Self equalizing 3 or 4 piece anchor

I'm wondering if there is a good way to make an anchor that self equalizers like the sliding x or quad but using 3 or 4 pieces of pro instead of just two. It can be done by liking piece 1 and 2 with a quad or sliding x, then linking piece 2 and 3 or 3 and 4 the same way, the using the master point on each of those to make another quad or sliding x. While that's possible, it uses at least 6 carabiners and 3 slings or lengths of cord to make the anchor. Anybody have a better or more efficient way to do it? 

John Long's anchors book heavily advocates the equalette, but people have realized that:

1. Dynamic equalization doesn't happen
2. The failure modes are bad bad.

(Brace yourself for a very long thread where people repeat past discussions.)

A “good” way?  No.  You should know that there’s not a good way to do so for 2 pieces either, for the reasons above.

chris p wrote: I'm wondering if there is a good way to make an anchor that self equalizers like the sliding x or quad but using 3 or 4 pieces of pro instead of just two. It can be done by liking piece 1 and 2 with a quad or sliding x, then linking piece 2 and 3 or 3 and 4 the same way, the using the master point on each of those to make another quad or sliding x. While that's possible, it uses at least 6 carabiners and 3 slings or lengths of cord to make the anchor. Anybody have a better or more efficient way to do it? 

No, twice.

Equalization:
https://www.mountainproject.com/search?q=anchor%20equalization%20myth

Now I´m at my computer here´s a picture from the "Equalising Thread of Death" from RC.com back in the day.

The caption being  "The Equallette Anchor in Full Form will slide nearly 45 degrees and remain equalized ".

Measuring his photo and then replicating it the load split on each piece is actually  7.7%/18.2%/30.9%/43.2% from left to right. The consequences of failure of one of the pieces is obvious.

Start with making each piece as good as possible, and all the rest doesn’t matter in any meaningful way

I think FrankPS directly answered the Question.

But I am still “No” (thrice).  

Brian A’s answer is where I place my money.

For completeness (not actually recommending it), the sliding X does have a direct N-point generalization:

...with more or less the same problems as the 2-point version.

NegativeK wrote: John Long's anchors book heavily advocates the equalette, but people have realized that:

1. Dynamic equalization doesn't happen
2. The failure modes are bad bad.

(Brace yourself for a very long thread where people repeat past discussions.)

Even John Long realizes this.  The latest version of the anchors book definitely doesn't advocate for equalization (at least in terms of sliding style anchors), and has been in print for at least 6 years.

I'll sell you an Alpine Equalizer in near-perfect condition. It mostly does what you ask for, with some other issues created.

when building anchors, replace "equalization" with "load sharing" and you are on a much better track...

curt86iroc wrote: when building anchors, replace "equalization" with "load sharing" and you are on a much better track...

Yeah, even though the two terms mean nearly the same thing, if you use the word "equalized," people will castigate you! "Equalization" must be banned from our jargon. Ha ha.

Edit: Here we go!

FrankPS wrote:

Yeah, even though the two terms mean nearly the same thing, if you use the word "equalized," people will castigate you! "Equalization" must be banned from our jargon. Ha ha.

not the same thing at all. "equalization" refers to multiple points distributing the total load equally between them (2 pieces each hold 50%, 3 each hold 33% etc.). "Load sharing" means each piece of the anchor holds some portion of the overall load, but not equally (1 piece holds 30% while the other holds 70% in a 2 piece)

i can see how these terms can be confused, but they are very different concepts.

curt86iroc wrote: when building anchors, replace "equalization" with "load sharing" and you are on a much better track...

Not really.

Ted Pinson wrote:

Not really.

yes, really... there's a lot of research out there going in this direction.

Yer Gonna DIE!

Harumpf!

/end thread

curt86iroc wrote:

not the same thing at all. "equalization" refers to multiple points distributing the total load equally between them (2 pieces each hold 50%, 3 each hold 33% etc.). "Load sharing" means each piece of the anchor holds some portion of the overall load, but not equally (1 piece holds 30% while the other holds 70% in a 2 piece)

i can see how these terms can be confused, but they are very different concepts.

"Sharing" tends to imply equality, we prefer to use "distributing" for this reason.

Jim Titt wrote:

"Sharing" tends to imply equality, we prefer to use "distributing" for this reason.

when we use the term "load distributing anchor", we talk about the direction of pull changing and the anchor having some ability to accommodate and "distribute" the load in real time (think sliding x). "load sharing anchor" means fixed legs that are sharing the load (unequally) but cannot adapt to a change in direction of the applied load.

at least, this is true in the SAR world (link to ITRS paper below)...

​http://itrsonline.org/a-look-at-load-distributing-and-load-sharing-anchor-systems/​​​

Nothing like a good semantics argument. Hair-splitting.