Trango Alpine Equalizer
|
I recently started using the Trango Alpine Equalizer on occasion and find it simple, quick versatile, and effective to use. |
|
The strength of the webbing in the Alpine Equalizer is 25kN. Other non-redundant components: rope, harness (16kN), belay carabiner (25kN), belay device. |
|
How about tying overhand knots in each "leg" above the rings? This would add redundancy and still allow equalization unless the angle of pull came from some where way off the intended direction of pull. |
|
Ron Olsen wrote:The strength of the webbing in the Alpine Equalizer is 25kN. Other non-redundant components: rope, harness (16kN), belay carabiner (25kN), belay device. Inspect your Alpine Equalizer before using it to make sure the webbing isn't damaged, and then use it without worrying about lack of redundancy. It's as strong (or stronger) than other non-redundant components in your belay system.Ron, Thanks, for the reply and the perspective adjustment. I guess after all that has been drummed into my head about redundancy in anchor construction, it is easy to overlook the lack of redundancy elsewhere in the system as a whole. :) -Glenn |
|
Robert 560 wrote:How about tying overhand knots in each "leg" above the rings? This would add redundancy and still allow equalization unless the angle of pull came from some where way off the intended direction of pull.Wouldn't that take longer to set up and kill the hole reason for wasting your money on such a gimmicky anchor? |
|
demo here: |
|
Its fast and simple. If you have bomber gear and take care of your sling these concerns are minimal. To avoid extending tie an over hand in the center strand. |
|
freerangequark wrote:I'm curious as to why this lack of redundancy is okay in this situation. Are sling failures rare?The rig is designed for ease of load distribution given a marginal anchor. A marginal anchor would be defined as an anchor where any single bomber placement is not adequate on its own to handle all the expected loads it could encounter, & maybe, plus a given safety factor. If you limit the ability of the rig by attempting redundancy, you forgo some degrees of directional loading that can also maintain that distribution. You also have material concerns with knotting/hitching that breaks down the fibers & also a strength reduction which is more as a percentage comparison to nylon, but probably still strong enough. Load distribution with marginal anchors is a complex situation. As climbers don't regularly factor 2 the anchor, this issue doesn't really come to light very often. But you can get a good idea reading Luebben's & Long's respective anchor books. Into this 2 factor can be the duration/size of impact, relative location of a climber fall to the anchor, and lack of material resiliency within dyneema/spectra -- this rig needs the dynamic rope, which is a no brainer for lead climbing. If this distribution can't maintain, the marginal anchor can have a problem regardless of the higher safety factor perceived. Meaning that thinking only in terms of redundancy and rig strength is pointless, or maybe better to say, not as important as adequate distribution off of solid protection placements and with good angles if you actually plan on bombing the anchor. (even with proven drop test result, this is still can be a volatile point of debate between even professionals; most of the ill-perceived argument of redundancy & grossly overstated safety factor being based on dogmatic principal to make whomever look important from whatever experience is claimed; but that's another topic for my venting tangent) I like the trango product for efficient rock anchor static loading that could end up being directional as the clutching effect is reduced. But, for recreational alpine climbing & potential rockfall routes, not so much; I'd rather rely on nylon accessory cord and/or climbing rope, they have more potential beneficial usefulness to me. More than any rigging concept, though, I'd just rather not fall on the anchor to begin with. |
|
I know the AE works well for people, but I don't really see the benefit because I am concerned about my anchors being serene. In the demo, clove hitching the pro is just as time consuming as an equalette or cordallette. I only see the AE being more efficient if you forgo limiting extenion. |
|
Ricardo wrote: Assume we are talking about a 3 anchor system. If one of your anchors is Bomb Proof then it will not matter which system you use i.e.. equalizing or tied off. But the concern arises with a system that has 3 hairy anchors. Which should I use?I disagree with the foundation here. The purpose in anchor building is adequate load distribution over the duration of the hit. If all we needed were one good placement, then why do anything with rigging? You need load distribution with rock anchors because one good placement, no matter how good it is, can't handle the load. That's really what making an adequate anchor from a marginal situation is; not whether or not the placements are marginal. To explain this point, if we have three crappy placements that can't handle any distribution, then we don't have an anchor no matter how we decide to rig it. If we have crappy placements, we should do something else; if there's no other choice, then we can't hit the anchor. I would much rather look at distributing 15-16kN over 2-3 good placements. Then look at what your pro is rated; 3 good placements that can only handle 2kN each probably aren't adequate, except maybe a bail anchor; but an anchor with 2-3 good placements at 8-12kN each is certainly a better bet to take a full hit. Then, rig good angles and use a system that has resiliency which the dynamic rope & belay offer. |
|
The numbers were arbitrary and excessively low for simplicity. It was the concept that was the point. Multiple placements that do not distribute loading vs. those that do. When limiting knots are used it is almost certain that the load will not be distributed, some angles will stress one anchor and not the others in actual use. My point is that there is no perfect system for multiple anchors but that different situations will favor one over the other. I totally agree that crappy anchors should not be relied on. But what do you do in a worst case scenario? |
|
Maybe this example will be clearer. |
|
The best way to determine if my ideas were correct was to test them through experimentation. After all, seeing is believing. |
|
To see the why this is so take a length of rope (doesn't need to be long) tie the two ends to 2 different points clip a carabiner into it and pull until you have tension. Pluck either leg of the rope and you will see that both are loaded. Slide the carabiner to either side while maintaining tension, same thing. Now tie a knot with a loop in it and clip into the loop. Apply tension, all is fine. Then move to one side you will see that one leg remains taut but the other becomes limp. The load is now entirely held by one anchor. |
|
Mark Nelson wrote |
|
Is making an "Alpine Equalizer" with a cordelette safe and secure? If so, what mm? Thanks. |
|
Steven Thaw wrote:Is making an "Alpine Equalizer" with a cordelette safe and secure? If so, what mm? Thanks.yes it safe. if you are comfortable using spectra or technora cord for a cordelette given its disadvantages it would slide and distribute force better because it has a lower coefficient of friction (slicker) than perlon. otherwise use 7mm perlon. |