Mountain Project Logo

Fixe Anchor Failure

slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
kennoyce wrote: 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.
having had a button head break off while i was clipping a draw into it..., i can :)

for modern anchors it isn't as much of an issue. but, if it is easy (i would argue easier) to make it better, why not make it better? i think it also develops good habits (particularly for folks who don't really have the technical experience/background to properly assess when an anchor needs or doesn't need load distribution).
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
Jim Titt wrote: ...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. ..."
pure speculation here.... give me a break.
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
Jim Titt wrote: ... and the person paying has the last call anyway.
really? this doens't seem to be your stance in a LOT of the other threads i have read...
mattm · · TX · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 1,885
George Bracksieck wrote: 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.
You're arguing two separate issues as one.

In the US, nearly everyone will agree with you that an anchor should have TWO BOLTS. This is, as you note, because we do not have any sort of federation overseeing bolting and it is very much the wild west. Two Bolts provides the needed redundancy in the equipment that could be "questioned" - The actual bolt placements.

However, many people will disagree with the notion that these bolts need to have any sort of load equalization and has been previously noted, attempts at such are both difficult and often involve the use of inferior hardware (crappy chain, QLs etc). Equalizing in a Trad anchor is a VERY different world vs two modern bolts.

Again, the "French Anchor" pictured above provides the needed redundancy (two bolts, two rings) while giving superior placement options to the equipper. Not only that but you'll typically see reduced replacements costs as you'll only really have to replace the top ring. AND, using a single ring as the main lowering point greatly reduces rope twisting issues. (vs horizontal placements that, unless brought to a single point, cause twisting and increase hardware costs) It's no wonder, as Jim notes, that the trend is towards the vertical french setup.
Sam Lightner, Jr. · · Lander, WY · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 2,732

"Like" button for Matt.

Times change, equipment changes. We as climbers need to accept that there are equipment choices that don't make Freedom of the Hills equalized anchors the best option. The French anchor is the right one provided you use stainless steel and larger diameter bolts. If you want an equalized anchor you are over building if you use the same materials, and if you want to cut costs by using lesser materials you are under building and thus not thinking in the long term.

Something to think about: First ascents of El Cap were done on opposing carabiners. Then the locking carabiner came around and we did not need two. Should we now climb with two opposing locking carabiners on our belays and rappels? I think not. Times change, equipment gets better. Use the right stuff and we don't have to worry about equalization.

J. Albers · · Colorado · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 1,926
Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:"Like" button for Matt. Times change, equipment changes. We as climbers need to accept that there are equipment choices that don't make Freedom of the Hills equalized anchors the best option. The French anchor is the right one provided you use stainless steel and larger diameter bolts. If you want an equalized anchor you are over building if you use the same materials, and if you want to cut costs by using lesser materials you are under building and thus not thinking in the long term. Something to think about: First ascents of El Cap were done on opposing carabiners. Then the locking carabiner came around and we did not need two. Should we now climb with two opposing locking carabiners on our belays and rappels? I think not. Times change, equipment gets better. Use the right stuff and we don't have to worry about equalization.
"Times change" and "equipment gets better" are what I always tell myself when I clip one of your paper clip looking glue-ins at the Iris. I'm sure they are strong as on ox, but my inner punter can't help but wimper a little when I see them.
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:The French anchor is the right one provided you use stainless steel and larger diameter bolts. If you want an equalized anchor you are over building if you use the same materials, and if you want to cut costs by using lesser materials you are under building and thus not thinking in the long term.
it doesn't take THAT much extra material to use a horizontal setup. also, the majority of the vertical setups i have seen are more of a pain to maintain. i have also pointed out above that setting up a TR through these anchors has some issues that need to be considered (and likely won't be considered by the average climber).

this kind of reminds me of henry ford's comment "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." it would be nice if the end user could have some sort of opinion in the matter. it would be interesting to see the results of a survey where you show the various anchor options and have the end user rate in order their preference.
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
mattm wrote: ... attempts at such are both difficult and often involve the use of inferior hardware (crappy chain, QLs etc).


again, more speculation. the hardware doesn't necessarily have to be crappy.

mattm wrote: Again, the "French Anchor" pictured above provides the needed redundancy (two bolts, two rings) while giving superior placement options to the equipper.


in my experience, they don't necessarily provide superior placement options. having used both options, in my opinion the 2 bolts with separate chains is much more versatile.

