Mountain Project Logo

Three point anchor - The Saga Continues

Eric Moss · · Exton, PA · Joined Apr 2016 · Points: 95
wivanoff wrote: Agreed. At the same time, I'm glad that other experienced climbers weigh in. Why? Because noobs have a habit of resurrecting old, worn out threads and thinking they've discovered something new and improved. They look at some odd idea and, having little experience, think "why not?" Then they show their noob friends - who perpetuate the idea. That photo of the Purcell Prusik 3-point anchor was from a forum under "Practical Knots". "Practical" knots. Seriously? While this thread is merely entertaining, how many of you remember the "Alpine Quickboys" thread on rc.com? Experienced climbers repeatedly wrote how dangerous the idea was. Whether that was a troll or a just a noob, the admins determined that it was dangerous enough that they nuked the entire thread.
Do you consider the Purcell rig dangerous?

What about the convenience of post-installation adjustability?

What about the potential energy absorbing characteristics?

I think it's an interesting idea, at least, even if it's not ultimately practical. I don't see why it's necessary to instantly shun new information.

I also don't see why it's necessary to use derogatory language, like "noob". I understand that you're proud of your supposed climbing prowess, but you don't have to be a dick about it.
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65

Jumping into the fray....

Eric Moss wrote: Do you consider the Purcell rig dangerous?
No, just wildly impractical.

Eric Moss wrote: What about the convenience of post-installation adjustability?
Not as critical as you seem to think, and other solutions are more practical.

Eric Moss wrote:What about the potential energy absorbing characteristics?
As numerous others have attempted to drum into your obstinate skull, irrelevant - the rope has far more influence.

Eric Moss wrote:I don't see why it's necessary to instantly shun new information.
It's not shunned because it's new. It's shunned because it doesn't bring any improvements or advantages and is needlessly complex. *That's* how thousands of feet of climbing experience is able to inform.

Eric Moss wrote:I also don't see why it's necessary to use derogatory language, like "noob".
We were all noobs once - it's not that derogatory.....*until* someone such as yourself starts being aggressively ignorant and refuses to learn.
Jason Todd · · Cody, WY · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 1,114

+1 to everything Marc just posted.
Reread this:

It's shunned because it doesn't bring any improvements or advantages and is needlessly complex.

Eric Moss wrote: Aren't you a little old to be acting like an elitist jerk online?
Stich’s inquiry was not “elitist”. Your insistence on theoretical safety vs practical safety does raise the possibility that you have never actually “tied in”.

It reminds me of this “theorist” doling out gear advice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpzt0UyHbW4

Again:
It's shunned because it doesn't bring any improvements or advantages and is needlessly complex.
Eric Moss · · Exton, PA · Joined Apr 2016 · Points: 95
Jason Todd wrote:+1 to everything Marc just posted. Reread this: It's shunned because it doesn't bring any improvements or advantages and is needlessly complex. Stich’s inquiry was not “elitist”. Your insistence on theoretical safety vs practical safety does raise the possibility that you have never actually “tied in”. It reminds me of this “theorist” doling out gear advice: youtube.com/watch?v=Xpzt0Uy… Again: It's shunned because it doesn't bring any improvements or advantages and is needlessly complex.
How do you know it doesn't have any advantages? Is there some testing you'd be kind enough to share?
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
Eric Moss wrote: How do you know it doesn't have any advantages? Is there some testing you'd be kind enough to share?
OK. If you're going to insist on being painfully, obstinately semantic - any possible, minuscule, irrelevant advantages are far outweighed by the disadvantages of complexity, time, bulk, and, admittedly minor, weight.
Jason Todd · · Cody, WY · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 1,114
Eric Moss wrote: How do you know it doesn't have any advantages?
Having been an active user of rope systems in various applications for the greater part of three decades I can relatively safely say that any theoretical advantage this clusterfuck has is dwarfed by the practical disadvantages. Particularly in a climbing application.

I could use a MSA positioning harness while climbing. It would allow me to clip into an anchor in all kinds of clever and creative ways, often offering up great advantages. But it isn't necessary and would actually be a hinderance in the mountains. Same thing as your rig, testing isn't required to know it sucks.
JohnSol · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2015 · Points: 15

^

Don't forget, number one way to be safe, don't fall.

wivanoff · · Northeast, USA · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 674
Eric Moss wrote:Do you consider the Purcell rig dangerous?
I did not say it was dangerous. However, I implied it was impractical. Hence my use of paragraphs. The paragraph "That photo of the Purcell Prusik 3-point anchor was from a forum under 'Practical Knots'. 'Practical' knots. Seriously?" was all by itself. Paragraphs are used for a change of thought.

