paul,
i am not talking about alpine climbing or hard aid lines. i understand and i have climbed in those situations. i know that at times EXPERIENCED climbers need to make very serious decisions about safety, and sometimes the text book is thrown out. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THOSE TIMES!!!!!

the bottom line is this design is inherently flawed! that is all. IT IS A BAD BAD BAD DESIGN!!!! as i keep saying IF you are going to build a 3 piece anchor there is NO NEED to put that piece of shit on the end of it. it would take longer to get it out and hook it up that it would to just use the original 3 piece anchor CORRECTLY! that is all. build a 2 piece anchor and do it right and be done. fuck the extra piece and that PIECE OF SHIT bad design cordelette! that is what i am saying! you people keep missing the point. IT IS A SHITTY DESIGN that takes more time energy and gear than doing it "correctly" from the begining. that is all. leave that shit at home already.

stop telling me that you all can do it lighter and faster in the mountains and on aid routes. i am not talking about that. why don't some of you get on some hard aid with me and i will show you some genuinley scary shit.....that is "basically" safe by all your definitions! i am sure my fat ass can still do it! any one for several bashies, hooks , and rivit holes in a row? but do not fret....i will build you a good anchor i promise.

one last time for you that have trouble with this THIS CORD IS A TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DESIGN WITH INHERENT FAILURE POTENTIAL THAT BEGINNERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO USE!!!! BAD IDEA!

eddie

ps RG, it is not a moot point rather a simple explaination of a piss poor idea you are trying to pass off as good. it sucks. do it right already.

Eddy, with all due respect to empicard's brilliant animation, it's possible that if you repeat your point several more times, even more emphatically and with more hyperbole, it might, by the sheer force of your increasing blood pressure, become true.

It would at least be an interesting experiment.

okay. you guys are right. i am going out to buy one of these....they are the end all cure all. what was i thinking?

There ya go Eddie. Doesn't conformity feel soooo good!

RR

you will be assimilated. resistance is futile......

Has Eddie done the impossible? Has he killed this thread?

now that the thread is dead i have no more reason to go on. a brand new Trango Alpine Equalizer(tm) is wrapped around my neck, and equalized to the chandelier, the smoke alarm, and the fire sprinkler. just wanted to say thanks for all the laughs before kicking the stool out from under.

the thread is dead! long live the thread!

I climbed out at Lost City 2 weeks ago, and noticed some cordelette techniques used by some others climbers who later told me they had adapted their techniques from this forum.

The climbers remarked that the sliding-x was the ONLY safe way to use a cordelette because using an 8 knot increases the "impact force" on the remaining gear if one piece were to fail.

In 1 of their 2 setups (sigh, lost city gym camping...another thread for another day) they had the rope directly over the climb (with the climb not wandering left or right the impact on the anchor would always be in the same direction) and all three cams were fairly close to each other.

In this situation there is no need for the sliding-x or some sort of dynamic equalization. If one of the 3 cams or even 2 were to fail the "re-equalization" of the rope would be minimal (less than an inch if at all) due to the fact that all the gear was either on or very close to the direction of pull. In this setup or in any setup where the gear is all in-line or very closely in-line to the direction of pull the 8 knot is excellent and probably better. In the event of failure the other two pieces would take the weight without any dynamic movement in the system. Whereas the "x" would yield a drop (till the loop catches) and exert more force on the "re-equalizing" system.

The second setup really struck me. In this setup they had 3 perfectly equalized pieces (albie,t despite being in-line, using the "x" again), and had a backup piece quite a distance away. Now the equalized 3 cam setup and the backup where equalized to the rope via a sliding-x. To compensate for the great distance, a runner was attached to the 3 cam system then clipped to the cordelette, and the cordelette was clipped directly to the backup

The problem here (aside from some other things apart from this topic) is that the entire system, despite having 4 good pieces, was heavily dependant on only 1. If the backup were to fail the anchor would have effectively dropped 6 feet (distance of the cordelette loop...it was an abnormally large cordelette for TRing aparently). Aside from the shock load this would produce, the climber would drop that distance. An unessessary risk for a TR climber.

Again here, failure would result in minimal lateral shift, making re-equalization onto an 8 a better option.

I see more and more people using the sliding-x for TRing, and for pitch anchors than ever before. In my experience and education the "x" is good when 1) you need to move side to side at your anchor, and 2) when the failure of a piece would result in a re-equalization that would leave your remaining gear unequlized. The later is common, but not all setups will yield an unequalized system if part of the system fails.

The advantage of the "X" is that in the event of failure or lateralshift you will always end up with an equalized system. The disadvantage is that your "tie-in" point will drop, and any drop produces additional forces.