Stainless Steel Lower Off Biners?

Noyce observation, Ken!  I stand corrected, as well as educated.  They're steel, but not necessarily stainless.  These bad boys are all over Smith Rock, without a hint of rust, that I've noticed.  But, I'll start looking at them with a closer eye now.  Thanks!

Dave McRae wrote: Noyce observation, Ken!  I stand corrected, as well as educated.  They're steel, but not necessarily stainless.  These bad boys are all over Smith Rock, without a hint of rust, that I've noticed.  But, I'll start looking at them with a closer eye now.  Thanks!

Yeah, smith is a pretty dry climate, and they are plated, so most likely it'll take a long time before you start to see rust.  It'll probably either start in the rope groove if a route sits for a long time without having a rope run through it (not very likely) or around the keeper pin where water gets trapped in the hole.

So, I ordered the Team Tough 10mm Lower Offs, and set of Pig Tails. Overall, the Pig Tails win. They're a dollar or so cheaper, and they look like they'd last forever. They are 10mm SS, and I can't imagine them ever wearing out through over usage. Two downsides to these: One, is that the orientation of the hanging direction means you have to put them directly on the hanger/glue-in, or have an even number of quick links. In my mind, this mainly means that I have to start thinking about anchor bolt spacing to accomadate the pigtail size hanging directly off the hanger. The pig tails are just barely longer than a standard 3/8s quicklink, so the anchor bolt spacing would either be slightly closer or slightly further than my normal 2 quick link setup. Having two quick links plus the pig tails seems wasteful and expensive, so I'll probably start making my bolts barely closer. This way, the pigtails still have room to flip sideways and not be touching. The anchor that I installed them on ended up being perfect. The spacing was about 9" apart, and putting them directly on the glue-in, they were about 1" apart when the rope was taut, so it worked out almost perfect. Even with that small gap, the large surface area the rope is running over means no rope twisting. The second issue, it's an open system. To be fair, I have full faith in this open system. It would take the poles shifting, and the earth getting hit by a moon sized asteroid at the same time to knock the rope out. If that happens, maybe flying hundreds of feet through the air would be the coolest way to go. One consideration, if you install vertical anchors, these may not be the best in that setup, although I'm no pig tail expert. 

As for the traditional Lower Offs, I got the 10mm instead of 12, and feel like these could wear out over a long period on an extremely popular route from rope wear. If you want a longer term plan, one that will likely last as long as the glue-in it's on, pay the extra for the 12mm version.  That being said, I'll probably continue to buy the 10mm because they're going to be there for decades on the routes that I'm equipping, and their size is really compact and they're pretty light weight, especially compared to the pig tails. That's the first plus side to these. The second is that you can install them on a one quick link setup and they will hang correctly. The only downside is they're a little more expensive. As for the function, the wire gates are extremely durable and large. The action is a little tough at first, so before installing, open them a few dozen times so your FAer doesn't whip at the chains trying to get the rope in. The captive eye is big, so any 3/8 or 1/2" size quick link will work. These things are top notch!

The quality and price of Team Tough products means I probably wont install any more 5 piece bolts. It's just too close now to rationalize. Plus, not destroying my fingers on a slip up tightening a bolt down will not be missed. Luckily it's only happened once, but I'm still ptsding.  Team Tough and Bolt Products are absolutely killing it. I'll be installing some Twist bolts soon and I'll put up my feedback. I've already got some in hand, and they look incredible! Thanks for all you're hard work, Jim and Dave. 

Ma Ja wrote: One consideration, if you install vertical anchors, these may not be the best in that setup, although I'm no pig tail expert.

I've installed the pig tails on a vertical setup by just having both bolts connected to 1 pig tail which seems good enough to me. With the 15kN bend strength and no moving parts, I feel comfortable enough using just one pig tail.

I'm not sure how it would work to have 2 pig tails on vertically offset bolts, but you could just have 1 pigtail on the top bolt and then a regular ole biner on the lower bolt like this (substitute pigtail for mussy)

eli poss wrote:

I've installed the pig tails on a vertical setup by just having both bolts connected to 1 pig tail which seems good enough to me. With the 15kN bend strength and no moving parts, I feel comfortable enough using just one pig tail.

I'm not sure how it would work to have 2 pig tails on vertically offset bolts, but you could just have 1 pigtail on the top bolt and then a regular ole biner on the lower bolt like this (substitute pigtail for mussy)

I also have been using one Pigtail on vertically aligned anchors connected by chain. I have had no issues so far but getting the chain the right length is kind of a pain and I do like the idea of redundancy that the one pigtail doesn't quite provide. I am switching my set up to a modified version of the above set up. The plan is to put a pigstail on the top bolt (for this set up I am using twist bolts) and use the set up in the picture below for the lower bolt.

