Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Photos of BEAUTIFUL HARDWARE
Michael Anthony wrote: This has become my favorite thread since discovering it a few days ago- I love seeing the work you folks do and learning from the discussion. Would love to get involved with volunteering on some of these outings even if it's just helping to hulk the gear out to the crags and learning, being that I have precisely zero experience doing bolt work. Youd obviously need to work out something with a local developer. A lot of guys, I'd imagine, would rather pack things in by themselves than to teach someone the dark arts, but if you're serious about getting into it, finding someone and asking a million questions is your best bet. Even if someone does take you out for bolting your first line, there's a chance they'll simply go off and do their own thing, and not hold your hand through the process. There's also some that would be excited to share their skills with you, just dont count on it. |
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote: That chart seems pretty arbitrary to me and not very consistent. Why is it OK to use just one Ramshorn on an anchor, but you have two CT Mussy hooks on your other designs? Clearly you could make a much cheaper anchor by using a couple of quick links and just one CT Mussy hook. First off, I'm not totally sure two quick links would fit through a CT Mussy, but obviously you could have just one connected to two chains. Second, the Ram's Horn radius is fairly large, so the large surface area means it wont be hard on your rope like the single mussy could be. This may or may not be that critical, but it's worth thinking about. Lastly, it's basically a gated carabiner that could open up in an unexpected way, where the Ram's Horn would take an act of god to jump out. |
Adam Beach wrote: It doesn't twist the rope because of the vertical orientation of the inline anchor. The rope only goes up and over one quicklink leaving the other quicklink unweighted so no rope twisting. |
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote: That chart seems pretty arbitrary to me and not very consistent. Why is it OK to use just one Ramshorn on an anchor, but you have two CT Mussy hooks on your other designs? Clearly you could make a much cheaper anchor by using a couple of quick links and just one CT Mussy hook. Single biners/hooks etc have caused fatalities from people moving above them when unclipping and the rope comes out (the Salewa IQ was withdrawn because of this). For this reason two reversed is the recommended solution. When the UIAA looked at lower-offs ramshorns were considered acceptable alone. |
mattm wrote: I use this style anchor on my sport routes. I prefer one quick link on the top bolt and two on the bottom. This configuration seems to keep the rope from being twisted at all and allows a little more lateral placement of the lower bolt.. |
Turner wrote: I like the ramhorms, but would fear those would be bootied immediately. What someone would do with such booty one wonders. With a 6mm bolt the ramshorn can be removed by hand. 8mm stock and it's much more difficult but still possible. Bumping to a SLB 10mm shaft and one would likely need a hammer. You can order them tack welded on to prevent theft or use something to lock them in place. I bet a heavy duty zip tie would go a long way or even a SS hose clamp that's been fowled so as not to be removable. |
 Mussy's FTW. |
Ken Noyce wrote: Thank you much, I can picture it now. I really like that idea of just using a huge quicklink like that. very simple. I assume it works the best on overhanging routes, might not be as effective on granite slabs. Hard to get away from the horizontal anchors here in new england even though there are obviously better options |
Adam Beach wrote: Thank you much, I can picture it now. I really like that idea of just using a huge quicklink like that. very simple. I assume it works the best on overhanging routes, might not be as effective on granite slabs. Hard to get away from the horizontal anchors here in new england even though there are obviously better options On the slabs you just add the extra link. BP has a 12mm link that's super beefy. Or use a SS ring. Tell me about it. Side By Side is so entrenched its hard to convince people otherwise. Lots and lots of educations needed. |
|
We have a cool solution for slabs/rounded tops, I'll post some photos in the morning (it's 11 at night here). |
mattm wrote: True, I am still mixed on the side by side vs inline. I see the advantages of inline, but it is so easy for people to just throw a couple draws on the SbS for TRing or doing laps. I like the rams horns a lot for single pitch or last pitch if people aren't going to be climbing above them, but use links or rings on mid anchors. I might start using inline for those, though it is nice to have a little horizontal space sometimes on mulipitch for clipping things in without it all hanging smashed together, even if it is only 5-6 inches. For the inline or near inline, I am a little leery for single pitch, envisioning the second side of the rope also clipping into the lower clip, thereby negating the redundancy. I have been tempted to just go with a single giant glue-in with a rams horn, euro style, but I know that would freak most out around here and it would probably end up with tat from people "backing it up" to some 1/2" shrub. Being American, I like my redundancy when I can get it too. |
