Fixe Anchor Failure

Jim Titt wrote: Single top anchors are standard in many areas of Europe, and are perfectly adequate, if the climber doesn´t leave a draw in the previous bolt when top-roping as redundancy then they are stupid.

Just think of the impact onto the "previous bolt" if the single top anchor were to fail. Depending on the distance below the top anchor and the mass of the falling victim, the previous bolt would be impacted by many times the load that caused the single top anchor to fail in the first place. I prefer that top anchors be redundant: a pair of equivalent anchors, each with its own ring.

George Bracksieck wrote: Just think of the impact onto the "previous bolt" if the single top anchor were to fail. Depending on the distance below the top anchor and the mass of the falling victim, the previous bolt would be impacted by many times the load that caused the single top anchor to fail in the first place. I prefer that top anchors be redundant: a pair of equivalent anchors, each with its own ring.

It would be no worse than taking a lead fall onto it after blowing clipping the anchors. That is exactly what we expect that bolt to do.

mattm wrote: It would be no worse than taking a lead fall onto it after blowing clipping the anchors. That is exactly what we expect that bolt to do.

Right. But falling uncontrollably when you're leaning back and expecting the anchor to hold you is a different situation. Also, if the anchor fails, how can you expect that the previous bolt won't have a similar problem? If placed at the same time, using the same materials, the previous bolt could be also be corroded, or it may also have defective chain links with an attached biner to clip. That's a lot to think about in the instant of an anchor failure.

BTW, if you're rapping, there's no backup.

I did not mean to be flippant with my statement that the shackle was the strongest part of the system. Simply a statement of fact. Typically the WLL is somewhat south of the breaking strength by a 4-6X ratio.
5/16 chain simply isn’t going to be as strong as a 3/8 shackle. Both are stronger than the hanger and likely the bolt. QA/QC is always a concern. In the west, other than combo rigs (i.e. Fixe), most likely the chain you run into climbing is Grade 30 Proof coil. The same ol’ mank ass shit you find at hardware stores that sell shackles which are made to the same standards. A shackle may look totally jingus, but that isn’t necessarily the case. A prudent climber, without prior knowledge of the install, should assume the hardware at hand is the lowest cost option.

J. Albers:

...using larger chain so that you can clip in anywhere while also allowing xxxx{Climbers} like myself to have redundancy.

This point applies to why I dislike the anchor that I posted in the picture above so much because by threading the shackle directly through the bolt there is no way for multiple parties to achieve redundancy.

...from a statistical standpoint, one anchor bolt is way more than safe. The problem is that shit does go wrong occasionally.

For e.g., the bolt installer may have messed up putting the bolt in or the chain link weld may fail for some bizarre reason. While it is a statistical anomaly, the consequences are likely death.
--------------

Excellent! Risk Analysis.
Probability vs. Severity.

I must ask how you mitigate this in all scenarios. Do you use a single belay loop? Double/Twin ropes? A Gri-Gri? What metric do you use to forego redundancy for bomber?

For me, if there is a 45kN fixture (or a big ass, well anchored tree) in the mix, I'm good with one. Edit: I'm also fine with single rope, gri, belay loop...

J. Albers wrote:...I would greatly prefer that the standard practice defaults to the more redundant option.

I agree with you on this BTW, especially in regards to bolts.

One thing I really dislike about the shackle anchor above is that the rope is pinched between the shackle and rock when you pull on the rope to retrieve it. Depending upon which end you pull the rubbing and friction between the shackle and rock can be quite severe. Although in this case it might not be too bad.

I much prefer two links on the bottom bolt which rotates the rope to be parallel with the rock face and provides another location for the climbers to clip to. Also clipping the climber's tether to the top bolt is more dangerous than clipping to the power point of the anchor. In the unlikely event that the top bolt fails then the load transferred as a shock load to the bottom bolt with a fair amount of static extension. This shock load could be enough to cause the bottom bolt to break, especially if both installations suffer from the same problem; be it incompenent installation, corrosion, or manufacturing defect.

This style of achor, with the two bolts place in a vertical orientation vs. two bols placed a horizontal orientation is suppose to be a little safer because of less extenstion if one bolt fails and lesser angle between the bolts. But if you sucker people into loading the top bolt rather than the power point the slightly greater safety of the design is negated.

As anchor designers we should strive to make the obvious use of the anchor the safest use of the anchor.

climber pat wrote: This style of achor, with the two bolts place in a vertical orientation vs. two bols placed a horizontal orientation is suppose to be a little safer because of less extenstion if one bolt fails and lesser angle between the bolts. But if you sucker people into loading the top bolt rather than the power point the slightly greater safety of the design is negated. As anchor designers we should strive to make the obvious use of the anchor the safest use of the anchor.

Can´t say I´ve ever heard anyone say inline anchors are any safer than V setups, as far as we know they are both the same.
The Advantages of the inline anchor is they require less material, are cheaper, lower visual impact and most important of all the possibilities for positioning of the two bolts are vastly increased. In uneven limestone full of holes and cracks this is extremely important.
In fact the trend now is to use the "French" style anchor which has all of the above advantages but increased them. Nothing for the Americans though, you´d probably cry!

What is a "French Style Anchor"?

J. Albers wrote: what I see as the stupidity of linking two anchor points into one single rap ring. The response to my assertion has always been that I need not worry because those single welded rap rings can hold four trucks and then some

I agree. One gives up the redundancy. I'd rather spend the time threading two rings than spending time in the hospital asking myself why I was so lazy.

climber pat wrote:What is a "French Style Anchor"?

French style is a vertically spaced anchor that is NOT connected. It's basically a single point lower off with a redundant backup. It's pretty much the best setup but as Jim said, likely would see complaints here as everyone still loves the inferior horizontal setup
Jim posted a picture on another thread.
French style

He also posted how you easily top rope with it.

