Do you trust one bolt?

If i knew who put it in and when, yes, i would. Because the metals would match, the hole would be perfect, and a proper torque down. If i didnt, id try to put pieces in too. Sometimes, youre damned if you do, damned if you dont. Those things do some gnarly shit in construction.

Jim,

I understand that things are different in Europe than the US, especially when it comes to bureaucracy and perhaps litigation-wise too. It's also true that in Europe, local clubs maintain most of the crags, spreading out the cost among many compared to the handful that seem to be paying for most of the cost here in the US. So I would think that even with the huge cost added by the EU bureaucracy, it wouldn't matter so much there, plus the FIXE trad anchor is a lot harder to maintain than one with quicklinks in the system.

I still don't quite buy the argument that 2 worn rings are no different than one. What about a factor 2 fall onto the belay with the climbers clipped into the worn ring with a carabiner? Also, if it all leads down to one ring, that has a weld by the way, why bother with 2 bolts? Those bolts are plenty strong too, since we're no-longer concerned about redundancy. Just because something with a single point failure hasn't had a bad track record doesn't mean that it can't be improved and perhaps at the same or lower cost, just by an improved design. Plus, people just seem to blindly trust fixed hardware no matter the condition, so it's best to make things as idiot proof as possible. I certainly agree that a ring that can rotate is preferable to extend the lifespan. Plus chains are beneficial on multi-pitch routes for multple climbers/parties to clip in.

FWIW - I was actually in the nuclear weapons business not the power industry.

Trying not to beat a dead horse here so I'll keep it short. J Albers' logic was initially mine as well when I first encountered the vertical fixe anchor pictured in this thread. "This is bad engineering" I thought.

When I consulted an IFMGA guide on the topic, his response was..."it's a steel ring, 50kn".

After thinking about it a bit, I realized that the probability of that ring failing under rappel forces is SO low (so much lower than any other circumstance I can think of where a non-redundant setup is called into question) that I have accepted it and moved on.

I really like the idea mentioned earlier of running the rope through the ring, then TR'ing off a draw slightly higher that takes all the weight. Use steel lockers on the draw and you have one hell of a TR anchor (albeit not equalized, which is another 6 pages of discussion at least LOL).

BurtMachlan wrote: You are so full of shit we can smell ya from this side of the pond. Increased rope wear? Got anything else Jim or is that it?

Burt, you are making a fool of yourself. You just called one of the most knowledgeable men in the world on this subject "full of shit." Aside from whether his opinion is correct or not, do you really need to be so insulting?

All this talk about "no redundancy" on a single ring anchor is ridiculous. A single Fixe ring is rated to 50kn. Double rating of the _single_ locker you're rapping/belaying with, double your _single_ belay loop, double your _single_ rope. But people are saying an anchor setup is somehow compromised based on the use of a single SS ring (the only part of an already completely non-redundant system that has absolutely no history of failure). You'd be better off climbing on two full strength ropes, double belay lockers, and a swami to back up your harness than having a second rap ring. The argument that they make for a less safe anchor is sheer paranoia.

The argument a single ring puts more wear on a rope is a canard as well. You'll whip all day on a 12mm Nano, but suddenly rapping off a 12mm ring is an issue? It's probably the one thing you do to your rope while climbing that _doesn't_ mess it up. The bearing edge for UIAA rope drop tests is 10mm, btw.

The argument that they're harder to replace, however, is valid. Although in real world scenarios, I don't imagine it's that big of an issue--by the time a SS ring is significantly worn, the whole anchor may be in need of replacement. If the bolts are still good, cut the ring and replace it with a link and ring, or two links, or whatever.

I was going to address Mitch and Mark's comments, but Tod already more or less made my argument for me (see below).

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote: Also, if it all leads down to one ring, that has a weld by the way, why bother with 2 bolts? Those bolts are plenty strong too, since we're no-longer concerned about redundancy. Just because something with a single point failure hasn't had a bad track record doesn't mean that it can't be improved and perhaps at the same or lower cost, just by an improved design. Plus, people just seem to blindly trust fixed hardware no matter the condition, so it's best to make things as idiot proof as possible. I certainly agree that a ring that can rotate is preferable to extend the lifespan. Plus chains are beneficial on multi-pitch routes for multple climbers/parties to clip in.