Eric Moss wrote:What about the convenience of post-installation adjustability?
Honestly, I don't see that as an issue for me. I try to set bomber pieces and distribute the load as best as practical. My personal feeling is that bomber pro comes first and NO extension is more important than equalization.

I don't know about you, but after I set up my anchor, I'm busy paying attention to belaying my partner - not futzing with the anchor.

Eric Moss wrote:What about the potential energy absorbing characteristics?
That's why God made dynamic rope. This has been explained many times.

Eric Moss wrote:I think it's an interesting idea, at least, even if it's not ultimately practical.
I could tell, since someone posting as 'Moss' wrote in that forum: "I admire your Purcell rig. Here is a three point anchor I have devised, also with energy absorption in mind (though it has come to my attention that I should use thicker cord for this than 7mm and the included angle is too wide).
mountainproject.com/v/11203…;

That (and using your anchor as your avatar) suggests to me that you simply want recognition.

Eric Moss wrote:I don't see why it's necessary to instantly shun new information. I also don't see why it's necessary to use derogatory language, like "noob".


I don't 'instantly shun'. There are many times when I look at some new method and adopt it because it's a good idea. This just wasn't one of them. That's all.

ALL climbers were "noobs" once. It's not intended to be derogatory - like your use of "dick".

Eric Moss wrote:I understand that you're proud of your supposed climbing prowess
Hmmm... my climbing prowess. One would think I would post my climbing ability and list my accomplishments in my profile.

Eric Moss wrote:but you don't have to be a dick about it.
From the person who claims "noob" is derogatory...
Eric Moss · · Exton, PA · Joined Apr 2016 · Points: 95

Just because there exists dynamic rope doesn't mean that dynamism in other aspects of the system will have no benefit.

As to the rest of your tirade, I really don't care.

Brady3 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2014 · Points: 15

People don't worry about building a dynamic anchor because it will almost always (I'm sure someone will come up with an anchor made of bungee cord or something ridiculous) be the case that the rope does more for the dynamic properties (your use of "dynamism" is very incorrect, the definition has nothing to do with stretchy material or even materials) of the system than static cord or clove hitches ever will. In fact most the time people are looking for static anchors because of possible issues of the anchor running over an edge. If the anchor is more dynamic then it can saw through the material in these instances.

And how much force do you think your follow is going to put on the anchor? If you want it for extra "safety" for while you are leading the next pitch then what about the possibility of the extra stretch causing you to deck on a ledge? If you only have marginal gear where you are trying to build an anchor, then either climb up or down to find a better anchor spot.

mbk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 0

Inefficiency (in terms of bulk, mass, and timeliness) can all hurt safety.

It is not true that a marginal gain in strength or a marginal reduction in peak load will necessarily increase safety in a holistic way.

Eric Moss · · Exton, PA · Joined Apr 2016 · Points: 95

Here's some cool information on the Purcell prusik: dirtbaglawyer.wordpress.com…

Brady3 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2014 · Points: 15

Yes, purcell prussiks are considered to be better for dynamic loads when a dynamic rope is not involved as compared to dyneema slings. Nylon slings are generally considered to be better in those same instances as well. But that does not mean that you need a dynamic anchor. Even when people use the climbing rope in the anchor it is not because they want it to be dynamic, it's because they do not want to carry up another piece of cord/webbing, let alone several pieces of cord tied to a rap ring and that cannot be used for anything else and is extra bulky.

Tim Stich · · Colorado Springs, Colorado · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 1,520

Well, sadly, since you have all been discussing this useless drivel I have been actually climbing three days in a row.

Bravo.

It is absolutely worth investigating new ways to create anchors that perform better but are not more complicated. This is NOT doing that. Furthermore, Eric doesn't in fact appear to climb and has not actually built anchors out in the wild on the rock. When and if he ever does, he will see very clearly how horrible his ideas work in practice. Hopefully he will not clog up a popular trade route while doing this, instigating another thread about being passed.

Still good on rule #1 bros?

Now please, continue your discussion while I go figure out what I want to climb next week.

Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
Stich wrote: Still good on rule #1 bros? Now please, continue your discussion while I go figure out what I want to climb next week.
HAHAHAH Nicely done!
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65

If you do a Google image search on the term: rock climbing anchor clusterfuck
Guess which MP profile picture turns up in the results?
Yep, this one:

CF Anchor

Russ Keane · · Salt Lake · Joined Feb 2013 · Points: 392

Slogger wins the thread, with this comment a few pages ago:

"Eric Moss, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on wheel technology. Do you have any improvements you would make over the traditional round shape?"

rocknice2 · · Montreal, QC · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 3,847
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
Eric Moss · · Exton, PA · Joined Apr 2016 · Points: 95

I take it as a sign of encouragement that you post images of successful reinventions of the wheel. Thanks!

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Trad Climbing
Post a Reply to "Three point anchor - The Saga Continues"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.