Quad anchor masterpoints

Parker Wrozek wrote:

It really has nothing to do with NIAD, come on. building slow anchors is the difference between people being caught in a lightning storm and not. it you can speed it up great. 

It has everything to do with it if we are going to consider what is ultimately efficient.

Keep in mind what I am talking about is not record speed ascents but standard competence to move efficiency.

NIAD (merely within 24hrs) is now considered what any truly competent and fit party of two should be doing. All it takes is solid 5.11 trad ability and efficiency.

Regardless, the point is rather than newbies building anchors with cordellettes and quads (which of course is perfectly fine otherwise other than slow) they should first be learning to build them with the rope, this will pay off in efficiency down the road.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

It has everything to do with it if we are going to consider what is ultimately efficient.

Keep in mind what I am talking about is not record speed ascents but standard competence to move efficiency.

NIAD (merely within 24hrs) is now considered what any truly competent and fit party of two should be doing. All it takes is solid 5.11 trad ability and efficiency.

Regardless, the point is rather than newbies building anchors with cordellettes and quads (which of course is perfectly fine otherwise other than slow) they should first be learning to build them with the rope, this will pay off in efficiency down the road.

Here's the thing about quads and cordlettes and such. They keep the newbie clusterfucks separate from the main rope. I say that as someone who only in the last couple years became adequately fluent at making anchors with the rope. I'm not too proud to say that I've puzzled and sworn a lot while learning to make proper anchors. I think I was safer doing that while separately on-belay with a solid piece. Keep It Simple Stupid means different things depending on your basic level of competence. What's simple for me now wasn't then.

Señor Arroz wrote:

Here's the thing about quads and cordlettes and such. They keep the newbie clusterfucks separate from the main rope. I say that as someone who only in the last couple years became adequately fluent at making anchors with the rope. I'm not too proud to say that I've puzzled and sworn a lot while learning to make proper anchors. I think I was safer doing that while separately on-belay with a solid piece. Keep It Simple Stupid means different things depending on your basic level of competence. What's simple for me now wasn't then.

No problem man. My problem is with others that pass off their newbie opinions as gospel around here.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: No problem man. My problem is with others that pass off their newbie opinions as gospel around here.

Dental floss anchors are all the rage now. Tied in with cloves. 

Thomas Young wrote: For quad anchors, for SERENE principle, why don't you use two strands for one carabiner and the other two for the other carabiner for the master point? i'm not seeing the redundancy unless a knot fails but then wouldn't it fail either way then? Isn't 2 and 2 safer then 3 and 1? or 2 clipped 2 not?

Or is it because it creates wear where the to carabiners meet on the 4 strands? 

IThe redundancy comes from either of the two strands that you clip into.

By the way, a quadralette is not SERENE.  If one bolt failed the anchor would Exttend which doesn't meet the No Extension part of SERENE.

John Wilder wrote:

A quad does not extend if a bolt fails.

Yes it does.  Please explain to me how it doesn't.  

rockklimber wrote:

Yes it does.  Please explain to me how it doesn't.  

The center of gravity shifts but it doesn't extend. That's the entire point of a quad. 

Señor Arroz wrote:

The center of gravity shifts but it doesn't extend. That's the entire point of a quad. 

Of course it extends until it gets arrested by one of the knots that limits the extension.

The point of the quad is to allow the master point to shift position so that you can equalize the load between the two top anchor points.  This movement is allowed because there is slack between the knots that limit (but do not elminiate) the amount of extension.  If there is a foot between knots and the loaded biner is in the exact middle of the two knots.  If one bolt fails, the master point will extend roughly 6 inches.  How can it not extend?  This is basic geometry.

John Wilder wrote:

Extension is normally considered to be in the vein of what happens if an arm on the sliding X fails- a significant distance.

 I don't consider 6" to be extension- especially considering the quad (and cordlette) are designed to 'limit extension' with the knots they use. Most quads I've seen have a master point about 6-8" across, so you're talking a 3-4" drop,about the same as a regular cordlette with a healthy master point. 

This^.

Even a basic sport anchor of two quickdraws on bolts "extends" somewhat if one of the bolts fails. But that's not the meaning of "Extension" in the SERENE acronym. Three or four inches of slack being inserted into a system is not a significant amount of shock on the other bolt. 

rockklimber wrote:

Of course it extends until it gets arrested by one of the knots that limits the extension.

Put differently, you could be right on technicality but it's totally meaningless in practice. Sort of like wearing two helmets being safer than just one.

Señor Arroz wrote:

This^.

Even a basic sport anchor of two quickdraws on bolts "extends" somewhat if one of the bolts fails. But that's not the meaning of "Extension" in the SERENE acronym. Three or four inches of slack being inserted into a system is not a significant amount of shock on the other bolt. 

Actually that is the meaning of Extension in the SERENE acrynym.  You are just minimizing (but not elminiating) the extension by inserting knots.  

Yeah, using two draws on a bolted anchor could have a very slight extension should one fall.  But it is significantly less than with a quad.

rockklimber wrote:

The difference would be that a quadralette actually does not eliminate extension and wearing two helmets is a ludicrous analogy.  

So, let's turn this around: Name a masterpoint system that does not move toward the climber at all when 1/2 of its anchor pieces fail. Also, name a single instance in which the "extension" you refer to of a quad on a bolted anchor resulted in any meaningful consequence.

