creating a self equalizing anchor with a master point is it possible?

So I am asking all the masters of knots out there in cyberspace for some advice. I have been trying to do more with less latley just for fun biulding anchors with my rope useing munter hitches to belay so my question is...

Can I build a self equalizing anchor with a master point all with a single rope. Use as many biners as you want but only one rope no extra cord to make a magic x with.

no, but you could change the mind-set toward what will bring you adequate load distribution and be better off at solving the problem.

sure you can ... make a loop in the rope and use that to make an anchor ..

no idea why you would want to though

;)

Buff Johnson wrote:no, but you could change the mind-set toward what will bring you adequate load distribution and be better off at solving the problem.

want to explain it little further

I know there is a way, because someone tried explaining it to me over beers once, but I don't remember how because A) There was beer, B) I needed to see it to understand it, and C) It's totally unnecessary.

It's a fun thought experiment, but in the real world I think you're safer just building a normal, perfectly adequate, speedy anchor, rather than getting benighted or stuck in a storm because you're spending 20 minutes building every anchor. :-)

Easy if your anchor is a single point, right? See John Long's book on real world testing of what looks like an equalized anchor with gear placed at different lengths vertically. Not even close to being equalized using the (dynamic) rope. An equalette is as close as it gets as far as I know.

i'm sure there are plenty of ways to skin this cat, my biggest beef with the way I learned to make a self equalizing anchor system is that it remains dynamic.....so if one piece blows it shock the ever living dog s**t out of your system. and i'm guessing that you want to make sure all of your forces are equal because you're using small/somewhat sketchy gear. if one of those pieces blew and shocked an already questionable anchor, you might be better off just building a regular anchor.....or just don't fall.

but if you're fired up on it, i can send you some pics on how i build an equalizing anchor.

SRENE is an oxymoron. You can never have true equalization, redundancy, and no extension at the same time.

Priority should be:
1) Bomber pieces. A few fatty cams placed well will almost certainly not fail almost no matter what method you use to lash them all together.

2) Limit extension, a sudden foot long drop if one of your solid pieces does pop will fry nerves at the least, and might make you let go of your brake hand at the worst, so lash things together with similar lengths (i.e. like a cordellete).

3) Put some redundancy into the lashing system. A sliding X puts all your faith into one sling, one hit from a falling nugget into a taught sling could send your party to the deck. Trango's Equalizer fails this standard unless you add knots at all the biners (which reduces equalization).

4) Lowest on the list is aiming for true equalization. Unless you have no choice but placing a pile of marginal pieces (see #1), equalization is just the last bastion of internet whiners.

My $0.02.

It depends on how long the pitch is.

if you have a 100' pitch, i guarantee i can make you a double backed up magic x with the rope. if you have 20 ft, this may be a bit more of a challenge, but still may be possible.

what about changing your anchor to the self equalizing one.

2/4 biners and 2-3 bights of the same length rope, 2 solid pieces of gear. sounds redundant to me. tie a loop in the two outside ropes and clip in, then clip a locking biner or two onto the knotless strand and have a redundant , self equalizing anchor with no slings

In my opinion, the closest thing to what you are talking about is the ACR anchor: mountainproject.com/v/acr-a…

Extension can be limited by tieing off one leg which doesn't compromise equalization.

Rig a cordelette but don't tie the Fig8 knot (the knot the creates the powerpoint). You'll need TWO of these if you want redundancy. And there will be massive extension if any piece fails. And studies have shown that the cords don't really slide over or past each other, so you don't really get dynamic adjustment if the load direction shifts.

Bottom line - it don't work.

If this is a trick question, Bearbreeder wins the Kewpie doll

If its a real question, Moof and Buff answered it.

... and if you're still confused, just remember what the Zen philosopher Basha once wrote, that a flute with no holes is not a flute, and a donut with no hole is a Danish....

Arguments abound. You can very easily build a "equalized" three point anchor (in quotes because "equalization" on pieces spaced in the real world will end up loading one more than the other more than the other). But self equalizing? Is that actually necessary in any real world conditions?

