Mountain Project Logo

Fixe Anchor Failure

Jon H · · PC, UT · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 118

With a vertical arrangement, what's the issue with using 2 quickdraws as normal? Only difference is they're not "equalized." So what?

If you really want to be pedantic, you could always use a quickdraw with lockers for the upper bolt and a normal quick draw for the lower.

slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103

"With a vertical arrangement, what's the issue with using 2 quickdraws as normal? Only difference is they're not "equalized." So what? "

two potential problems:

one of the problems is that if they aren't far enough apart, the rope end biner on the upper bolt can get hung up in the webbing/etc of the lower bolt and open the gate (which is prevented by your suggestion to use lockers).

the second, which i ran into yesterday :( ... i was working a route on TR where the anchor was set up like this. the route kind of traverses back and forth a bit. i came off and the climber side strand effectively back clipped through the lower draw's rope end biner. so i was basically just on the top bolt at that point.

i've said it a hundred times, and i will say it again. vertical orienation anchors totally blow.

Ken Noyce · · Layton, UT · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2,648
George Bracksieck wrote: "Duplicate" is a key word in the definition of redundant.
Yes, and the lower bolt is a "duplicate", redundancy doesn't have anything to do with equalization or load sharing.
George Bracksieck · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2008 · Points: 3,393
kennoyce wrote: Yes, and the lower bolt is a "duplicate", redundancy doesn't have anything to do with equalization or load sharing.
However you choose to define "duplicate," equalization or load sharing is important. In an equalized anchor, the load sharing is duplicated.
Ken Noyce · · Layton, UT · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2,648
George Bracksieck wrote: However you choose to define duplicate, equalization or load sharing is important. In an equalized anchor, the load sharing is duplicated.
Yes, in an equalized anchor the load sharing is duplicated, but once again, redundant does not mean equalized, and no, load sharing is not important in a redundant anchor.
rocknice2 · · Montreal, QC · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 3,847
kennoyce wrote: Yes, in an equalized anchor the load sharing is duplicated, but once again, redundant does not mean equalized, and no, load sharing is not important in a redundant anchor.
NO, in an equalized anchor the load is shared. To duplicate a shared load you'd need another 2 bolt anchor.
For TR or rapping you do not need to to equalize a 2 bolt anchor. If the installer can't place a single bolt that more than adequately holds lead fall let alone holds a TR or rappel then don't install any bolts what so ever.
Jason Todd · · Cody, WY · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 1,114

Equalization is very rarely, if ever, actually achieved in a bolted anchor setup. Why there is so much focus on the theoretical desire to achieve equalization vs. the practical reality is a mystery to me.

J. Albers · · Colorado · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 1,926
rocknice2 wrote: 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.
I don't know where you get those numbers from, but it doesn't seem right. A SS 3/8 double rap ring setup with hanger is $14. A single SS 3/8 hanger is $3, plus $5.50 for the rap ring, plus a good quick link (maybe $2-3) equates to roughly $11.50 on the high side. That means the initial price for the SS hanger/quicklink/rap ring combo is cheaper. And then when you go to replace the worn out rap ring at a later date, your cost is only $5.50 versus another $14 for a complete Fixe rig. What that equates to for two generations of rap wear is that the "replace the entire rig" option costs $28 versus $17 for the hanger/quicklink/rap ring combo per bolt....that means $56 versus $34 for the whole anchor. So in the end, it is way cheaper to go with the hanger/quicklink/rap ring option with the added plus that you don't have to throw two hangers in the trash every time you do anchor maintenance.

