Three point anchor - The Saga Continues

Mathias wrote:Eric, how about you do an experiment. Take all that apart and move the cloved ring to some other point in the cord for this little test (because it won't be at the same exact spot for every anchor). Then coil it up as you would have it stored whilst you were climbing. Now time yourself to see how long it takes to get it uncoiled, cloved in, equalized and set. Time yourself doing the same thing with a closed loop cordelette and figure 8, and let us know what times you got. I'm pretty interested.

I'm with you. I'll definitely try it later. I expect it will be much slower than the cordelette if I take out the cloves, so I'll leave them in attached to the biners when I rack it, but I'll randomize the position of them along the cord. What do you think?

Eric Moss wrote: I'm with you. I'll definitely try it later. I expect it will be much slower than the cordelette if I take out the cloves, so I'll leave them in attached to the biners when I rack it, but I'll randomize the position of them along the cord. What do you think?

If that's how you want to carry it between belays, then I say go for it. The goal would be to test both systems as you'd use them on the rock.

It took about 45 seconds to rig the cordelette vs 70 seconds to rig the shitrope.

Luebben presents an enhancement to the cordelette via a three-point sliding x on the legs. This works well, but it adds another 60 seconds to the rigging time. Pictured below:

Sliding x on cordelette

All in all, it seems the shitrope is holding up as a practical device for a paranoid guy like me. The biggest shortcomings so far are that I haven't found a particularly neat way to rack it and I haven't yet found an algorithm for adjusting it optimally.

Cordelette redemption! I just discovered a very easy way to make the three-point cordelette equalize better: when gathering the loops at the bottom, let the loop that runs between the end pieces be shorter than the other two loops. When you tie it all together, that loop will sit higher and will be the only one tensioned by downward force. This makes for a much better equalization.

What do you think?

Eric Moss wrote:Cordelette redemption! I just discovered a very easy way to make the three-point cordelette equalize better: when gathering the loops at the bottom, let the loop that runs between the end pieces be shorter than the other two loops. When you tie it all together, that loop will sit higher and will be the only one tensioned by downward force. This makes for a much better equalization. What do you think?

So... having only ONE LEG under tension is your definition of equalization??

Please find another sport before you hurt someone.

Edit - OK, that picture helps clarify what you're talking about. But I still think you're focusing too much on what you keep calling "better equalization", as if a perfect distribution of load among the legs were the answer to all the problems with a cordelette. The fact is: however you tie it, any masterpoint ***alette is going to become a single-piece-of-gear anchor as soon as the load shifts a couple degrees off the designed line. This brings cascade failure into play.

i hope you are trolling!

I'm not trolling. Here's what it looks like.

A better-equalized cordelette.

Eric Moss wrote:I'm not trolling. Here's what it looks like.

I doubt it.

You doubt what? BTW, I'll post instructions later to clarify.

Eric Moss wrote:You doubt what? BTW, I'll post instructions later to clarify.

I doubt it´s a "better equalized cordlette". With a pre-tightened masterpoint knot to get "equalised" requires millimeter perfect adjustment of the legs, with a normal loose knot there´s no possibility whatsoever to judge the differential take-up inside the knot.

I appreciate your skepticism. There's only one way to know for sure, but I think it's fair to say that this will equalize at least as well as a normal cordelette and I can tell you that this does equalize better at 150 pounds.

Eric, there is no way you can consistently get better results than with the ordinary set up by making utterly random adjustments such as the one you've posted. If the knot is well-tightened, pulling on that short loop will weight all the arms. If the knot is loose, how slack feeds out as it tightens is unpredictable. Even if there was a theoretical correct loop-shortening that we could calculate, the probability that you would hit on the correct value is zero, and the probablility that knot-tightening behavior would move well off the ideal proportions is 100%.

You are on an obsessive and Quixotic quest to nowhere with this. There are many things to learn about climbing. Spend your time on something else.

Eric Moss wrote:I appreciate your skepticism. There's only one way to know for sure, but I think it's fair to say that this will equalize at least as well as a normal cordelette and I can tell you that this does equalize better at 150 pounds.

Well.... I´ve tested well over 600 various forms of equalettes, cordalettes and whatever and probably got the data on 800 in total including blind testing on the rock and measured in the lab. I still doubt you can get better results than randomly tying a knot at the forces involved in belay failure.
How well does your system work in real life i.e when the pieces are NOT perfectly level horizontally? Like vertically orientated.

A cordalette is just a convenient way of tying three pieces together without using the rope and without introducing extension if piece fails, no more and no less. The predictable load distribution is zero.

Good questions. And yes, I'm well-versed in your background. Your feedback is especially valuable to me.

I don't expect that this technique would be appropriate for vertically aligned pieces, but I wouldn't use a tied cordelette in that situation (I would use inline clove hitches).

However, I don't believe either that the pieces need to be horizontally aligned for this technique to help. As long as there is a central piece, I can see this working as tightening of the knot shortens the outer legs more.

I'll post instructions in a couple hours. Would you be interested in testing this?

Okay, here's what I'm looking at:

Step 1 - the cordelette is hung and we see three loops hanging down. The larger bottom loop is the one that runs between the outer points. This is the key loop for this technique.

Step 2 - we gather the loops. The key loop is made higher than the other loops.

Step 3 - we tie the cordelette. Notice that the key loop is still higher than the other two. We clip through all 3 loops, but tension goes to only the key loop.

AHHHHHH!

I'm sorry, but I don't worship at the altar of rgold and Jim Titt; I think for myself. What you are referring to is a far cry from what I would call proof. Of course, I haven't proven anything either, but it absolutely astonishing to me, the level of rudeness toward attempts at innovation. You should be ashamed.

Eric Moss wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't worship at the altar of rgold and Jim Titt; I think for myself. What you are referring to is a far cry from what I would call proof. Of course, I haven't proven anything either, but it absolutely astonishing to me, the level of rudeness toward attempts at innovation. You should be ashamed.

Jim's hundreds of tests don't count for anything more than your conjecture? Come back to us when you have time domain data from load cells on each arm as your knot "equalizes" under load.

Eric Moss, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on wheel technology. Do you have any improvements you would make over the traditional round shape?

Gunkiemike wrote: Jim's hundreds of tests don't count for anything more than your conjecture? Come back to us when you have time domain data from load cells on each arm as your knot "equalizes" under load.

When did Jim test this particular configuration, smart guy?