Anchor setups

I’m fairly new to climbing but I’ve read up a fair amount and taken a class at my local gym in regards to anchor building. Would it be possible to run this set up with a quad clipped into the figure eights? They may have to be adjusted but the end result would be a dynamically equalized anchor that could extend far enough to get over the edge. I can’t see why this set up wouldn’t work but like I said, I’m no expert. I just like the freedom dynamic equalizing anchors provide, probably overkill but why not. Any reason this isn’t viable? And yes the clove hitch would be closed or replaced by another bowline with a stopper.

By adding the quad to this setup you are actually introducing more links in the chain that can go wrong. Use this as is. Learning to adjust it for length and to tie these knots regularly is well worth it. There is no reason to stress about imperfect equalization when top roping. Just be sure every thing is redundant and strong in all directions (has directional stability).

And ditch the quad.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: By adding the quad to this setup you are actually introducing more links in the chain that can go wrong. Use this as is. Learning to adjust it for length and to tie these knots regularly is well worth it. There is no reason to stress imperfect equalization when top roping. Just be sure every thing is redundant.

And ditch the quad. 

+1

Cabot Steward wrote: Your plan seems solid.  I like the addition to the quad because instead have one point that the edge could cut through (the rope) you have at least 2 points.  Just make sure the rock and tree your using are solid.

He already has 2 rope strands and even edge protection. The quad adds nothing other than more to go wrong.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

He already has 2 rope strands and even edge protection. The quad adds nothing other than more to go wrong.

I agree there are added points that could fail which is not ideal. Is there any way you know of to extend a top rope anchor like this but to have dynamic equalization? That’s really the main thing I am looking for, if I could do it with less points I’m happy with that. This just seemed solid enough but I’m definitely open to ideas.

MICU Murse wrote:

I agree there are added points that could fail which is not ideal. Is there any way you know of to extend a top rope anchor like this but to have dynamic equalization? That’s really the main thing I am looking for, if I could do it with less points I’m happy with that. This just seemed solid enough but I’m definitely open to ideas.

You don't need it on a Top Rope. 

1. Equalization is a myth.

2. If one anchor fails (your bad) then the fall onto the other anchor is a Fall Factor virtually nothing event (ie like 1 foot with 60' of rope out, barely more than body weight). Any kind of "load sharing" by anchors is inconsequential for top roping and most climbing applications. Get strong placements, any one of which you have total confidence in.

3. Get strong anchors and tie yourself to them in a redundant fashion. That is what you need to concentrate on first and really, is your only concern. All the rest is trying to sell you more accessory sling, more lockers than you can ever need and get 500 words of functionally advertising/sales copy published in the latest Climbing Mag in a "how to buy a buncha crap you don't need" how to article.

You've got a padded edge, two bombproof independent anchors, two independent figure-eight loops for the power point.  We could split theoretical hairs about load distribution (I refuse to use the E-word), but there is nothing of practical value a quad could possibly add to this setup.

MICU Murse wrote:

I agree there are added points that could fail which is not ideal. Is there any way you know of to extend a top rope anchor like this but to have dynamic equalization? That’s really the main thing I am looking for, if I could do it with less points I’m happy with that. This just seemed solid enough but I’m definitely open to ideas.

Dynamic equalisation is overrated and often misunderstood.  I could go into further explanation but it really has been done to death.

Quick summary: Equalisation, let alone dynamic equalisation can only be moderately achieve at best.  Quads and other such things funky 'innovations' often just over complicating things.  Combining them with an already otherwise good anchor IS definitely over complicating things.

Even if all the force is just on one leg of that anchor and the other leg as a close backup. I'd TR on it.

I always TR off a single locker hanging freely because, you know, nothing could ever go wrong.

From the picture that tree looks perfectly fine and the rock sling is pointless. I would just top rope directly from the single tree. People do it all the time as long as it isn't a tiny tree and that picture makes it look massive. If that 1 ft wide tree was to fail at the base your probably going to die because likely the top of the cliff just collapsed on you.

As Harumpfster Boondoggle said get rid of the quad it just makes things unnecessarily complex for no real benefit.

So what I’m hearing is the quad is just an extra link in the chain to fail and I should just go with the tried and true BHK or some like knot for my master point and leave well enough alone. I agree that perfect dynamic equalization is more hypothetical but still something to strive for. Force vectors in swinging though can be pretty extreme on static anchors but I won’t stress myself out too much and just climb with some sense. I still would like to come up with some hybrid system that lets me drop an equalizing (or dynamic load distributing depending on your verbiage preference), but until I’m more practiced with the basics I will hold off on reinventing the wheel. Thanks for the advice all. Anybody get any ideas shoot me a comment on here, I would definitely like to hear it.

It’s not a verbiage issue.  It’s a Physics issue.  “Equalization” is a myth and “dynamic equalization” is worse at doing that.

https://americanalpineclub.org/resources-blog/2017/7/31/anchors

MICU Murse wrote: So what I’m hearing is the quad is just an extra link in the chain to fail and I should just go with the tried and true BHK or some like knot for my master point and leave well enough alone. I agree that perfect dynamic equalization is more hypothetical but still something to strive for. Force vectors in swinging though can be pretty extreme on static anchors but I won’t stress myself out too much and just climb with some sense. I still would like to come up with some hybrid system that lets me drop an equalizing (or dynamic load distributing depending on your verbiage preference), but until I’m more practiced with the basics I will hold off on reinventing the wheel. Thanks for the advice all. Anybody get any ideas shoot me a comment on here, I would definitely like to hear it.