mattm wrote: AND, using a single ring as the main lowering point greatly reduces rope twisting issues. (vs horizontal placements that, unless brought to a single point, cause twisting and increase hardware costs)


the photo of the top french anchor looks like it would twist the rope, which could easily be remedied by a 2nd link on the bottom bolt (to get parallel aligment of the top and bottom rings/links).
Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
slim wrote: pure speculation here.... give me a break.
As it happens I´ve seen the offending piece of rock, both when the belay was intact and later on the ground (and bolted the route beside it) and I´m of the opinion I offered above. I´ll tell you when it´s pure speculation:-)
mattm · · TX · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 1,885
slim wrote: again, more speculation. the hardware doesn't necessarily have to be crappy.
Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

So while true, it doesn't have to be crappy, evidence suggests otherwise. In all my years of climbing the VAST, VAST majority of additional hardware used in "Vee" anchors (chain, QLs etc) was hardware store quality. Zinc QLs, Proof Coil P30 chain etc. I can count on one hand the number of Vee anchors that were SS. PS isn't bad per se as it can certainly be adequate but in general, it "Gets Crappy" much faster than SS. Never mind that the chain and QLs add to the cost putting it close to a simple SS setup.

slim wrote: in my experience, they don't necessarily provide superior placement options. having used both options, in my opinion the 2 bolts with separate chains is much more versatile.
I'll grant that in certain circumstances, the Horizontal Vee can be the better option. I've used it in the past when the rock and lower off point dictated such. However, it's not accurate to say the Vee setup provides more options. One is limited to one "band of rock" that both bolts will be located in. Because they must allow the chain to meet at a single point, within a certain angle range, you are also limited in where you can place them in relation to one another as they can't be too far apart (else you must add even more chain and cost). Jim's Illustration below shows you can only place bolts in the non-red areas. Independent, Vertical setups don't have as many limitations (they do have some but not as many IME)

Vee

slim wrote: the photo of the top french anchor looks like it would twist the rope, which could easily be remedied by a 2nd link on the bottom bolt (to get parallel aligment of the top and bottom rings/links).
Since the lower ring isn't weighted by the rope as it changes direction it's extremely unlikely that it will have any effect on the rope twisting. (The hated Single Ring Fixes are likely hated because people use them in a horizontal setup which results in two weighted redirection points. These bends and twists are what snarl a rope. Single rings work much better in the French setup.)
Ken Noyce · · Layton, UT · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2,648
slim wrote: having had a button head break off while i was clipping a draw into it..., i can :) for modern anchors it isn't as much of an issue. but, if it is easy (i would argue easier) to make it better, why not make it better? i think it also develops good habits (particularly for folks who don't really have the technical experience/background to properly assess when an anchor needs or doesn't need load distribution).
So, we're not talking about archaic anchors comprised of button head bolts in this thread. 1/4" button heads would fall under the same category as trad anchors comprised of small gear where equalization would be important. In a modern bolted anchor, there is absolutely no need for any kind of load sharing at all.
Ken Noyce · · Layton, UT · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2,648
J. Albers wrote: "Times change" and "equipment gets better" are what I always tell myself when I clip one of your paper clip looking glue-ins at the Iris. I'm sure they are strong as on ox, but my inner punter can't help but wimper a little when I see them.
I remember thinking the same thing when I first climbed on a wire-gate biner. Irrational fears don't do anyone any good though, and you can be sure that those paperclip bolts (either wave bolts or Titt bolts) are stronger than pretty much any of those 3/8" mechanical bolts that are all over the iris.
20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346
Jim Titt wrote:In the draft standard revision which covered sport top anchors they thought one bolt was sufficient
Despite numerous deaths of climbers bailing off single bolts, the UIAA's recommendation was a single bolt anchor? Seems hard to believe an organization committed to safety would recommend something that's well known to be a very poor choice, and expressed as such in just about every climbing book, forum, blog and instruction booklet made. It's damn near common sense that bailing off a single piece without backup poses significant risk.
Mike Bond · · Kentucky · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 3,191
J. Albers wrote: "Times change" and "equipment gets better" are what I always tell myself when I clip one of your paper clip looking glue-ins at the Iris. I'm sure they are strong as on ox, but my inner punter can't help but wimper a little when I see them.
Quick sidenote...Sam, who makes the thinnest of those glue-ins at the Iris? Some are the size of Waves and other bolts, but I noticed some that were even thinner. I can't recall the route now...but one was the first bolt on one of the 12's.