To add to what Tod said, I won't argue that the probability of a 50kN rap ring failing is low. Nevertheless, the argument that "its so strong, so don't bother with redundancy" makes little sense to me. Especially when it is utterly trivial to make the anchor redundant by simply not connecting the two anchor points together with the ring.

Moreover, justifying a single rap ring by arguing that everyone relies on single safety points by rapping on a single rope and using a single belay carabiner is not a good argument either. Like everything in climbing, the safety margin is often a compromise between practicality and the need for more redundancy. In the case of the single belay biner, it is not at all practical to employ two biners. In the case of relying on a single rope, if the climbing terrain dictates it, folks often use double ropes just to increase their safety margin in the event of rockfall etc. cutting the rope. Is it always practical to use two ropes? Of course not, but sometimes you do anyway because of the tradeoff for a larger safety margin. However, equating either of these examples to letting two chains hang free so that they can be individually threaded is in no way an equivalent comparison because it is so completely practical and easy to do so, while adding significant redundancy. Its as simple as that as far as I am concerned.

The single bolt comparison isn't very good since you can't visually inspect most of the important parts of the bolt and the bolt installation. That isn't really a problem with a big beefy ring.

I love having the redundancy of two anchor chains no matter how its configured. I dont like anchors with only a couple of links/biners, I'd rather see a nice "v" knowing how little stress is being put on the old anchor makes me feel better. At the same time I have no problem with one steel anchor as long as it is solid and fairly fat.

I have rapped off of worn out, hollow, aluminum rap rings that have been used for toproping numerous times and have never seen them blow out(biner backup every time) so this makes me feel better about steel.

Solid steel rings blowing out? youd have to be really stupid to rap off of one that was close to blowing out. Darwin would then win.

Mark Paulson wrote:All this talk about "no redundancy" on a single ring anchor is ridiculous. A single Fixe ring is rated to 50kn.

The "arguer" has clearly stated that his beef with the single ring anchor is not related to the strength of the ring, rather the lack of a second ring.

While I agree that there is hardly anything to worry about, it is incorrect for anyone to argue that the sheer strength of the ring makes it redundant. It is true that most all of us use a single belay biner, or a single belay device, or a single belay loop. These are choices we make because we recognize that the chances of them failing are extremely low.

It is my opinion that J's argument is based around the fact that since it is so easy to make the anchor truly redundant, why not do it? People have tirelessly countered his argument by saying there is no need to because the single ring is so strong. Yet this misses his point, because strength does not equal redundancy.

Where a climber personally draws the line between being paranoid and being realistically cautious is unique to him/her, and while we can all harbor strong opinions on the topic we should respect each other's ideas, because in the end it is our lives that are at stake.

Lemme just say this, cus you-know, there aren't enough opinions. I would agree 100% with Jim's opinion if JIM manufactured the bolt. I would believe the same if it was manufactured y jim AND placed by Briandslc. I believe in redundancy, and it is not because something is rated to 50 kn. It is because something, when PLACED PERFECTLY, is rated to 50 kn. If I know Brianslc placed the bolt, I'm fine with lowering off 1 point, AND if I know Jim built the anchor, I'm fine with lowering off it. The problem is this adds up to about 1% of what I clip. So, I'd like the standard, since joe-blow might have placed it and Guido-weedo might have manufactured it, of two pieces.

My method, and I have changed this in the last 24 months, is to place one key placement, and then another just BARELY below it. The idea is you lower off that point and the other doesn't get wear or put a twist in the rope. Yeah, its a bit more expensive, but I want it to be good for a very long time... its worth it.

OK< back to the beer.

In response to J. Albers:

It probably wouldn't make much sense to you unless you're the one doing the bolting. What's practical from your perspective may not be the same as what's practical from an equipper's perspective. Why use more hardware than is necessary to create a bombproof anchor with no history of failure? Why use two pieces of hardware when one is rated as strong as both bolts or hangers combined? Especially if you're someone like Mr. Titt who has equipped hundreds of routes? He just stated the price difference between his inline setup and the "ideal" independent setup you'd prefer is 24 euros. That, times the 400 or so routes he's bolted would be an additional cost to him of roughly $13,000. Doesn't sound utterly trivial to me. Just one extra ring per anchor would be 2 grand. You'd statistically be doing infinitely more to protect yourself by backing up your belay loop with webbing (known failures) than by adding an additional 50kn ring to an inline anchor (no known failures). However, as you said, you may not find that practical, just as Mr. Titt probably didn't consider spending thousands of dollars for imaginary peace of mind practical.