K.I.S.S.

MICU Murse wrote: So what I’m hearing is the quad is just an extra link in the chain to fail and I should just go with the tried and true BHK or some like knot for my master point and leave well enough alone. I agree that perfect dynamic equalization is more hypothetical but still something to strive for. Force vectors in swinging though can be pretty extreme on static anchors but I won’t stress myself out too much and just climb with some sense. I still would like to come up with some hybrid system that lets me drop an equalizing (or dynamic load distributing depending on your verbiage preference), but until I’m more practiced with the basics I will hold off on reinventing the wheel. Thanks for the advice all. Anybody get any ideas shoot me a comment on here, I would definitely like to hear it.

Not trying to beat you up in anyway, but the forces are inconsequential in a TR situation.

Climbing anchors that you should  be using should be able to individually withstand a Fall Factor 2 event, something far in excess of anything generated in a TR fall.

MICU Murse wrote:

I’m fairly new to climbing but I’ve read up a fair amount and taken a class at my local gym in regards to anchor building. Would it be possible to run this set up with a quad clipped into the figure eights? They may have to be adjusted but the end result would be a dynamically equalized anchor that could extend far enough to get over the edge. I can’t see why this set up wouldn’t work but like I said, I’m no expert. I just like the freedom dynamic equalizing anchors provide, probably overkill but why not. Any reason this isn’t viable? And yes the clove hitch would be closed or replaced by another bowline with a stopper.

You’re good with this without the added quad as others have advised. Look up the Devils lake cluster thread for examples of how to NOT build TR  anchors. Don’t over think it; check off the key principles and keep it as simple as possible. IMO that’s the key to building good anchors. Over engineering only opens the door to more possible fail points. 

Beyond TR; simple = speed/efficiency which results in a safe return.
 The best anchor builders I’ve seen are those that can make an anchor quickly that’s strong, redundant, has almost zero shock load potential, and utilizes gear they already have. 

Robert Michael wrote: I always TR off a single locker hanging freely because, you know, nothing could ever go wrong.

Your sarcasm is my reality. In many instances I have done exactly this. If the chance of my biner breaking or coming undone is .05% and I double up the biner I have effectively made it .025% (1:2000 to 1:4000). We do the same thing when we place the first piece of gear or clip the first bolt, among other numerous times, the failure of any one thing causes you to deck/crater. 

Use more, use less its all proprietary.

Edit: NVM beginners forum 

BrokenChairs BrettC wrote:

You’re good with this without the added quad as others have advised. Look up the Devils lake cluster thread for examples of how to NOT build TR  anchors. Don’t over think it; check off the key principles and keep it as simple as possible. IMO that’s the key to building good anchors. Over engineering only opens the door to more possible fail points. 

Beyond TR; simple = speed/efficiency which results in a safe return.
 The best anchor builders I’ve seen are those that can make an anchor quickly that’s strong, redundant, has almost zero shock load potential, and utilizes gear they already have. 

Also, as you are perusing that horror show, keep in mind: none of those riggings led to an accident.  Makes it a lot easier to avoid overthinking it and to KISS as Tradiban recommended above.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Not trying to beat you up in anyway, but the forces are inconsequential in a TR situation.

Climbing anchors that you should  be using should be able to individually withstand a Fall Factor 2 event, something far in excess of anything generated in a TR fall.

No offense taken at all, this was exactly the advice I was looking for. I appreciate the suggestions.

Ted Pinson wrote:

Also, as you are perusing that horror show, keep in mind: none of those riggings led to an accident.  Makes it a lot easier to avoid overthinking it and to KISS as Tradiban recommended above.

horror show??  Like what's going on at the DL? 

I'm saying that if true equalization is impossible that would mean that zero shock load is impossible (SERNE. basically the ENE is impossible, the only things you can fully control is that the anchor is strong/secure, redundant and multi directional. The acronym should be something that includes the words Strong, Redundant, Multi Directional.  The ENE is irrelevant.).  If you don't equalize then you will "shock load" the main piece.  The key to avoiding anchor failure is making sure you have solid pieces; that is the key, it's so simple people forget.  set solid pieces (you'd trust one on it's own) and connect them in a clean efficient way. It's that simple.

see RGold's golden comment above. (Not throwing him into by bus just saying I agree with what he said)

How to set a TR:

1. Set one piece of gear, tie webbing (or rope) to it and then a masterpoint off the edge with a carabineer, clip climbing rope to master point and toss the rope.

2. Tie second master point on webbing and clip to the climbing rope with a second biner, pull back to a second piece of gear and tie off (pro tip: measure webbing to back of the biner, pinch there and tie your overhand, the length of the biner is roughly the length of webbing an over hand knot takes up).

3. Repeat step 2 to as many pieces of gear as you want, clipping your new masterpoint to your two current biners.

You never should have to lean over the edge this way, if you need to get to your masterpoint just pull it up.
Done.