Fancy Schmancy Anchors

Thought I’d share some fancy schmancy anchors I was messing around with at Earth Treks the other day.

This variation of the equalette is pretty neat. It is based on the detail on page 99 of Soccorso Su Roccia Tecniche Di Base ( codice-3.org/PDF/manuale%20…). There are a bunch of other anchors from this publication I want to get acquainted with at some point.

Another solid publication is SAR3 Simple Anchors Made From Rope by Thomas Evans app.box.com/s/ztwhke6f5f2a0….

IIRC, the last three are from a CMC Rescue publication where they used multiple load cells to measure the proportion of the load distributed to each leg of various load-distributing anchors.

Truth be told, I prefer load-sharing anchors due to the risk of shock loading a load-distributing anchor if a cam blows. Would I actually use these anchors over a cordelette or quad – perhaps not, but you never know.

Way too much macrame for me. YMMV. 

The the ones at the bottom look mildly dangerous to me. Especially the last one, given the large amount of extension if one bolt fails. In all three, the rope/sling is not redundant. The top one looked ok to me but complicated.

To note, the CMC publication stated that none of the anchor configurations did well at load-sharing and in fact, when 1 anchor point failed they developed high max arrest forces with poor equalization (keep in mind these were intended to be load-distributing anchors).

Coupled with the fact that they are NOT redundant and simply meant to serve a purpose in a equalization test, YGD. Don't use these.

Edit: Here's the CMC publication itrsonline.org/PapersFolder…

But why?

K.I.S.S.

The first looks interesting but jeeze so many knots. 

Chase G wrote: To note, the CMC publication stated that none of the anchor configurations did well at load-sharing and in fact, when 1 anchor point failed they developed high max arrest forces with poor equalization (keep in mind these were intended to be load-distributing anchors).

Coupled with the fact that they are NOT redundant and simply meant to serve a purpose in a equalization test, YGD. Don't use these.

As well as realizing that equalization is a myth, esp with more than two pieces. 

What happened to K.I.S.S.?

Are you joking?? Those are the worst anchors I've ever seen.

does your gym not have some normal lower offs, maybe something rapped around the top to give more friction? It's also tough to tell from the angle but your master point looks very low to the ground, a little rope stretch and voila groundfall, just saying...

Adrienne DiRosario wrote: But why?

"Get strong placements and tie yourself to them."

--Jim Titt

All the rest is bullshit.

If you took one big figure 8 on a bight and clipped it into all 3 bolts you would be done.

Or 3 individual cloves. Forget about extension or load sharing as it doesn't matter for shit. You either have strong placements or you don't. You cannot load share enough to matter nor is limiting extension really a thing worth worrying about. I mean, I play around with my anchor once done to tidy things up a bit. But that's just for kicks and grins.

As mentioned above, skip all the bullshit and get really good at building fast, sound, simple anchors.   Half of those anchors fail to be redundant despite being on 3 bolts....

HBTHREE wrote: does your gym not have some normal lower offs, maybe something rapped around the top to give more friction? It's also tough to tell from the angle but your master point looks very low to the ground, a little rope stretch and voila groundfall, just saying...

Master point is just above waist level so you're already on the ground  . They have anchor building stations off in the corner at most Earth Treks so you have a spot to practice. They'd flip out if you built an anchor at the top of a climb. 

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: "Get strong placements and tie yourself to them."

--Jim Titt

All the rest is bullshit.

If you took one big figure 8 on a bight and clipped it into all 3 bolts you would be done.

Or 3 individual cloves. Forget about extension or load sharing as it doesn't matter for shit. You either have strong placements or you don't. You cannot load share enough to matter nor is limiting extension really a thing worth worrying about. I mean, I play around with my anchor once done to tidy things up a bit. But that's just for kicks and grins.

Agree.

Better?

There ya go! Fast and good. 

I have 3 rules for anchor building:

• Bomber
• Bomber
• Bomber
• Multidirectional

Oops. My Bad. That’s four rules, but who’s counting. If you don’t make your anchors multidirectional they are worthless for belaying your leader.
Everything else is bullshit.

Thank you Jim Titt for your words of wisdom above. “Make strong placements and tie yourself to them.”

Climb safe,

Malcolm

Michael M wrote:

Agree.

Better?

Yes, but lose the cordellette for bolted anchors. It makes you look like a noob. 

I have no problem with one to haul off of, but for a regular free climbing anchor it looks like you don't understand the quality of your bolts. Tie in with your rope.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Yes, but lose the cordellette for bolted anchors. It makes you look like a noob. 

I have no problem with one to haul off of, but for a regular free climbing anchor it looks like you don't understand the quality of your bolts. Tie in with your rope.

What if you're leading in blocks? Or not swapping leads at all? Cord makes things much easier in that case.

Nope. Just use draws like my picture. doesn't take any more or less time to change over.