Multi-point Anchor using only a Single Rope?

Tie a bowline where your master point will be around one tree, tail round the next tree and rethread the bowline, tail up to the last tree and tie it how you like

Jim Titt wrote: Tie a bowline where your master point will be around one tree, tail round the next tree and rethread the bowline, tail up to the last tree and tie it how you like

And this is why we're always one step behind the europeans...

Ben K wrote:

This would make an american death triangle i.e. extra forces will be generated inwards on the trees. 

how much force we talkin' here?  will it septuple the force?  LOLZ...

slim wrote:

how much force we talkin' here?  will it septuple the force?  LOLZ...

Depends on how widely spaced the trees are. I'm not really concerned about that making it unsafe but I don't particularly love the idea of generate more force than necessary on those poor innocent trees. But I'm tree hugging hippie so I guess that means my opinion is BS, right? [insert snark here]

Jim Titt wrote: Tie a bowline where your master point will be around one tree, tail round the next tree and rethread the bowline, tail up to the last tree and tie it how you like

I like this a lot, but is there a way to equalize in this scenario? I'm less concerned about equalization, and more concerned about the direction of pull. Given the trees are never where you want them, equalizing allows for an easy way to get your self over the cliff edge going straight down, and not swinging way over to one side if your foot slips. Would I essentially use the two outer most trees to equalize the line, and then tie off to any other trees between them for redundency? I was trying to tie them off in a linear order and it wasn't working. If I do this though and the angle is larger than 60*, I'll be creating other concerns with increasing forces. Any thoughts? 

Ma Ja wrote:

I like this a lot, but is there a way to equalize in this scenario? I'm less concerned about equalization, and more concerned about the direction of pull. Given the trees are never where you want them, equalizing allows for an easy way to get your self over the cliff edge going straight down, and not swinging way over to one side if your foot slips. Would I essentially use the two outer most trees to equalize the line, and then tie off to any other trees between them for redundency? I was trying to tie them off in a linear order and it wasn't working. If I do this though and the angle is larger than 60*, I'll be creating other concerns with increasing forces. Any thoughts? 

Like I said tie the first bowline where you want the masterpoint to be and adjust the second to keep it in position

Jim Titt wrote:

Like I said tie the first bowline where you want the masterpoint to be and adjust the second to keep it in position

So outside and outside. Thanks again. 

Why are you using multiple trees?  if a tree isn't strong enough as a single anchor than your worried you will pull the tree out?  If this happens then A TREE WILL FALL ON YOU!  a tree large enough to be an anchor falling on you would probably suck pretty hard.  

So bowline on a bite around the 1st tree, thread the long tail through the bite loop that will be sticking out of the bowline (this locks the bowline from being able to come loose as the loop cant pass back through the knot.  Take your really long tail over to another tree and tie off.  Not equalized but do we really need to equalize trees? would low extension be more important?  And isn't 2 trees good enough.

Your already only rapping off a single strand and then I assume jugging the same strand right?  so if that's good enough why isn't 2 trees  good enough?  

Gavin Bridgeman wrote:

Many ways to achieve. I would say this is rather simple.
-Equalize as usual.
-Tie a BHK. In photo leader is on the left, on backside of BHK. Leader can pull extra so they can clove into master p.
Follower is on the right. Pull slack, and connect follow rope with your favorite belay devise.

That's basically my current setup, with a figure 8 instead of the BHK. I think Jim Titt's method is what I'm looking for.