Ugly Hardware Only

Bela, That is one unattractive anchor!

That’s some unattractive rock too! Lot of cracks around there…😬

Bela VanderVoortwrote:

Ha-- what a find!  This one is like a master class in outdated, how-not-to practices:  washers-and-chain, clamp-shut lap links, and plated bolts, all in some suspiciously fractured rock.  Extra nice that someone "improved" the lap link by adding a quick link to end the chain at the wrong orientation.  I mean, I'd probably still rap off it in the absence of an alternative, but that is some tasty junk there...

Joshwrote:

Holy choss pile! Some great looking patina on that steel.
Lap links are frikin' strong AF. I was surprised in testing. (Don't use lap links)

However, I think it could use just a few more biners....

And when is this anchor getting updated? 

Joshwrote:

Where did this quick link fetish come from? It don't matter a rat's ass which way it's oriented as long as the nut is tight (or rusted shut like this one).

Are there documented accidents associated that I've never heard of? A link like that holds, what, 6000 lbs minimum? The rope doesn't just jump out of there, ever AFAIK.

I'd say the QL is the last thing to worry about in the photo.

Harumpfster Boondogglewrote:

Where did this quick link fetish come from? It don't matter a rat's ass which way it's oriented as long as the nut is tight (or rusted shut like this one).

Are there documented accidents associated that I've never heard of? A link like that holds, what, 6000 lbs minimum? The rope doesn't just jump out of there, ever AFAIK.

I'd say the QL is the last thing to worry about in the photo.

Fair points, Harumphster.  I should clarify my comment-- I pointed out the lap link only because they are no longer the end point of choice and therefore, at least in my experience so far, probably indicate the age of the anchor is early 2000s at the youngest, if not older.  I wasn't slagging on it because they're not plenty strong enough.  Mostly I think they're kinda bulky for the purpose and have been surpassed by cheap, available, easily replaceable Quicklinks.  But they do work.

Meanwhile, the thing about the quicklink I was noting is that it's oriented parallel to the rock face instead of perpendicular, the potential issue there being that it can tend to bind one side of the rope against the rock on a rappel or lower-- not that it could come unscrewed or something.  TBH, in this spot it sure looks like it dangles far enough away from the wall to not actually be a problem; I just figured mostly the quicklink seemed unnecessary (the lap link accomplishes the same single closed point), and by adding it someone took the single-point lower off from a clean-pull orientation to a potentially rope-binding one. It just seemed like a strange choice.  I see now what you're noticing in the photo-- that the gate would unscrew downward in its current orientation.  I do suppose when we have the choice, we should orient the gate downward, so gravity wants to encourage the screw in the same direction as we want it to tighten, but in this case that'd be as easy as flipping it over.  You're certainly right that the quick link is not really the point of concern with this anchor, nor is the lap link really.  Mostly it was Friday-afternoon-funny to see so many sub-optimal visual indicators all collected in one tableau.  But it's actually worth remembering, as you note, that some of those are more minor issues than others-- the main point of concern should just be the bolts themselves and their actual holding power in the rock...

Peter Thomaswrote:

Thomas,
Are these rock decoration? How do you think they used these since they don’t appear clipable. Maybe tied off with cord? 

Anna Brownwrote:

Thomas,
Are these rock decoration? How do you think they used these since they don’t appear clipable. Maybe tied off with cord? 

No clue. I don’t think there was enough space to thread them. Both came out with a little wiggling 

Anna Brownwrote:

Thomas,
Are these rock decoration? How do you think they used these since they don’t appear clipable. Maybe tied off with cord? 

Not gonna lie. I saw those and thought for a second; I hope that’s not one of the ones I placed!

That old military surplus mild steel made great fixed gear in awkward placements. Problem was it is basically single use mank.  

Joshwrote:

Fair points, Harumphster.  I should clarify my comment-- I pointed out the lap link only because they are no longer the end point of choice and therefore, at least in my experience so far, probably indicate the age of the anchor is early 2000s at the youngest, if not older.  I wasn't slagging on it because they're not plenty strong enough.  Mostly I think they're kinda bulky for the purpose and have been surpassed by cheap, available, easily replaceable Quicklinks.  But they do work.

Meanwhile, the thing about the quicklink I was noting is that it's oriented parallel to the rock face instead of perpendicular, the potential issue there being that it can tend to bind one side of the rope against the rock on a rappel or lower-- not that it could come unscrewed or something.  TBH, in this spot it sure looks like it dangles far enough away from the wall to not actually be a problem; I just figured mostly the quicklink seemed unnecessary (the lap link accomplishes the same single closed point), and by adding it someone took the single-point lower off from a clean-pull orientation to a potentially rope-binding one. It just seemed like a strange choice.  I see now what you're noticing in the photo-- that the gate would unscrew downward in its current orientation.  I do suppose when we have the choice, we should orient the gate downward, so gravity wants to encourage the screw in the same direction as we want it to tighten, but in this case that'd be as easy as flipping it over.  You're certainly right that the quick link is not really the point of concern with this anchor, nor is the lap link really.  Mostly it was Friday-afternoon-funny to see so many sub-optimal visual indicators all collected in one tableau.  But it's actually worth remembering, as you note, that some of those are more minor issues than others-- the main point of concern should just be the bolts themselves and their actual holding power in the rock...

no worries my friend and yes, being parallel to the rock is no bueno, agreed.

We found multiple ~37 year old 2.5” wedge bolts like this one in very soft rock. This bolt had about 1 1/2” embedment and was pulled with a YABR without first spinning it. A couple other bolts were removed simply by spinning them with a drill.

Old practice aid line in Little Cottonwood Canyon, Utah. 

Adam Flemingwrote:

Old practice aid line in Little Cottonwood Canyon, Utah. 

Whip anyone?

timothy fisherwrote:

Whip anyone?

The piton held me as I rapped and jugged.

Rope rub mark, Has since been replaced but weird wear mark

Jared Kohliwrote:

Rope rub mark, Has since been replaced but weird wear mark

Well this is an interesting one! Can't say that I've seen that before or noticed it at least.

Yeah, I haven’t come across that one yet.