Thoughts on these setups for anchors?

Mikey Schaefer wrote:

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

Sorry, was shooting from the hip after a beer. Yea, they test to like 10k pounds ( which is what I meant to post).

I'm ok with just one but sometimes leave two.

This perpendicular versus parallel to the rock controversy isn’t rocket science. When using a vertically oriented bolt hanger, an even number of links will always get you to a perpendicular orientation. Drew is correct. Count the links. Setup #1 and 3 bueno. Setup #2, not ideal.

Mikey Schaefer wrote:

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

Think they test much higher than that, Bolt Products in Germany rates even their 8mm ones at "over 50kN", and I doubt others would be much different.

http://bolt-products.com/MaillonsRingsandChain.htm

Allen Sanderson wrote:

Uh, no they would not ...

Just when you think youve thought of every detail...By horizontal.....are you saying the proper mussy orientation is where the mussies lie in the same way as a quickdraw would (i.e. bolt hanger -> even # of quicklinks (chainlinks) -> mussy??? or..... should they lie ‘horizontal’ (bolt hanger -> odd number of quicklinks (chainlinks) -> mussy). I know that if you top rope through two points separated from eachother (two bolts away from eachother) there is rope twist....but if the master point is in the same place have you seen a difference in rope twist depending on the orientation of the mussy’s?

Let me know how I should be placing my mussy’s!!!! I’m pretty sure this will be the difference in me sending 5.14 or not......and if i flail.....my girlfriend is definitely going to leave me

Allen Sanderson wrote:

Uh, no they would not ...

the left mussy in #3 is clipped to the quicklink the wrong way in the pic.  if it was clipped in the opposite direction the mussy would be perpendicular to the rock and the rope would run nicely...

Greg Barnes wrote:

Think they test much higher than that, Bolt Products in Germany rates even their 8mm ones at "over 50kN", and I doubt others would be much different.

http://bolt-products.com/MaillonsRingsandChain.htm

58kN is about it for an 8mm ring, 96 to 100kN for a 10mm ring and 12mm rings are over the capacity of our tester but 130kN would be about right.

I do see that #2 needs another link to be oriented correctly.
The idea on #3 is that the left mussy hook would be that it is opposite of the hook on the right. (One gate facing towards the rock. Other facing out) you can see if I were to pick up the hanger off the floor and left it hang that it would be perpendicular.

Also I’m interested in gear opinions of different setups.
I like separate chains with two rap rings. But the idea was to use as little material as possible but still be safe.

I think all options are better than what we have here in the south. (Mostly cold open shuts)
And that’s what I’m trying to fix 

This is what I’ve settled on after 25 years of tooling around with different configurations. It checks off most of the boxes for a good lower off anchor. This configuration uses minimal hardware. It allows you to get your two drill holes far enough away from one another without twisting your rope. It allows you to easily switch out the hardware that will suffer wear points. It has great redundancy.

Nolan Fulton wrote:The idea on #3 is that the left mussy hook would be that it is opposite of the hook on the right. (One gate facing towards the rock. Other facing out)

old5ten wrote:

the left mussy in #3 is clipped to the quicklink the wrong way in the pic.  if it was clipped in the opposite direction the mussy would be perpendicular to the rock and the rope would run nicely...

You are correct, it would face the rock. And the other would be perpendicular to the rock facing outwards. I missed that.

I have seen dual chain anchors where the link that the rope runs through (one or both) is not perpendicular to the rock. In these cases the twisting can cause an issue. YMMV. While the first will work fine, and is common I pointed it out in context of all three.

Tony Sartin wrote: This is what I’ve settled on after 25 years of tooling around with different configurations. It checks off most of the boxes for a good lower off anchor. This configuration uses minimal hardware. It allows you to get your two drill holes far enough away from one another without twisting your rope. It allows you to easily switch out the hardware that will suffer wear points. It has great redundancy.

Great setup! 

I think the thing missing from this discussion is more info about what kind of routes you are using these anchors on.  

If you're doing a 10-pitch route like Mikey, then #1 is fantastic.  It's a sweet rap station and the speed of hooks doesn't matter.

If this is a classic route at a popular crag, I'd go with the Mussy's.  Making everyone thread and lower/rap takes time that could be better used letting someone else do the route.  

The steel biners are good too, but I'd get some that can't get stolen without tools.  Sadly, people WILL take them.  I think someone makes one that can be secured with a pin after threading it through a chain link, but a quick search couldn't find one.  The problem with the steel biners (vs the mussys) is how quick they wear out.

I'm with others above that prefer the Climb Tech mussys with a real gate.  Those other gates just don't hold up well over time.  The CT mussy's aren't available in stainless (yet?  How about it CT?), but I'm not concerned with the last item in the chain being plated.  That won't work everywhere, but isn't a problem out here in CO.  I'm not sure about the South, but I'm sure others can weigh in.

And to be clear about direction of the hooks/biners.  Do NOT worry about making them opposite OR opposed.  Keep the gates facing the same way, just like you have in the photo above.

Nolan Fulton wrote:

Also, if you like this setup, you can do this with mussys with two additional screwlinks.  Basically, the last two chainlinks in your pictured setup become screwlinks.  A little more expensive, but a pretty nice setup for a popular route.

One other thought.  Consider using big enough quicklinks that people can fit a quickdraw in next to the mussy/biner.  Making it hard for people to install their own quickdraw for TR laps makes it more likely that they will just TR on the anchor.  

With the single Rap ring setup, that will wear down quickly if people are lowering off of it, because of the small surface area. If people will be rapping, then it's perfect. You could always just add one more ring directly into that setup, even if they weren't hanging independently, just to increase the surface area the rope travels across.

#2 is the best setup for a quick lower off. Just remove the chain and it'll be perfect. My setup is usually 2 QL's/anchor bolt (climber must clean the anchor) , or 1 QL and a Lower Off biner/anchor bolt, which is definitely preferred if it's route that you'll be climbing a lot. I can space my anchor bolts about 8-10" apart with that setup and they'll still touch when the rope pulls them together.

I wouldn't waste my money on those "hardware store" mussy hooks. Team Tough has better options for super cheap, and ClimbTech has the exact setup with quality gates that won't fail after a year of clipping. You're paying for those because they'll take forever to wear out, but when that cheap gate breaks in 1/50th of the basket's life span, you'll be replacing them because they'll no longer be safe, if those gates even are to begin with.

Tony Sartin wrote: This is what I’ve settled on after 25 years of tooling around with different configurations. It checks off most of the boxes for a good lower off anchor. This configuration uses minimal hardware. It allows you to get your two drill holes far enough away from one another without twisting your rope. It allows you to easily switch out the hardware that will suffer wear points. It has great redundancy.

That the best setup I've seen. Very cool, thanks for sharing. 

This is the most cost effective both at initial install and replacement of wear item.   All rated 316SS. No moving parts.  I think Team Tough will source from Jim with normal hangers too but then you incur bolt costs. 

I like the #1 best. Prefer this over everything else suggested.

mattm wrote: This is the most cost effective both at initial install and replacement of wear item.   All rated 316SS. No moving parts.  I think Team Tough will source from Jim with normal hangers too but then you incur bolt costs. 

I do really like the Ram Horns for a cheap, long life solution. It's hard to show in a picture, but the ones Team Tough sell are really beafy and will take forever to wear out on any route that's not a mega classic that gets climbed 100s of times a week.

Carolina wrote: I like the #1 best. Prefer this over everything else suggested.

Why?