I'm not trying to be a dick. I like horizontal anchors with chains and independent rings best, just like a lot of people here. But only because it's what I'm used to. To trust your own 22kn aluminum belay locker implicitly, but to question a 50kn SS ring is just irrational. At 22kn, your harness would rip your pelvis out of your body before it would break. Again, putting an extra ring up seems easy when you're not the one doing it or paying for it. If the equippers wanted you to use two lockers for _their_ peace of mind, would you do it?

Mark Paulson wrote:In response to J. Albers: It probably wouldn't make much sense to you unless you're the one doing the bolting. What's practical from your perspective may not be the same as what's practical from an equipper's perspective. Why use more hardware than is necessary to create a bombproof anchor with no history of failure? Why use two pieces of hardware when one is rated as strong as both bolts or hangers combined? Especially if you're someone like Mr. Titt who has equipped hundreds of routes? He just stated the price difference between his inline setup and the "ideal" independent setup you'd prefer is 24 euros. That, times the 400 or so routes he's bolted would be an additional cost to him of roughly $13,000. Doesn't sound utterly trivial to me. Just one extra ring per anchor would be 2 grand. You'd statistically be doing infinitely more to protect yourself by backing up your belay loop with webbing (known failures) than by adding an additional 50kn ring to an inline anchor (no known failures). However, as you said, you may not find that practical, just as Mr. Titt probably didn't consider spending thousands of dollars for imaginary peace of mind practical.

First of all, stating that you can't afford to apply best practices when bolting (whatever those are...), is a utterly lame excuse. From my perspective, placing bolts comes with a responsibility to the community...it is public land that you are bolting on after all. If you can't afford to do it right, then bolt fewer routes. I don't agree with everything that Paul Piana has said, but he had it right when he wrote in his original Wild Iris guidebook that bolting a route is a reflection on the developer. Clean the route well so people don't pull choss onto their belayer. Use quality hardware (SS at this point). A few well done routes is always better than a 1000 mediocre ones. And that includes all that goes into the process.

Secondly, having a redundant anchor is not "imaginary" peace of mind. If it was, than as Tod stated, why don't you just lower from one bolt all the time...I mean they are rated to a load of a f*ck-ton, right? Moreover, there is no way that putting in two bolts and hangers with high quality quick links is more expensive than ANY Fixe in-line setup.

Finally, what makes you think that I haven't developed before? For the record, I practice what I preach. All high quality, tested, SS setups with readily replaceable anchors. In fact, myself and those that taught me to bolt even put in second sets of anchors so that folks can get down on single pitch stuff without dragging a second rope to rap. Good enough? Does my opinion count now?

On another note, I thought that I recently read that using etching acid on SS hardware before camo- painting compromises the rust protection of the hardware.

Is there any truth to this? Is etching really a bad deal? Are there better options that retain the rust proofing of the SS while helping to keep paint from flecking off with use?

Locker wrote:"IMO what's best is two quick links per hanger, or one quick link and a solid rap ring. Easy to replace. I too have never been a fan of fixed ring anchors.

That's what I usually do here in Bolivia but many times the extra links get stolen and then there's nothing but a single quick link on a bolt in crappy rock, at least at the local area.

Of course, we'd take donations of those fancy Fixe systems if any are available.

J. Albers wrote: First of all, stating that you can't afford to apply best practices when bolting (whatever those are...), is a utterly lame excuse. From my perspective, placing bolts comes with a responsibility to the community...it is public land that you are bolting on after all. If you can't afford to do it right, then bolt fewer routes. I don't agree with everything that Paul Piana has said, but he had it right when he wrote in his original Wild Iris guidebook that bolting a route is a reflection on the developer. Clean the route well so people don't pull choss onto their belayer. Use quality hardware (SS at this point). A few well done routes is always better than a 1000 mediocre ones. And that includes all that goes into the process. Secondly, having a redundant anchor is not "imaginary" peace of mind. If it was, than as Tod stated, why don't you just lower from one bolt all the time...I mean they are rated to a load of a f*ck-ton, right? Moreover, there is no way that putting in two bolts and hangers with high quality quick links is more expensive than ANY Fixe in-line setup. Finally, what makes you think that I haven't developed before? For the record, I practice what I preach. All high quality, tested, SS setups with readily replaceable anchors. In fact, myself and those that taught me to bolt even put in second sets of anchors so that folks can get down on single pitch stuff without dragging a second rope to rap. Good enough? Does my opinion count now?

