Getting creative while building fast SERENE, ERNEST, NERDSS anchors!

patto wrote:

It can never be said enough.  But since John Long released his updated book with his flawed testing and the Quad beginner climbers have been falling over themselves to use it.

I think there is some lack of open-mindedness regarding them. I'll be the first to admit when I was first introduced I resisted them for a few reasons... but a "mini-quad" is a super light, fast, and versatile tool. I go into detail of it here: https://northeastalpinestart.com/2017/11/02/tech-tip-the-mini-quad/

I agree Quads built from 20 foot cordelette's are far less versatile.

patto wrote:

It can never be said enough.  But since John Long released his updated book with his flawed testing and the Quad beginner climbers have been falling over themselves to use it.

Yep.  If I had thought about it I would have asked him about it when I was hanging out with him in the valley last spring.  (or was it fall?).  Beginners aren't the only ones who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  I see  several guides using it (some with the gates facing the same direction) and mountaintools has been trying to convince me how great it is too.

Maybe y'all are getting a bit harsh?  The quad is an excellent guiding tool for routes with fixed anchor belays.  Sets up instantly, accommodates several climbers without complication, and is easily broken down by novices.  

For non-guided parties on routes without fixed belay anchors, there's not much point.

Quad has its place like a bunch of other anchoring/rigging techniques. Not quite sure why everything has to be so black/white. It'd be wrong to say the quad doesn't equalize (distribute maybe a better term) "at all." Does about a good a job as can be done in the field with the stuff we carry, which is to say---imperfectly, but not totally ineffectively. I've ye t to see anybody leave a quad tied "long term," and the boogeyman of minimal extension doesn't matter nearly as much as once thought.

Is the quad the end-all be-all? Of course not. But is using the rope? Traditional cordelette? Magic-X? Of course not. Most things have a place...real trick is knowing when to use which one. 

Northeast Alpine Start wrote:

pre-built mini-quad > magic X!

I did use a few magic-x's today though!

More details on this anchor and more over at my IG:  

https://www.instagram.com/northeast_alpine_start/

I always thought the rating stopped at XXX but this one goes up to XXXX

The quad distributes as well as anything for two-piece anchors.  But when people try to incorporate it into a three-piece anchor, they often end up with something that in theory delivers half the load to one of the three pieces and a quarter of the load to each of the other two pieces. (The OP's anchor has, in theory, a 0:50:50 distribution since there is some slack in the nut's anchor arm.)  Since this is "in theory," the chance that the 50% piece gets more than half the load is probably 50-50, and anything even close to "equalization" is unlikely.

Although equalization is unattainable, one still tries to rig as if was possible. Still, quite a few tests suggest, in general, that some point in a three-piece anchor is going to get half the total load no matter what the rigging system.  But using a quad in a three-piece anchor is frequently going to give the game away before it even starts, by creating an anchor that distributes very unequally by design.  I don't find that to be a convivial solution, given that I can rig something just as fast that has a chance of doing better and probably won't be worse.

Note, however, that there are many considerations affecting anchor construction.  The OP is a guide, so the chance of a factor 2 fall onto the anchor is exceptionally remote.  A much more likely problem is a relatively inexperienced second getting that top nut out.  So constructing the anchor to not load the nut is a rational compromise facilitated by the mini-quad.

The quad is my go to for 2 bolt anchors unless I'm building with rope. It's bomber, quick, simple, and easy. It takes 10 sec or less to "build" the anchor or take it down. Sure there are a million other ways I could build the anchor but this one is quick and simple without sacrificing even the smallest margin of safety.

For 3 piece anchors, it's not the best tool to use, and probably not the best for 4 piece anchors. But for 2 bolts, it's pretty damn good.

rgold wrote:

Eli is right Christopher. Your mistake is assuming that because the rope has stretched some, it has no more "spring" left.  Eli correctly notes that an anchor extension that is small relative to the amount of rope out has a negligible effect on the fall factor and so results in little or no increase in the peak anchor load.

But perhaps the amount of rope out isn't the right thing to look at, in which case Eli could be missing the boat too.  If you have a factor 2 fall that rips the belayer off the stance, then the only rope involved in arresting the (now much heavier than bodyweight) belayer's fall is the belayer's tie-in, and the relevant fall factor is the ratio of the anchor extension to the belayer's tie-in length.  A short belayer tie-in could result in a very high anchor load in a factor 2 fall that pulls the belayer off.  If the belayer has, out of what nowadays can only be ignorance, tied in not with the rope but rather with a static tether, then gear-shattering loads are in the realm of possibility.

This.

The AAC article on Anchors that was  published last year and discussed here on MP https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/113456950/new-aac-article-on-anchors missed the boat as well.  I had hoped you would weigh in on the discussion then. 

The AAC piece overstates the specter of "shock-loading" and extension...some good ideas in there, but yet another acronym?! When Chauvin coined the NERDSS pneumonic...he was being tongue-in-cheek.....rules are great for teaching and learning the fundamentals like we all did...and eventually we deviate from them when the situation calls for it and we recognize it.

We know now, from ample evidence, there is no perfect load distribution in the field, minimal extension (as a quad might) & shock-loading don't matter much with rope in the system, and the strength/security of the pieces trumps almost everything else.

What gets missed too often is the position of the anchor/master point (above the belayer? can the belayer be displaced if the anchor extends or the leader FF2s?) and most of all---the anchor is one component of the system. Showing an anchor photo and asking, "Is this good enough?" is like showing a photo of just a lock and asking, "Is this lock secure enough?" Without knowing what the preceding and ensuing pitch is/looks like (what the lock is protecting, so to speak), then evaluating an anchor is a somewhat unrealistic. Belaying a leader from a large, secure ledge with 5.4 climbing for 50 ft before ramping up to a 5.10 crux requires a different bottom anchor than a relatively vertical stance with thin climbing right off the belay and a tricky 11a crux 4m out...each situation would require a vastly different solution.

Topher's book does a pretty good job of fleshing out some of these ideas, as does Chauvin's....but you should all buy double copies of Chauvin's. His writing partner is destitute, needs the cash. 

Why double the sling? Seems a quad would be fine without doubling the sling...besides not being a quad

coppolillo wrote
Topher's book does a pretty good job of fleshing out some of these ideas, as does Chauvin's....but you should all buy double copies of Chauvin's. His writing partner is destitute, needs the cash. 

I think both books (Advanced Rock Climbing, Topher Donahue and The Mountain Guide Manual, Chauvin & Coppolillo) are required reading, by and large covering quite different aspects of the sport.

equalization is completely over rated for most rock climbing aplications. Yes equalization becomes an important factor very quickly on ice and obscure horror fest trad climbs but on most trade rock routes it is a complete non factor.  Much more important to simply place bomber gear.

one and done, no locker required ;)   I am way more concerned with knots in skinny spectra. we now have a 2nd case of  spectra cutting through itself from being knotted and jugged on yet the guides still teach people to  equalize with skinny spectra and then tie a master point knott in it???  saw a TR set up that way a few days ago and thought that it would have been safer with just 2 quick draws on the bolts instead of a knotted double length skinny runner with lockers. 

Obviously if you are guideing or leading in blocks a nice big master point  that is not part of the rope is critical for  efficiency and comfort. mini quad is perfect for that application.

Nick Goldsmith wrote: ... we now have a 2nd case of  spectra cutting through itself from being knotted and jugged on...

Could you point me to this case Nick?

Seconded.  That’s a not so insignificant failure mode...