Just for fun, I thought I'd try. Inspired by a funky cordolette trick I saw Jon Tierny rig up out of the corner of my eye awhile ago. The bottom line is that there is no practical application (that I can immediately think of) or justification for spending the time, and consuming/carrying the extra resources. This is however self-equalizing, redundant, limits extension, and has a masterpoint which you could clove off to, and belay off of. All done with less than twenty feet of rope...

riddle solved?

I think we have a winner.

Michael E. wrote:Just for fun, I thought I'd try. Inspired by a funky cordolette trick I saw Jon Tierny rig up out of the corner of my eye awhile ago. The bottom line is that there is no practical application (that I can immediately think of) or justification for spending the time, and consuming/carrying the extra resources. This is however self-equalizing, redundant, limits extension, and has a masterpoint which you could clove off to, and belay off of. All done with less than twenty feet of rope...

thats quite imaginative ... but i doubt any real "equalization" benefits with the many knots and hitches in the system ... not to mention i can see it being a biatch to tie in real conditions

the below is simple to tie, provides no worse "equalization" than a sliding X (3 pt) setup, and requires no more gear

i still cant see why anyone would do it though ...

3 pt sliding x rope

the 2 point version i added limiter knots

2 pt sliding x rope with knots

consider the biner as the "masterpoint" biner that you can belay off, or clove hitch into if yr worried

i still dont see the point though

;)

Michael E. wrote:Just for fun, I thought I'd try. Inspired by a funky cordolette trick I saw Jon Tierny rig up out of the corner of my eye awhile ago. The bottom line is that there is no practical application (that I can immediately think of) or justification for spending the time, and consuming/carrying the extra resources. This is however self-equalizing, redundant, limits extension, and has a masterpoint which you could clove off to, and belay off of. All done with less than twenty feet of rope...

You will find if you test this under load that it doesn´t self equalise to any measurable extent. To move the master point to one side or the other requires the rope slides through four karabiners with bends approaching 180° which is death to any idea of equalisation. This is the problem with any system of this type where the master point forces the whole cordage to slide such as in the Alpine Equaliser and the one posted by Bryan Ferguson further down. Make a good belay device though!

Michael E. wrote:...This is however self-equalizing, redundant, limits extension, and has a masterpoint which you could clove off to, and belay off of. All done with less than twenty feet of rope...

The riddle isn't even close to solved. The pictured anchor won't self-equalize, as Jim, who has tested such rigs extensively, has said. It doesn't satisfy any concept of redundancy I can think of, since cutting any load-bearing strand will result in the total failure of the anchor. It does little to limit the full extension possible if one of the anchors fails; the clove hitch on the left-hand piece provides some minimal help. The only criteria it fully satisfies is that it has a master point. I might add that there is nothing new about the basic idea; I saw neater versions of this anchor used in mountain rescues in the Tetons fifty years ago.

How much any of this matters is, of course, a separate issue.

Hey Jim, do you have any of your load test information online? I'd love to check it out. Thanks,

Moof wrote:SRENE is an oxymoron. You can never have true equalization, redundancy, and no extension at the same time. Priority should be: 1) Bomber pieces. A few fatty cams placed well will almost certainly not fail almost no matter what method you use to lash them all together. 2) Limit extension, a sudden foot long drop if one of your solid pieces does pop will fry nerves at the least, and might make you let go of your brake hand at the worst, so lash things together with similar lengths (i.e. like a cordellete). 3) Put some redundancy into the lashing system. A sliding X puts all your faith into one sling, one hit from a falling nugget into a taught sling could send your party to the deck. Trango's Equalizer fails this standard unless you add knots at all the biners (which reduces equalization). 4) Lowest on the list is aiming for true equalization. Unless you have no choice but placing a pile of marginal pieces (see #1), equalization is just the last bastion of internet whiners. My $0.02.

Good advice here.

with the above scenario i have given, there is no wonderstrand to be broken, no extensions and is very redundant. if one breaks (bolt/piece/cord)there will be no shock load on anything.... geez i wish i had a camera and some gear with me....the clip in point would have to have 2 strands.

so what is the technical definition of a masterpoint? does it have to be a tied off loop, because that would make this a trick question.

if the master point is where you clip your biner and whatnot, then this scenario would work....