how not to build a toprope anchor

Eric Laursen wrote:

Again, not my entire comment.  Geez people - read past the part that triggers you. And, I mentioned the AAC article regarding "equalization."

The same might apply to the AAC article.  Geez.

Tommy Backer wrote:

How to build a toprope anchor with no redundancy. The old bolts were 3/8 button heads that were both sticking out a half inch that were recently replaced....

 

Great photo!

Hey all, if this is a top rope, shouldn't the master point end up over the edge, so the rope isn't rubbing? 

(We're in the beginner's forum)

Best, OLH

Old lady H wrote:

Great photo!

Hey all, if this is a top rope, shouldn't the master point end up over the edge, so the rope isn't rubbing? 

(We're in the beginner's forum)

Best, OLH

Helen,  I'm guessing that there isn't an edge even though the photo makes it look like there is one.  It looks to me like it is a slab climb that just gets slabbier the higher you get, so the angle of the camera makes it look like there is an edge when really the rock is just rounded and gets steeper beyond the apparent edge.  If there is an edge however, you are correct that it would be better to extend the anchor past the edge.

Greg D wrote:

The same might apply to the AAC article.  Geez.

Um, not sure what part I "didn't read" in your opinion.  OP was concerned about equalization and stress on one bolt.  2 points there: if it's strong doesn't matter, and backed up is important (which it is) but will not be fully equalized (a point made in the AAC article.)  Geez. :) 

To Greg's point, this IS the beginner's forum, and we have to be careful with our language; a beginner might read your post and draw the same conclusion by thinking it is ok to TR off of one bolt. That definitely was NOT the point of the AAC article, and if that's what people are taking away from it, I'm sorry I shared it.  Perfect equalization being a myth does not mean that some attempt should not be made or that redundancy is somehow suddenly not important.

Ted Pinson wrote:

To Greg's point, this IS the beginner's forum, and we have to be careful with our language; a beginner might read your post and draw the same conclusion by thinking it is ok to TR off of one bolt. That definitely was NOT the point of the AAC article, and if that's what people are taking away from it, I'm sorry I shared it.  Perfect equalization being a myth does not mean that some attempt should not be made or that redundancy is somehow suddenly not important.

Yep.  Thanks Ted.

Ted Pinson wrote:

To Greg's point, this IS the beginner's forum, and we have to be careful with our language; a beginner might read your post and draw the same conclusion by thinking it is ok to TR off of one bolt. That definitely was NOT the point of the AAC article, and if that's what people are taking away from it, I'm sorry I shared it.  Perfect equalization being a myth does not mean that some attempt should not be made or that redundancy is somehow suddenly not important.

Fair point, I clarified "perfect equalization" in my original post.  I will be more thorough in beginner forms going forward.  To be fair to my post, I NEVER said anchor on one bolt - please don't inply that was what I said (Greg). I only said one solid bolt is needed to be safe - although I should have added "in the system".  True, but not clear for beginners.  My post was not intended to give a full anchor class, just a rebuttal to the OP concern on equalization.  Greg took liberties in interpreting me to say, "TR off one bolt" which is not at all what I said,  Maybe we could both be more clear. :)  

Mike Mellenthin wrote:

Serious question: why is this true? If your "equalized" anchor doesn't actually equalize then what's the point?

Sometimes we confuse "equalized" with "equalizing". And "distributed" might be a better word than "equalized".

Tests seem to indicate that sliding systems don't really dynamically equalize the way we thought they did. Knowing this, I believe we should distribute the load as best we can  trying to bias more of the load to what we estimate are the strongest pieces.

Eric Laursen wrote:

 Greg took liberties in interpreting me to say, "TR off one bolt" which is not at all what I said,  Maybe we could both be more clear. :)  

I said this where?  Umm.  No.  

Ted's post clarified things well.  We should be crystal clear when making statements in the beginner forum.  Get your panties out of bunch.

Greg D wrote:

I said this where?  Umm.  No.  

Ted's post clarified things well.  We should be crystal clear when making statements in the beginner forum.  Get your panties out of bunch.

Yes WE should be crystal clear.  Which I admitted.  Nothing bunched here; I didn't need to drop an f-bomb in the process... and I corrected my original statement. 

Mike Mellenthin wrote:

Serious question: why is this true? If your "equalized" anchor doesn't actually equalize then what's the point?

My interpretation of the article was not that no equalization occurs at all, but that it doesn't occur on the level we used to think and that trading equalization for the potential for extension wasn't worth it.  Also, think about what will happen if there's slack on one leg and the other one blows..

I have seen alot about this on these forums, but if you can't have eyes on the bolts 100% of the time, why not just use lockers for every part of the anchor? Is it just because of the weight of gear carried to the TR? Why not take the "safer" route and use all lockers?

North Col wrote: I have seen alot about this on these forums, but if you can't have eyes on the bolts 100% of the time, why not just use lockers for every part of the anchor? Is it just because of the weight of gear carried to the TR? Why not take the "safer" route and use all lockers?

because this is MP, and "safer" is a relative term...

That 3rd bolt looks like a janky smc hanger

North Col wrote: I have seen alot about this on these forums, but if you can't have eyes on the bolts 100% of the time, why not just use lockers for every part of the anchor? Is it just because of the weight of gear carried to the TR? Why not take the "safer" route and use all lockers?

because that means potentially a lot of lockers, which cost money and weigh more than regular biners. And because "good enough" is good enough for me. If it isn't good enough for you, then feel free use all lockers. 

I could also take the "safer" route and use lockers on all my quickdraws when I sport climb. However, nobody does that (except for Locker) because they think non lockers are good enough. You have to draw line somewhere, but that somewhere is gonna be different for everybody.

Ok thanks, was just wondering!