpha_1, in particular, be the angle at the vertex where the load is applied. As long as alpha_1 is the smallest angle, the force applied to each anchor is less than the load. This does not mean that the ADT is a good idea in general, because the ratio of the forces goes from 1/(2 cos(alpha_1/2)) to sqrt((1+cos alpha_j)/(1+cos alpha_1)), for j=2,3. However, in the mooselette there are two triangles and the angle at the power point is small, which means that each outside anchor takes a bit less than half the load.

P.S. In the analysis I have assumed no friction in the biners.

P.P.S. I still have that gear of yours.