The quad is the [best/worst]!

Eliot Hack wrote:

Well what if they are three or four feet apart and there is one let’s say 3 which is 14 kn and a .5 which is 10 kn. Let’s say in this situation they are off to he side in space and there isn’t a established direction of pull then you want self equalization 

Why? Down is always down.

Mind-boggling how this forum continues to have debates about something that has been adapted as standard practice by all major European Alpine Associations for decades.

Jim Titt wrote:

Why? Down is always down.

Yea sure but if you have a piece that is diagonally down four feet to the left of your first piece, but your load is to the right you cant really achieve non load multiplying anchoring with a preequalized 

Pino Pepino wrote:

Mind-boggling how this forum continues to have debates about something that has been adapted as standard practice by all major European Alpine Associations for decades.

What is the something you’re referring to? Quad or Banshee, or other.  And are you talking about using for nice juicy Euro bolts, or sketchy trad gear?  Big difference  

Not just to pick on you Pino, but another mind boggling thing is how people continue to come sideways into the middle of debates and post vague non-value added random thoughts 

Mark Pilate wrote:

Bad pro:  

Bad pro: your belay location is shit and you’re a dumbass to even consider a belay of any kind that isn’t built with at least 2 bomber placements - so go find a better belay.

Anchor failure can certainly ruin your day but do anchors fail so frequently that we need constant posts about it? 

There's an anchor discussion going on - and on and on - at the 'Gunks Climbing Partners Facebook page. Place the gear and then belay; done.

Eliot Hack wrote:

Yea sure but if you have a piece that is diagonally down four feet to the left of your first piece, but your load is to the right you cant really achieve non load multiplying anchoring with a preequalized 

You haven't understood something.

Mark Hudon wrote:

Anchor failure can certainly ruin your day but do anchors fail so frequently that we need constant posts about it? 

I think it's worth it to discuss unlikely but high consequence scenarios, yes. Know of someone who died when their non redundant anchor was cut by rockfall. Sure wish she had been on a better anchor despite it being an infrequent occurrence. 

When matters are literally life or death I think debating the pros and cons of various systems is highly valuable. I don't often use self equalizing systems on gear, but this thread has convinced me that they are worse than I previously thought in that context, and I am grateful to those that put in the time to make really well crafted arguments. I at first disagreed with this conclusion on the previous thread, but I think the evidence presented and the arguments presented based on that evidence are solid. 

MP is mostly just an online frat where people one-up each other in how quickly they can derail a sincere thread with trolling and utter nonsense. I think threads like these that provide valuable insight or at the very least a very well informed opinion are about as good as this hell site ever gets. 

MP wouldn't be harmed by some more effort posts, lord knows. I'd take this a hundred times over than the typical garbage. 

Eliot Hack wrote:

Yea sure but if you have a piece that is diagonally down four feet to the left of your first piece, but your load is to the right you cant really achieve non load multiplying anchoring with a preequalized 

Heaven forbid you load a 10kN cam and don't share the load with all the other pieces in an anchor.

Truly scary stuff.

Mark Pilate wrote:

What is the something you’re referring to? Quad or Banshee, or other.  And are you talking about using for nice juicy Euro bolts, or sketchy trad gear?  Big difference  

Not just to pick on you Pino, but another mind boggling thing is how people continue to come sideways into the middle of debates and post vague non-value added random thoughts 

Fair point, that came across more provocatively than intended. I thought the discussion was about trad belays? For bolted belays, there's no point doing anything else than a Banshee. For trad, fixed leg. As others have remarked here, it is difficult to come up with scenarios where you would prefer a quad or sliding x.

Just build anchors which are "super good enough."

Haha, well then Pino, in that case, your opinion in this thread is highly valued and a welcome contribution, lol. 

Jim Titt wrote:

You haven't understood something.

Enlighten me 

Eliot Hack wrote:

Enlighten me 

Gravity dominates in a fall onto the anchor such that the net vector on the anchor is down (exceptions to this might happen with ledges or something, in which case the direction is "down, but after you hit the ledge first and tumble off over there somewhere.") So you always know what direction the pull will be (down), because we are small and earth is large so net gravity is always the same direction for us on this planet.

