Vertically staggered anchors

Jim Titt wrote:

When the top bolt starts to show dangerous wear you just add a quicklink and ring but on a not very popular route a 12mm thick bolt lasts a long time. A lot depends if it´s going to be a route done maybe 50 times a year or a gang-banged top-ropers 5.8.

My local area you just get one bolt anyway and we survive.

In the Rockies/front range of the US as I'm sure it is in other areas its bad form to top rope directly through the anchors.  You top rope through your own gear, and only lower the last person down through the permanent anchor.  In some areas its even bad form to lower anyone through the permanent anchors; you top rope through your own gear and the last person rappels.  This is more desert/sandstone areas where hardware gets cut quickly.

I think understanding that would drive you to favor different anchor arrangements. 

Mike Slavens wrote:

In the Rockies/front range of the US as I'm sure it is in other areas its bad form to top rope directly through the anchors.  You top rope through your own gear, and only lower the last person down through the permanent anchor.  In some areas its even bad form to lower anyone through the permanent anchors; you top rope through your own gear and the last person rappels.  This is more desert/sandstone areas where hardware gets cut quickly.

I think understanding that would drive you to favor different anchor arrangements. 

I´ve a reasonable understanding of the benefits of the different anchor systems and why some are more favoured by some climbers in some situations.

Jim Titt wrote:

I´ve a reasonable understanding of the benefits of the different anchor systems and why some are more favoured by some climbers in some situations.

Your gift for understatement is exceeded only by your restraint, sir. 

This is a very entertaining thread.

My favorite part was when someone mansplained Jim Titt. 

climbing friend,

do you even climb?

I am in full support of this type of anchor. It is no less safe than side by side, and it actually unkinks your rope. Thanks TSpiegelberg.

What's all this fuss about lowering?  Lowering on your rope is aid.  Either downclimb or topout you pansies.

Just FYI, you do have to replace the rings in a horizontal anchor more often than every 10 years (in the above discussion). The reason for this is how they are worn. A side by side anchor rubs the ring unevenly making one side sharp. In the very limited chance that a bolt fails, the other one is there to catch, but if it is worn unevenly it could actually cut the rope. Cutting the rope is a bad thing. 

Arco

Brian in SLC wrote:

Arco

You're trusting your life to a single ring. Rings which have, in the past, been subject to manufacturing errors with the welding which caused failure under bodyweight. I understand the limitations of redundancy, and the fact that many things aren't really redundant in climbing, but there are plenty of examples out there of manufacturing errors that could kill people. I like redundancy when it is easily available, especially when I'm dealing something that I may not understand well enough to inspect for manufacturing errors. 

That ring is the only part of that whole anchor system that receives wear from dirty or sandy ropes, a flawed design.

eli poss wrote:

You're trusting your life to a single ring. Rings which have, in the past, been subject to manufacturing errors with the welding which caused failure under bodyweight.

When? I am not aware of any incident involving the failure of one of those rings in the States.

eli poss wrote:

You're trusting your life to a single ring. Rings which have, in the past, been subject to manufacturing errors with the welding which caused failure under bodyweight. I understand the limitations of redundancy, and the fact that many things aren't really redundant in climbing, but there are plenty of examples out there of manufacturing errors that could kill people. I like redundancy when it is easily available, especially when I'm dealing something that I may not understand well enough to inspect for manufacturing errors. 

It´s impossible to make a welding error on a ring of that size that would fail under bodyweight, even unwelded they hold  considerably more. Just the tack weld we use to keep them flat before the main welding puts a 10mm ring over 50kN.

20 kN wrote:

When? I am not aware of any incident involving the failure of one of those rings in the States.

I´ve never heard of one anywhere in the world.

Jim Titt wrote:

I´ve never heard of one anywhere in the world.

Perhaps I have the details wrong but I seem to recall some kind of welding error that resulted in bodyweight failure from some anchor sold to a climbing wall in Europe. I think it was some kind of anchor like this

eli poss wrote:

Perhaps I have the details wrong but I seem to recall some kind of welding error that resulted in bodyweight failure from some anchor sold to a climbing wall in Europe. I think it was some kind of anchor like this

 

That was an issue of SCC and it occurred on the chain, not the rings. It also only occurred in one city and under I think only one or two examples. I am not aware of any repeated incidents in the USA. Further, the whole incident was strange and the investigating report contains questionable claims.

http://www.alpenverein.de/chameleon/public/d73c4b0e-7ede-727f-7b53-dbe4fa2f9870/Safety-notification-FIXE-Top-Chain-Anchors_26292.pdf

You're right, that was corrosion, so not a good example. Still, I am wary of manufacturer errors, especially ones that may not be readily noticeable to the untrained eye. I don't really know what potential errors are possible with metal goods and welding and consequently I don't have a way of verifying that a particular piece of fixed hardware meets QC standards, other than whipping on it of course. I would suspect many other climbers are in the same boat. Perhaps I'm just being one of those stupid american climbers who is stuck is his own ways, but I like to have redundancy in the rings/quicklinks/biners through which I lower.

eli poss wrote:

Perhaps I have the details wrong but I seem to recall some kind of welding error that resulted in bodyweight failure from some anchor sold to a climbing wall in Europe. I think it was some kind of anchor like this

 

The top link of one of the chains developed corrosion beside the weld AND a crack on the other side of the link. What factors caused the weld corrosion are unknown though as the material was no known grade of stainless steel and has been observed elsewhere we are not suprised. What caused the cracking the other side is also unknown though probably residial stress from re-bending the link to fit it in the hanger. since this method of construction has been used by many manufacturers for decades without problems we can only speculate.

All of which is very far from saying rings fail due to welding errors.

eli poss wrote:

You're right, that was corrosion, so not a good example. Still, I am wary of manufacturer errors, especially ones that may not be readily noticeable to the untrained eye. I don't really know what potential errors are possible with metal goods and welding and consequently I don't have a way of verifying that a particular piece of fixed hardware meets QC standards, other than whipping on it of course. I would suspect many other climbers are in the same boat. Perhaps I'm just being one of those stupid american climbers who is stuck is his own ways, but I like to have redundancy in the rings/quicklinks/biners through which I lower.

Well, the anchor above is not designed for single pitch routes to lower off. They are designed as belay stations and rap stations where you're not lowering off of them. Using one to lower off would not be wise as there is no way to replace the ring, you would need to replace the entire anchor or add a quicklink in its place. I have simulrappelled off tons of those anchors with one ring without a second thought. Some of the most classic climbs in the US have those anchors on them and they get used daily. As Jim said, even if those rings are not welded at all they still hold way more than you would ever put on them just by rapping. Further, they are pretty hard to mess up. They are basically just a piece of round stock that's bent into a circle and then welded. You could easily make them yourself with access to the right equipment. The only way I could see one of those rings failing catastrophically is by SCC which doesn’t apply to most inland areas.