...and I didn't add the cost up for the Fixe single rap ring setup because that setup should be banished from the face of the Earth because it is a rope twisting piece of garbage.
S. Neoh · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 35
J. Albers wrote: and I didn't add the cost up for the Fixe single rap ring setup because that setup should be banished from the face of the Earth because it is a rope twisting piece of garbage.
The Fixe single rap ring setup is only OK if one raps, not lower. I encountered one of them this weekend and I wish had not. And I wish there are fewer of them out there!
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
Jason Todd wrote:Equalization is very rarely, if ever, actually achieved in a bolted anchor setup. Why there is so much focus on the theoretical desire to achieve equalization vs. the practical reality is a mystery to me.
sure, completely perfect equalization is almost impossible, but some sort of distribution generally isn't that difficult and is generally more simple in the first place.

man makes things way too complicated. keep it simple.
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
Jim Titt wrote: Can´t say I´ve ever heard anyone say inline anchors are any safer than V setups...
i'ver heard/read quite a few people say this.
Ken Noyce · · Layton, UT · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2,648
rocknice2 wrote: NO, in an equalized anchor the load is shared. To duplicate a shared load you'd need another 2 bolt anchor. For TR or rapping you do not need to to equalize a 2 bolt anchor. If the installer can't place a single bolt that more than adequately holds lead fall let alone holds a TR or rappel then don't install any bolts what so ever.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with those first two sentences. My point is that in an equalized anchor the load is shared equally (hence equalized), however, equalization is completely unnecessary in a bolted anchor.
M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911
kennoyce wrote: equalization is completely unnecessary in a bolted anchor.
You must only climb on bullet hard rock.

It seems to me like the best practice should be the usual practice to me. Of course I'm just an American crybaby who tries to equalize all anchors just for the fuck of it. Maybe its my American pride?
Ken Noyce · · Layton, UT · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2,648
T Roper wrote: You must only climb on bullet hard rock. It seems to me like the best practice should be the usual practice to me. Of course I'm just an American crybaby who tries to equalize all anchors just for the fuck of it. Maybe its my American pride?
Nope, I climb plenty of choss, I'd like to hear even one reason why equalization is even remotely important in any rock because I can't think of a single one.
rocknice2 · · Montreal, QC · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 3,847
kennoyce wrote: I have no idea what you are trying to say with those first two sentences. My point is that in an equalized anchor the load is shared equally (hence equalized), however, equalization is completely unnecessary in a bolted anchor.
kennoyce wrote:Yes, in an equalized anchor the load sharing is duplicated,
In an equalized anchor the load is shared but not duplicated. In order to duplicate a shared load your need another equalized anchor. If you have two 25kn bolts. Then perfectly equalize (cough) them, you could theoretically get a 50kn anchor. But only 25kn is redundant. In order to duplicate a 50kn anchor you'll need another two bolt anchor.

In any two bolt anchor, any single bolt should be able to handle any load including a fall factor two. The second bolt is there for pure redundancy.

That's why the vertical orientated anchor is really the most efficient. Least amount of material used and super fast to create an anchor. You don't even need a sling. Clove hitch the rope to the lower bolt then to the upper bolt. Bingo an anchor with no extension. Not equalized but we're on two bolts.

The vertical setup also doesn't kink the rope unlike the horizontal anchor. The horizontal anchor needs two chains to make a single point, to not kink a rope.
George Bracksieck · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2008 · Points: 3,393
George Bracksieck wrote: However you choose to define "duplicate," equalization or load sharing is important. In an equalized anchor, the load sharing is duplicated.
I meant: In an equalized anchor, the load bearing, not load sharing, is duplicated. Sorry for the Dyslexian slip and for any ensuing misunderstandings....
Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
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.
The reason I fit a welded link in is simply cost, they are effectively free as they are left over from cutting chains so we only charge the welding cost so about $1 which is a lot cheaper than a quicklink. When the ring is worn then either change out the whole thing and re-use the hanger elsewhere or fit a new ring with a quicklink.
I try to install them further apart to stop a draw in the upper bolt interfering with the lower one but it´s usually more a question of what the rock offers in possibilities and where´s convenient to stand when you are clipped to the lower bolt to thread through.
Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
George Bracksieck wrote: However you choose to define "duplicate," equalization or load sharing is important. In an equalized anchor, the load sharing is duplicated.
As you will have noticed a considerable number of people consider equalisation in a bolted sport climbing top anchor to be utterly unimportant when using bolts suitable for the quality of the rock. Historically (looking at failures) we know this is in fact so. The last bad accident I can remember (they are extremely rare) involving a horizontally orientated two bolt anchor the complete top anchor failure was when the entire block came off the cliff. With a vertically spaced anchor it is highly probable the lower bolt would have been in a different area of rock.
Everyone I know is of this opinion and that includes the people that run many of the national federations, bolt funds and shock, horror the UIAA. In the draft standard revision which covered sport top anchors they thought one bolt was sufficient and for multi pitch recommended two bolts. The DAV also recommend connecting two bolts in line on multi-pitch belays, not equalising.
Sure, you can have your opinion but it isn´t one shared by the vast majority of climbers and the person paying has the last call anyway.