Forces generated by the climber/belayer shifting around at the anchor are inconsequential. If such comparatively small loads were consequential, the anchor is very poor and would likely fail under the load of a lead fall. 

Eliot Hack wrote:

Yea sure but if you have a piece that is diagonally down four feet to the left of your first piece, but your load is to the right you cant really achieve non load multiplying anchoring with a preequalized 

We know that if the fall is unconstrained directionally the force will be fundamentally down, the faller swings across long before the maximum force is developed. If you ensure the force comes from the side ( place a piece of protection after traversing out from the belay then climb upwards) you are into very dangerous territory using an equalising anchor, in your example you need nearly 3ft of travel to produce an equalising anchor to cope with down and horizontal. Which means 3ft of potential extension. 

What is usually overlooked in these scenarios is the effect on the belayer combined with the faller (and why the Jenks video is best ignored) is the acceleration involved. When the belayer catches the faller the force they impose through the belay device is perhaps 4kN and when a piece fails this accelerates the belayer at say 4g which means when they hit the end of the extension their apparent weight is massively higher than normal. Combined naturally with the force from the faller. I've tested various scenarios and you get impacts on the remaining piece which snap dyneema slings like they weren't there. 20 times the belayers weight is easily achievable.

Jim Titt wrote:

We know that if the fall is unconstrained directionally the force will be fundamentally down, the faller swings across long before the maximum force is developed. If you ensure the force comes from the side ( place a piece of protection after traversing out from the belay then climb upwards) you are into very dangerous territory using an equalising anchor, in your example you need nearly 3ft of travel to produce an equalising anchor to cope with down and horizontal. Which means 3ft of potential extension. 

What is usually overlooked in these scenarios is the effect on the belayer combined with the faller (and why the Jenks video is best ignored) is the acceleration involved. When the belayer catches the faller the force they impose through the belay device is perhaps 4kN and when a piece fails this accelerates the belayer at say 4g which means when they hit the end of the extension their apparent weight is massively higher than normal. Combined naturally with the force from the faller. I've tested various scenarios and you get impacts on the remaining piece which snap dyneema slings like they weren't there. 20 times the belayers weight is easily achievable.

I don't buy this, how are you creating this 20g of acceleration?

If a piece fails the belayer will be falling onto the new piece, accelerating at 1g. I could see the anchor seeing 4g at the peak of the impulse which the combined deceleration of the belayer and whatever force the rope is exerting on them. (I am assuming we are talking about a piece blowing in a factor 2 fall)

Connor Dobson wrote:

I don't buy this, how are you creating this 20g of acceleration?

If a piece fails the belayer will be falling onto the new piece, accelerating at 1g. I could see the anchor seeing 4g at the peak of the impulse which the combined deceleration of the belayer and whatever force the rope is exerting on them. (I am assuming we are talking about a piece blowing in a factor 2 fall)

The belayer applies a force of 4kN through the belay device (through a stretchy rope) to stop the faller, ergo the faller applies a force of 4kN on the belayer. When the piece fails this force is still there so accelerates the belayer downwards, you in effect have built a huge catapult to hurl the belayer downwards/sideways/wherever. The belayer doesn't fall, they are thrown.

I suggest those that continue to argue, get out their dynomometers and repeat their studies and drop tests that they’ve obviously done.

Also Connor, it’s really not just FF2.   In the context of small nuts and cams, FF1 forces of around 6 kN could be significant on either the anchor or running pro.  Just because the pro itself has a rating of 5 kN or higher doesn’t mean that’s the rating sitting there in the rock.

Here’s what we ALL agree on and there is no argument.  

• Use good judgment 
• Build solid anchors and place the best pro possible (and help Bill Schick out if you run into him out there still wandering around in the dark determined to find that bomber #1 cam placement, lol)
• Anchors rarely fail, but falls happen, and pro pulls.  Injuries happen
• quads can be convenient and fine in cases when it doesn’t matter, like on good bolts

Bottom line:  When you’re out there and need to apply your best judgment in a marginal situation, and you want to maximize your odds of staying attached and minimizing your fall, either on lead or at the belay anchor, just eliminate extension/equalization schemes in your system.

So how about that Banshee on horizontal placements? Wouldn’t that add extensive extension?