If you're worried about a bolt failing, then a tied masterpoint is the better option.  I'm not a physicist or anything but if a bolt fails on a regular masterpoint, there's probably some added force initially when the force transfers from 2 bolts to 1, but it's probably less than what occurs in a masterpoint with "3-4" drop" with a sudden stop when your biner(s) hit the knot.  

And if you're not worried about a bolt failing, then why do you need a quad?  Its whole purpose is to distribute a load more evenly.  On 2 bolts.  Where are all these anchors with one sketch bolt- let alone two that would necessitate "equalization"?  Either way, if you're going to bring up a dedicated piece of cord that serves only one purpose, a regular old vanilla overhand or eight on a bight works just fine and in the scenario of a bolt failing, which is astronomically rare, a regular knotted masterpoint probably produces less force.  

Do what you want.  You wanna bring up a bunch of extra shit that's unneeded and can be accomplished with something else, knock yourself out.  But this prevalence of quads- especially in non-guiding scenarios in two man climbing teams is puzzling.  So is the adamant defense of quads and the reasons why people say they use them.  It's like some weird cult following.

Señor Arroz wrote:

So, let's turn this around: Name a masterpoint system that does not move toward the climber at all when 1/2 of its anchor pieces fail. Also, name a single instance in which the "extension" you refer to of a quad on a bolted anchor resulted in any meaningful consequence.

Your wording is quite different than extension and shock loading.

In a simple 2 bolt anchor with a figure eight knot tied to make a master point, if one bolt failed, the master point would pendulum slightly to one side, would not extend and would not shock load the other bolt.  

The OPs question had to do with Extension and with a quadralette on two bolts, if one bolt failed, the master point would extend and shock load the remaining bolt.  If it is a bomber bolt and the load limiting knots were pretty close together then the amount of shock load may be minimal.  But that is making assumptions that the bolt is bomber, the knots are pretty close together and the anchor builder has enough experience and knowledge to be able to make those judgements.

rockklimber wrote: Your wording is quite different than extension and shock loading.

In a simple 2 bolt anchor with a figure eight knot tied to make a master point, if one bolt failed, the master point would pendulum slightly to one side, would not extend and would not shock load the other bolt.  

The OPs question had to do with Extension and with a quadralette on two bolts, if one bolt failed, the master point would extend and shock load the remaining bolt.  If it is a bomber bolt and the load limiting knots were pretty close together then the amount of shock load may be minimal.  But that is making assumptions that the bolt is bomber, the knots are pretty close together and the anchor builder has enough experience and knowledge to be able to make those judgements.

I agree, but I'm still kind of baffled as to why the "quad" is so popular, and I question whether or not it really is.  I don't see that many people using one at least as not as many as I would think given how much attention it gets.  And if it is common, why?  Do people carry it around in the off chance they do find one or two bad bolts at an anchor?  Seems a bit paranoid.

Gumbies abound....because they think climbing safety is macrame based.

Its not. Its strength of placement based, primarily.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: Gumbies abound....because they think climbing safety is macrame based.

Its not. Its strength of placement based, primarily.

It's not just gumbies.  I know you take any chance you can to tout your old school roots and how superior you are to all "gumbies", but I've seen guides with decades of experience teach clients this anchor.  John, if you knocked some of that chip off your shoulder and focused more on educating "gumbies" instead of feeding your ego, you could be quite a valuable source of information.

Ever watch an "old school" guy belay on an overhanging sport route?  It's kind of fun in a morbid way- watching the climber get bashed into the wall over and over again because "back in my day, there weren't no such thing as this ninny SOFT CATCH BULLSHIT!"

It goes both ways.  You're just biased.

John Wilder wrote:

Talk about whiplash. You asked whether it was popular and why. I answered.

 I'm well aware that lots of guides teach the quad, and I've also said above that it's a perfectly acceptable way to build an anchor. Ive also said it isn't a better anchoring method than other ways. 

Haha, not you man.  I was referring to Harumpster.  His name is John as well.  My apologies for the confusion.

don'tchuffonme wrote:

It's not just gumbies.  I know you take any chance you can to tout your old school roots and how superior you are to all "gumbies", but I've seen guides with decades of experience teach clients this anchor.  John, if you knocked some of that chip off your shoulder and focused more on educating "gumbies" instead of feeding your ego, you could be quite a valuable source of information.

Ever watch an "old school" guy belay on an overhanging sport route?  It's kind of fun in a morbid way- watching the climber get bashed into the wall over and over again because "back in my day, there weren't no such thing as this ninny SOFT CATCH BULLSHIT!"

It goes both ways.  You're just biased.

ROFL don't get triggered braj. Ain't no chip. Its straight dope.

I also have plenty of Sport Climbing roots too, chuffie, fwiw.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: ROFL don't get triggered braj. Ain't no chip. Its straight dope.

I also have plenty of Sport Climbing roots too, chuffie, fwiw.

I'm not triggered.  You're the one that's always "gumby this and gumby that".  Any time someone disagrees with you, you throw out the gumby card.  And I'm not remotely the only person to see this or to state it.  For the record, I listen to you.  I don't just write you off, and that's because of your experience and your breadth of knowledge.  But to sit here and say that you're not biased or that there isn't a connotation of derision to a lot of the things you say is just not true.