— In canyons@y…, “s_mestdagh”
steve
Hi Steve,
Thanks for posting that. I think I’ll drop a rope off of my balcony this weekend and give the pursell system a go.
Now, a question for all you climbing anchor techies out there, something I see quite often. Just above the pursell description is a 2-point load distributing anchor (something I’ve always heard called a “sliding knot” or “sliding x”). According to the first paragraph:
“Also known as a pseudo – equalizing anchor, this arrangement is commonly used to share the load between two otherwise strong and secure anchor points to provide redundancy in case of failure of a single point.”
But then, in the second paragraph:
“If one ore more protection pieces within an anchor are less than perfect, an alternative configuration which does not allow for extension to occur should be employed.”
What do people think about this? Seems one would use this only if there is no chance of anchor failure, but then who cares about redundancy or equalization? Isn’t this a contradiction? Wouldn’t a cordalette work better, as the extension would be minimized in case of one anchor failing (at the loss of some equalization)? Or, if you want to keep equalization, using two shorter slings (one off of each anchor point) connected with a biner/quicklink?
When would one use this configuration?
Mike “it’s the american death triangle for me” Dallin dallin@on-line.com
rcwildone
Mike,
Like Hank, I believe it is very rare to encounter a situation in canyoneering where the sliding X is appropriate. Especially in cases where marginal natural placements are being used to build a multi-point anchor.
Someone might argue that it is important to distribute the load equally among marginal placements, but I believe the risk of failure would be much greater from shock loading if one piece failed and the anchor extended. I would prefer to use a cordelette (or webbing tied like a cordelette) and go for static equalization. In doing so, you must pay close attention at the start of your rappel so you control the direction of force on the anchor.
Rick “keep your American death triangle to yourself” Carlson
mike_dallin
— In canyons@y…, hmoon@p… wrote: > The sliding X (IMO) is normally used for a belay anchor in climbing when > multiple directions of pull are anticpated. The extension problem is > mitigated by knotting one or both legs of the “V” between the anchor (s) and > the X. I don’t see any reason to use it in most canyoneering situations > (i.e. for a rappel anchor).
Thanks, hank. Answered it perfectly. Thanks for the link to rec.climbing, but I already spend too much time with this group to add another to the list.
Mike dallin@on-line.com
hmoon@petzl.com
Mike
This topic was recently discussed at length on rec.climbing (145 articles in thread). Check
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=vuTe7.165427%24%25a.7216378%40news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dsliding%2Bx%26hl%3Den
for all the thoughts (and some pretty darn good ASCII art) you can take!
The sliding X (IMO) is normally used for a belay anchor in climbing when multiple directions of pull are anticpated. The extension problem is mitigated by knotting one or both legs of the “V” between the anchor(s) and the X. I don’t see any reason to use it in most canyoneering situations (i.e. for a rappel anchor).
hank
—-
What do people think about this? Seems one would use this only if there is no chance of anchor failure, but then who cares about redundancy or equalization? Isn’t this a contradiction? Wouldn’t a cordalette work better, as the extension would be minimized in case of one anchor failing (at the loss of some equalization)? Or, if you want to keep equalization, using two shorter slings (one off of each anchor point) connected with a biner/quicklink?
When would one use this configuration?