Thoughts on these setups for anchors?

All of these are Stainless.
1. either equal length chains or one above and below.

2.
chain with a 3/8" stainless carabiners
two of these for lowering anchors. opposite to each other.

3.
Stainless Mussy hooks.

interested in hearing your thoughts.

#2. I'd curse you if you made them opposed.

It's an anchor thread, so get ready...

I like all three options, myself.  Looks like you used quicklinks to make the wear item replaceable on each one, and it's not just chains - so you can either clip and lower, or thread the rap ring on the first anchor while still on belay.  All of these are kind of luxurious compared to other things I've seen and sometimes used...

Marc801 C wrote: #2. I'd curse you if you made them opposed.

haha i meant just opposite. will correct

None are bad.  The top one is the least preferred as it is has a single point of failure.  What is your source for the stainless mussies?

The final "link" that the rope goes through should be perpendicular to the rock. That allows the least resistance for the rope. None of the set ups provide that.

Edit #3 would be perpendicular, it was not immediately apparent due to the orientation of the one on the left.

Allen Sanderson wrote: The final "link" that the rope goes through should be perpendicular to the rock. That allows the least resistance for the rope. None of the set ups provide that.

Well, for #1 it's a moot point - you're likely to rappel of it anyways since you'd have to thread the rope thru.  For the others that's true, but then if you don't toprope off it it's not that big of a deal either. If you're that concerned for your rope, I would suggest to clean on rappel. So overall I wouldn't personally worry too much about that.

The thing about the mussy hooks is that the gate on those is tiny and not durable. I've seen a number of them and I get the point that they'll last forever (as far as rope abrasion is concerned), but it always makes me a little uneasy when I'm about to get lowered or rappel off a big mussy hooks with a flimsy, rusted, twisted of missing gate. Especially since the U on those is pretty shallow compared to other options.

True option #1 is not as convenient. But then the good thing is that it forces people to not be lazy and get lowered (or even worst top rop off it directly). I think we're a bit spoiled as climbers when it comes to that. I'd be quite happy to get the and see #1 tbh.

Allen Sanderson wrote: The final "link" that the rope goes through should be perpendicular to the rock. That allows the least resistance for the rope. None of the set ups provide that.

They would be perpendicular if there weren't laying on the floor and actually hanging up. 

Nolan,  Where did you buy the stainless mussies?

dnoB ekiM wrote: Nolan,  Where did you buy the stainless mussies?

e-rigging.com

Nolan Fulton wrote:

They would be perpendicular if there weren't laying on the floor and actually hanging up. 

Uh, no they would not ...

I'm a fan of option 3 personally. All 3 will work just fine for any competent cleaner but the ease of using Mussies is nice and the sheer amount of wear that they can take gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. I would only use option 1 on harder routes or trad routes as too many accidents happen from newbies try to thread through for rapping or lowering. I would also feel better about option 1 if it had two independent rap rings instead of one.

Edit: The only reason I would prefer option 1 over the others is if lowering may be questionable due to the route length.

Allen Sanderson wrote:

Uh, no they would not ...

EDIT: Option 2 would be very poorly oriented and lead to horrible rope twists after lowering.  Option 1 is the best, from the perspective of lowering. Option 3 is TBD depending on how everything actually hangs once installed on the cliff.

Jon H wrote:

Agreed. All 3 of the setups pictured above would be very poorly oriented and lead to horrible rope twists after lowering.  

Bullshit. There is nothing wrong with #1 and it should be the most economical over time. If you can't manage your rope then rap off like you're supposed to do.

Any of them are awesome  by historical standards but not necessarily fond of the gates on #3. Climb Tech wire gates are a little more inspiring, imo.

I'm equipping a 10 pitch route and am using the exact same setup as #1.   Simple and safe.  I'm just fine with the single ring and I'm sure anyone who climbs this route will be too.

Not sure why people think the ring on #1 isn't perpendicular to the wall or why a single ring would twist the rope.  I've placed and used that exact setup and neither of those things are true.

#1 and #3 could lay out of plane with the rock, with some fiddling of orientation before install (the # of links is correct, they’re just not quite laid out correctly). #2 however will lay sideways.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Bullshit. There is nothing wrong with #1 and it should be the most economical over time.

Any of them are awesome  by historical standards but not necessarily fond of the gates on #3. Climb tech wire gates are a little more inspiring, imo. 

If there are 2 bolts with 2 rings (as suggested by multiple people up thread), both parallel with the rock, there will absolutely be horrible twisting.  Option 1 only remains twist free if it is installed in a "non redundant" fashion with both lengths of chain terminating in a single welded ring.  I've lowered off countless single rings, but I do agree that most people would be more comfortable with an independent ring hanging from each bolt.

Mikey Schaefer wrote: I'm equipping a 10 pitch route and am using the exact same setup as #1.   Simple and safe.  I'm just fine with the single ring and I'm sure anyone who climbs this route will be too.

Not sure why people think the ring on #1 isn't perpendicular to the wall or why a single ring would twist the rope.  I've placed and used that exact setup and neither of those things are true.

But that ring only tests to like 10kn (edit 10k#)....;p

Jon H wrote:

Agreed. All 3 of the setups pictured above would be very poorly oriented and lead to horrible rope twists after lowering.  

Count the links. 1 and 3 would allow the rope to run left to right. With setup 2 the chain is long enough to twist and would be alright too

Jon H wrote:

If there are 2 bolts with 2 rings (as suggested by multiple people up thread), both parallel with the rock, there will absolutely be horrible twisting.  Option 1 only remains twist free if it is installed in a "non redundant" fashion with both lengths of chain terminating in a single welded ring.  I've lowered off countless single rings, but I do agree that most people would be more comfortable with an independent ring hanging from each bolt.

Anyone can see that ring will not hang parallel with a rope on it.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

But that ring only tests to like 10kn....;p

I use the 10mm rings and I believe they test closer to 30kn.