I have yet to field test this set up but on paper it seems to check a lot of boxes. 

In Europe I've seen vertical anchors where the hangers are connected by a chain, then the main connection point (pigtail in your case) hangs on the lower one.  The chain usually isn't taut.  Of course you lose redundancy on the hanger.

Bobby Hutton wrote:

I also have been using one Pigtail on vertically aligned anchors connected by chain. I have had no issues so far but getting the chain the right length is kind of a pain and I do like the idea of redundancy that the one pigtail doesn't quite provide. I am switching my set up to a modified version of the above set up. The plan is to put a pigstail on the top bolt (for this set up I am using twist bolts) and use the set up in the picture below for the lower bolt.

Jim Titt has been kind enough to fabricate these for me from using the 10mm captive eye carabiner they sell. I have yet to field test this set up but on paper it seems to check a lot of boxes. 

That's a cool setup. Never thought about Lower Offs in the side ways orientation. 

Side note. I thought the point of verticle anchors was to make sure one anchor took all the weight and the second was to act as a backup. What's the point of an equalized verticle anchor, unless the rock dictates the placements? Adding the single pigtail off of the top bolt, and linking together the bolts with chain, like you said, seems like the best bet. But even better would be putting the pig tail on the bottom anchor, and that way the backup anchor would have very limited extension. Your proposed setup would fall the distance of the bolt spacing x2, if the bolt blew.

Ma Ja wrote:

That's a cool setup. Never thought about Lower Offs in the side ways orientation. 

Side note. I thought the point of verticle anchors was to make sure one anchor took all the weight and the second was to act as a backup. What's the point of an equalized verticle anchor, unless the rock dictates the placements? Adding the single pigtail off of the top bolt, and linking together the bolts with chain, like you said, seems like the best bet. But even better would be putting the pig tail on the bottom anchor, and that way the backup anchor would have very limited extension. Your proposed setup would fall the distance of the bolt spacing x2, if the bolt blew.

The point of the vertical setup was to reduce the amount of hardware needed to create a functional anchor compared to the double chain set "V". Essentially, you only have to buy 1 chain, not 2, or in further evolution zero chain. 

The point of having the biner on the lower bolt is to prevent the rope from landing on the gate if the top bolt fails as well as to eliminate another quicklink. 

Ma Ja wrote:

That's a cool setup. Never thought about Lower Offs in the side ways orientation. 

Side note. I thought the point of verticle anchors was to make sure one anchor took all the weight and the second was to act as a backup. What's the point of an equalized verticle anchor, unless the rock dictates the placements? Adding the single pigtail off of the top bolt, and linking together the bolts with chain, like you said, seems like the best bet. But even better would be putting the pig tail on the bottom anchor, and that way the backup anchor would have very limited extension. Your proposed setup would fall the distance of the bolt spacing x2, if the bolt blew.

In line Pigs tail.

This is the setup I was using. The chain insures that if the bolt your pigs tail was on failed the other anchor would not take much of a load.

The more I research the less I am convinced that equalization is necessary. In the "french" style anchor that Eli posted the top anchor is taking all the wear and the carabiner on the bottom is a backup that takes minimal wear. Correct me if my understanding of the physics of it is wrong, but if the top bolt were to fail in a lowering or top-roping scenario your dynamic climbing rope would absorb most of the force and you would be looking at a "fall" of a few feet. So in the extremely unlikely event of a bolt failure you are looking at a "fall" about equivalent to a sport climbing fall a foot above your bolt. That is a trade off I am willing to deal with for a much more versatile anchor.

Does that address your questions? This is a hard medium for me to explain my understanding of these concepts.

Bobby Hutton wrote:

In line Pigs tail.

This is the setup I was using. The chain insures that if the bolt your pigs tail was on failed the other anchor would not take much of a load.

The more I research the less I am convinced that equalization is necessary. In the "french" style anchor that Eli posted the top anchor is taking all the wear and the carabiner on the bottom is a backup that takes minimal wear. Correct me if my understanding of the physics of it is wrong, but if the top bolt were to fail in a lowering or top-roping scenario your dynamic climbing rope would absorb most of the force and you would be looking at a "fall" of a few feet. So in the extremely unlikely event of a bolt failure you are looking at a "fall" about equivalent to a sport climbing fall a foot above your bolt. That is a trade off I am willing to deal with for a much more versatile anchor.

Does that address your questions? This is a hard medium for me to explain my understanding of these concepts.

Your link photo actually is perfect, the bottom bolt is taking most of the weight/basically equalized. There would be no extension if either of the bolts failed.