Equating using a single ring with using a single bolt is a fallacious argument. There has been a long and documented history of bolts pulling, rock breaking, corrosion, etc. Glue-ins are particularly susceptible to weakness due to improper hole prep. Bolts are bomber until they pull (and they sometimes do). This simply isn't the case with 50kn rings. Just because you were taught a particular way of anchor construction does not mean it is better at anything other than making people "feel" better about it, which many people in this thread (myself included) have cited as their favorite aspect of redundant rings. Thousands of euro anchors are evidence that there is no added real-word benefit (i.e. keeping people off the deck) of a second ring. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else not to use double rings. Just that it's not necessarily better, just as using two biners to belay isn't better, as the argument as to whether or not it's safer is pretty much moot.

Seems that some of the recent posters here are missing a key point. Those beefy rings are 50KN when they're brand new, not when that sand filled saw of a rope cuts 1/2 way or more through them. The ring is the only part of the anchor that gets WEAR. If your belay biner is cut 1/2 way through I'll bet it get's tossed. If you're already using 2 bolts because the probably of failure due to corrosion, bad rock, over torque, etc., why not just reconfigure the same amount of hardware so that it's fully redundant. I've even seen the trad type anchor in Italy that had the whole rig through a corroded single hanger and single ring - I backed that up with a piece of webbing. So, the whole point is why use the same amount of hardware and defeat the redundancy when you can keep the redundancy through better design?

J. Albers wrote: First of all, stating that you can't afford to apply best practices when bolting (whatever those are...), is a utterly lame excuse. From my perspective, placing bolts comes with a responsibility to the community...it is public land that you are bolting on after all. If you can't afford to do it right, then bolt fewer routes. I don't agree with everything that Paul Piana has said, but he had it right when he wrote in his original Wild Iris guidebook that bolting a route is a reflection on the developer. Clean the route well so people don't pull choss onto their belayer. Use quality hardware (SS at this point). A few well done routes is always better than a 1000 mediocre ones. And that includes all that goes into the process. Secondly, having a redundant anchor is not "imaginary" peace of mind. If it was, than as Tod stated, why don't you just lower from one bolt all the time...I mean they are rated to a load of a f*ck-ton, right? Moreover, there is no way that putting in two bolts and hangers with high quality quick links is more expensive than ANY Fixe in-line setup. Finally, what makes you think that I haven't developed before? For the record, I practice what I preach. All high quality, tested, SS setups with readily replaceable anchors. In fact, myself and those that taught me to bolt even put in second sets of anchors so that folks can get down on single pitch stuff without dragging a second rope to rap. Good enough? Does my opinion count now?

Well there´s bad bolting, good bolting and overkill bolting.I go for the middle one usually and not because I can´t afford the hardware. Whether a climber putting up a new route is obliged to install a lower-off that meets ALL the potential users wishes AND with a long-term commitment to maintain it is debatable anyway.
Despite what you have posted several times it IS more expensive to have the two parts of the anchor seperated, you need another ring to start with. And once you start putting certified stainless quick-links into the system the price rockets out of control with the attendant risk they are stolen added in.
I too install intermediate anchor stations if they are required and extra ones for routes requiring a rope longer than 60m but I wouldn´t use a two-ring setup at the top as there are no benefits apart from pandering to some climbers perceived fears. Nor do any of the organisations in Europe where budget is rarely a major constraint.

Strength of rings;- Fixe rate their stainless rings at 50kN and so do we but this is only a way of saying they are strong. The lower acceptable values we use in our QC testing are 8mm ring 52kN, 10mm ring 80kN and 12mm ring we stop testing at 100kN as this is the limit of our tester.

I will take vertical in line bolts any day of the week over V chains

my only problem with the vertical setup is that a 1/4"-1/8" one way or the other and only one bolt takes weight for its whole existence of being an anchor. basically the amount of accuracy needed to get the two bolts perfectly equalized would be easier to do in a shop with a drill table setup.

Anchor

this anchor is bomber no doubt but from looking at it I'd say its not perfectly equalized, a "v" style anchor is easier to equalize.