Taylor Spiegelberg wrote: This may sound like a stupid question, but I haven't done much sport climbing. What is the advantage of having the anchors staggered? How does that prevent the rope from twisting? |
chris p wrote: This may sound like a stupid question, but I haven't done much sport climbing. What is the advantage of having the anchors staggered? How does that prevent the rope from twisting? Rope twisting is mainly caused by any anchor setup where your rope has an amount of space left between the anchor points once the rope pulls tight, and is also weighting both anchors. Even though there is space between an offset anchor in a vertical position like the one in question, only the top anchor is weighted, and the lower anchor becomes strictly the backup for the top. The main benefit to an inline/vertical/offset/staggered anchor is that only the top anchor will see wear, so the backup/bottom bolt will be like new, if and when it is ever needed. So long as the bottom point is flopping around unweighted during the lower off, there wont be any twisting. An example of a guaranteed twist is lowering off of a horizontally spaced anchor with a single rap ring on each hanger/bolt. This creates a space between the anchor points, and they're both being weighted. Picture the top of an American Death Triangle. When you run into these, the developer intended for you to rappel down. That's why it's a great thing to always have an ATC with a locker on you when sport climbing, in case you get to the top and run into these. [These will twist your rope if you lower from them]  |
Jim Titt wrote: We have a cool solution for slabs/rounded tops, I'll post some photos in the morning (it's 11 at night here). So this is what we developed for the top of a long, slightly rounded slab where wear was a huge issue (it´s the nearest venue to Munich, has loads of really easy routes, is soft crumbly sandstone with a forested hill above so shit washes down all the time and the base is usually wet, it´s an old quarry cut into the mountainside). The problem with rings is on a slab they normally fall over under tension, either trapping the rope or twisting it (or both) so we borrowed the idea from Joshua Tree of using multiple biners to make the threaded point (they didn´t want ramshorns because it´s real numpty country) and made these:-  These ones are 12mm bar big links, in this photo they are welded into a ring but the ones they actually had used a pear-shaped maillon instead as they had to be retro-fitted into existing chainsets. The links are specially dimensioned to be swappable, when the outside rope contact points begin to wear you can change sides by threading one through the other, here´s a two-link version but it works the same for the three link.    |
|
Jim, how much does the two link setup cost assuming another wedge bolt at the top? |
Ma Ja wrote: Forgive my boomerness...which one? AcronymDefinition |
MintyAlpinist wrote: Matthew apparently thinks that my glue-ins are not orientated correctly. However, not sure why as they are perpendicular to the rock and and in plumb line with gravity. But I defer to his expertise, I think he bolted 3 routes now. Perhaps he can share his wealth of experience and illuminate on this issue. |
|
What do people think about standard ring anchors vs. vertically offset if the route is 2-3 pitches and is approached from the top of the cliff and rappelled into, in a backcountry setting. Seems like a place where the old style might be appropriate? Pros and cons? |
Jim Titt wrote: These are cool, and I like the idea of slipping the links through each other to expose the other side. But from a maintenance point of view, how is this better than just using screwlinks where you have welded links? This setup would require replacing everything (chainset, lower hanger, presumably the other hanger as well) when the links wear out. I guess you could just cut the worn links off and replace them with screw links. I like the way it keeps the links oriented to reduce twist. |
Adam Beach wrote: What do people think about standard ring anchors vs. vertically offset if the route is 2-3 pitches and is approached from the top of the cliff and rappelled into, in a backcountry setting. Seems like a place where the old style might be appropriate? Pros and cons? I’m using the Fixe traditional vertical anchors for a similar scenario right now and really love them. No cons in the back country imo and I like that I can slap my belay device directly on it and start belaying the second without faffing around with equalizing, etc. |