And "Duplicate" doesn´t come in my dictionary definition of redundant:- "Engineering (Of a component) not strictly necessary to functioning but included in case of failure in another component:"
George Bracksieck · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2008 · Points: 3,393
Jim Titt wrote: As you will have noticed a considerable number of people consider equalisation in a bolted sport climbing top anchor to be utterly unimportant when using bolts suitable for the quality of the rock. Historically (looking at failures) we know this is in fact so. The last bad accident I can remember (they are extremely rare) involving a horizontally orientated two bolt anchor the complete top anchor failure was when the entire block came off the cliff. With a vertically spaced anchor it is highly probable the lower bolt would have been in a different area of rock. Everyone I know is of this opinion and that includes the people that run many of the national federations, bolt funds and shock, horror the UIAA. In the draft standard revision which covered sport top anchors they thought one bolt was sufficient and for multi pitch recommended two bolts. The DAV also recommend connecting two bolts in line on multi-pitch belays, not equalising. Sure, you can have your opinion but it isn´t one shared by the vast majority of climbers and the person paying has the last call anyway. And "Duplicate" doesn´t come in my dictionary definition of redundant:- "Engineering (Of a component) not strictly necessary to functioning but included in case of failure in another component:"
For decades on this side of the pond, most climbers have attempted to build anchors that are equalized, whether using trad gear or bolts. The people installing bolted routes and anchors have been doing so at their expense, using a wide variety of hardware and without technical training. Some have gained a lot of experience and others haven't. Debates have ensued regarding which materials are best to use and how to install those. And there is no national organization, such as the DAV, that provides direction regarding bolting.

The ASCA raises money to provide hardware to climbers who go to the trouble to replace old/corroded bolts and descending rings. Other local organizations have also done this. However, the climbers doing the work are volunteers and aren't doing so under the auspices of a DAV, UIAA, or whatever.

In our atmosphere of independence, a lot of inferior materials have been installed, sometimes with poor-quality work. And some apparently good-quality materials have been subsequently found to be defective. A case in point is the subject of this thread.

I agree that, in most cases, a thick single-bolt anchor is sufficient. Yet expecting everything to be fine after a single-bolt failure is questionable. As I said before, 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. And some of the most badly worn anchors that I've used have been in Europe. I don't think that I am the only climber who would like bolted anchors to be equalized and the attached descending rings duplicated.
eli poss · · Durango, CO · Joined May 2014 · Points: 525

As someone who has encountered 2 bolt anchors with one bomber bolt and one shit bolt, I would be entirely opposed to a single bolt anchor. weird things happen in a vertical environment, such as welds failing and extreme differences in corrosion 6 inches apart. When these weird things cause failure, redundancy keeps us from dying.

Now whether bolts should be vertically or horizontally aligned, I don't really care much (although I do prefer horizontally aligned for ease of use). They should, however, be redundant. That being said, to me this only applies for man-made things. I'll still trust a single tree if it's bomber, because it's easy to evaluate and I don't have to worry about quality control

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Fixed Hardware: Bolts & Anchors
Post a Reply to "Fixe Anchor Failure"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.