Thanks, just interested, not critiquing. If they spec out strong...perhaps they are the best choice given their very low visual impact!
Ken Noyce · · Layton, UT · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2,648
dnoB ekiM wrote: Quick sidenote...Sam, who makes the thinnest of those glue-ins at the Iris? Some are the size of Waves and other bolts, but I noticed some that were even thinner. I can't recall the route now...but one was the first bolt on one of the 12's. Thanks, just interested, not critiquing. If they spec out strong...perhaps they are the best choice given their very low visual impact!
You thinking of Wind and Rattlesnakes? I think that was a Titt bolt if I remember correctly.
Mike Bond · · Kentucky · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 3,191
kennoyce wrote: You thinking of Wind and Rattlesnakes? I think that was a Titt bolt if I remember correctly.
I did wind, but pretty sure I saw the smallest one on another route. This was last summer. Maybe they were the thinnest of the Titt bolts (6mm rod) though...notably thinner than Waves.
Ken Noyce · · Layton, UT · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2,648
dnoB ekiM wrote: I did wind, but pretty sure I saw the smallest one on another route. This was last summer. Maybe they were the thinnest of the Titt bolts (6mm rod) though...notably thinner than Waves.
Yeah, the 6mm rod Titt bolts are certainly thinner than the Waves, but they are plenty strong.
mattm · · TX · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 1,885
kennoyce wrote: Yeah, the 6mm rod Titt bolts are certainly thinner than the Waves, but they are plenty strong.
Waves are made from 1/4" stock or 6.35mm. Titts are 6mm so 0.35mm difference.

Jim's smallest (6mm stock x 80mm) has tested to 36.75kN axial in Limestone.

Jim's tested 4mm stock (8mm hole) that meets EN-959 but he notes that customer resistance is an issue!
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
Jim Titt wrote: As it happens I´ve seen the offending piece of rock, both when the belay was intact and later on the ground (and bolted the route beside it) and I´m of the opinion I offered above. I´ll tell you when it´s pure speculation:-)
If the lower bolt could have been in better rock, is it possible that both bolts could have been in lower, better rock? Seems more of an issue of boneheaded placement than using a horizontal setup.
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
mattm wrote: Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. So while true, it doesn't have to be crappy, evidence suggests otherwise. In all my years of climbing the VAST, VAST majority of additional hardware used in "Vee" anchors (chain, QLs etc) was hardware store quality. Zinc QLs, Proof Coil P30 chain etc. I can count on one hand the number of Vee anchors that were SS. PS isn't bad per se as it can certainly be adequate but in general, it "Gets Crappy" much faster than SS. Never mind that the chain and QLs add to the cost putting it close to a simple SS setup. I'll grant that in certain circumstances, the Horizontal Vee can be the better option. I've used it in the past when the rock and lower off point dictated such. However, it's not accurate to say the Vee setup provides more options. One is limited to one "band of rock" that both bolts will be located in. Because they must allow the chain to meet at a single point, within a certain angle range, you are also limited in where you can place them in relation to one another as they can't be too far apart (else you must add even more chain and cost). Jim's Illustration below shows you can only place bolts in the non-red areas. Independent, Vertical setups don't have as many limitations (they do have some but not as many IME) Since the lower ring isn't weighted by the rope as it changes direction it's extremely unlikely that it will have any effect on the rope twisting. (The hated Single Ring Fixes are likely hated because people use them in a horizontal setup which results in two weighted redirection points. These bends and twists are what snarl a rope. Single rings work much better in the French setup.)
i'm not sure if you are being serious here or not. the anchor you have shown above isn't really what many of us are advocating...

if you used bolts, hangers, links/rings (plural), and chain in a horizontal configuration you have all of the options shown in your picture above, plus you can use the links to adjust the effective length of chains, plus if you are in some incredibly odd circumstance (that i don't recall ever running into in 26 years of climbing all over the place...) you could use the vertical setup.

as for the rope twisting. look at the locations of the contact surfaces on the top and bottom links/rings. they are 90 degrees out of phase. this is going to cause the rope to have drag at these locations and cause a corkscrewing motion as it passes through the anchor.

the reason the single ring anchors are a problem is that the rings usually aren't parallel to each other. if the eyes of the hangers are horizontal, the rings can both be vertical and parallel to each other and perpendicular to the rope passing through between them. it also allows the contact surface of the rope to be at the inside (bottom) of both bends, which is where it should be to cause the rope to run slower at the INSIDE of the curve. i have never had problems with the rope twisting in this configuration. the problem occurs when the hangers aren't perfectly horizontal. this causes the rings to be skewed to each other and/or the rope passing through. which then causes drag on the rope surface that is NOT on the inside of the curve. this is what causes the rope to twist.

the reason that single ring anchors suck is that it is really hard to keep the hangers dead horizontal, as the weight of the rings wants to pull them vertical.

you guys keep trying to come up with 'problems' to justify 'solutions' that aren't better.
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.