I'd love to see what French style with a rams horn too looks like. Not sure the best "drop in" setup for the lower bolt, if there is one. Inline belay

Jim Titt wrote: Nothing for the Americans though, you´d probably cry!

not a typical response from a small business owner, good on you

T Roper wrote: not a typical response from a small business owner, good on you

As a business I should be telling climbers they need two, two bolt equalised anchors with double chains and rings on each and protection points should be at least doubled up as well.

The "French-style" anchors shown in the pic are NOT redundant. One anchor merely backs up the other. Though each pictured anchor looks bomber, we wouldn't be having this discussion if all anchors remained strong and would never corrode, crack, wear out, or be improperly installed, etc, etc.

George Bracksieck wrote:The "French-style" anchors shown in the pic are NOT redundant. One anchor merely backs up the other. Though each pictured anchor looks bomber, we wouldn't be having this discussion if all anchors remained strong and would never corrode or crack or be improperly installed, etc, etc.

What do you think redundant means? The very definition of redundant is something that backs something else up.

kennoyce wrote: What do you think redundant means? The very definition of redundant is something that backs something else up.

Redundant means: "Serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of the entire system upon failure of a single component." In regard to anchors used for lowering or rappelling, we should use two (or more) separate anchors that would be loaded equivalently. Both anchors should provide one power point. Each anchor should provide its own ring, which would be loaded equivalently with the other ring. A pair of vertically spaced anchors could accomplish this better than two horizontally spaced anchors. However, two horizontally spaced, redundant anchors would be much stronger and long-lasting than the pictured "French-style" anchors, given use of the same materials.

I like the pair of Titan three-piece anchors pictured on page 1. Those look expensive, though.

George Bracksieck wrote: Redundant means: "Serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of the entire system upon failure of a single component." In regard to anchors used for lowering or rappelling, we should use two (or more) separate anchors that would be loaded equivalently. Both anchors should provide one power point. Each anchor should provide its own ring, which would be loaded equivalently with the other ring. A pair of vertically spaced anchors could accomplish this better than two horizontally spaced anchors. However, two horizontally spaced, redundant anchors would be much stronger and long-lasting than the pictured "French-style" anchors, given use of the same materials. I like the pair of Titan three-piece anchors pictured on page 1. Those look expensive, though.

Certainly I´m confused now, the French style anchor is redundant by your definition since if any single part fails the climber does not plummet to his death. The anchor you like is naturally enough not redundant since if the ring goes so does the climber.

The general confusion, different likes and dislikes of customers and users and the sometimes bizzarre logic used is why we prefer just to make all the options and let the customer buy what they want. I question the customers choice of anchor when organisations who promote buddy checks order setups that require threading to point out the lack of joined up thinking that appears to have occured.
Personally I install inline pigtail anchors on sports routes and similar to French style on multi-pitch if there is a chance they will be abseiled off.

For what it's worth, the Central Wyoming Climbers Alliance is replacing anchors with a top single point and another point as backup below it (5 inches or so). We then place a quickling (SS) on the top bolt and a welded ring int he quicklink. This allows people to come back in the future and replace the welded ring when it wears out. People are having to get used to the look of it, but as is stated and proven so often, the 1/2 SS bolt with this system is wayyyy stronger than we climbers need and it means less kinking of the rope, easier pull, easy replacement,e tc.

Jim Titt wrote: Certainly I´m confused now, the French style anchor is redundant by your definition since if any single part fails the climber does not plummet to his death. The anchor you like is naturally enough not redundant since if the ring goes so does the climber. The general confusion, different likes and dislikes of customers and users and the sometimes bizzarre logic used is why we prefer just to make all the options and let the customer buy what they want. I question the customers choice of anchor when organisations who promote buddy checks order setups that require threading to point out the lack of joined up thinking that appears to have occured. Personally I install inline pigtail anchors on sports routes and similar to French style on multi-pitch if there is a chance they will be abseiled off.

"Duplicate" is a key word in the definition of redundant.

Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:For what it's worth, the Central Wyoming Climbers Alliance is replacing anchors with a top single point and another point as backup below it (5 inches or so). We then place a quickling (SS) on the top bolt and a welded ring int he quicklink. This allows people to come back in the future and replace the welded ring when it wears out. People are having to get used to the look of it, but as is stated and proven so often, the 1/2 SS bolt with this system is wayyyy stronger than we climbers need and it means less kinking of the rope, easier pull, easy replacement,e tc.

That sounds like a great setup Sam. It always baffles me when folks don't just add a link between the welded ring and the hanger because it (a) allows you to replace the ring when it gets grooved, and (b) you don't twist your rope when pulling or lowering. I can't tell you how much I hate the Fixe rap ring setup because they are demonic rope twisting beasts and when they wear out you have to replace the whole rig.

I guess the replaceability would be my only complaint about the in-line 'French' setups that mattm posted pictures of. For the most part I like the setup, my only complaint is that because the links are all welded, then you have to either chop the links off when they wear out and add new screw links or you have to replace the entire hanger/link setup. But in a world full of jingus anchor setups, I guess this is a relatively minor complaint.

or


Two of these arranged vertically is the least expensive all stainless steel anchor and lowest visual impact. The replacement of the entire SS hanger/ring is cheaper than a SS Q-link/ring.

What I don't like about the vertical anchor placements is that it is usually harder to use the common technique of throwing a quickdraw on each bolt for TRing. For a multipitch the little bit of horizontal spread makes it more convenient if you want to hang stuff off the anchor. I usually place them about the width between the tips of my spread thumb and pinky. I think there are pluses and minuses to both setups and not so cut and dry.