Getting creative while building fast SERENE, ERNEST, NERDSS anchors!

Just a quick clip I made today of a three-piece gear anchor using a "mini-quad" I wanted to share...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spTmmJmSPPY

Comments, questions, critiques welcome!

Maybe its just me but your video is audio set to a black screen. 

David S wrote: no magic x?

pre-built mini-quad > magic X!

I did use a few magic-x's today though!

More details on this anchor and more over at my IG:  

https://www.instagram.com/northeast_alpine_start/

I’m not sure you are supposed to mix carabiners like that on the cordelette.    They could be made of different metals, leading to corrosion.   Also, because they are different lengths, they’ll stretch different amounts, meaning the load won’t be distributed equally.   Also, the red anodized carabiner will probably heat faster than the silver ones, exacerbating the problem due to thermal expansion.

Nit: it is hard to tell from the photo, but it appears that several of the cams are simply resting on the crack.  That kind of “passive placement” is not as strong as when the cams are engaged with the rock.   It is true that Totem cams can be used with only two lobes engaged, but these are not Totem cams.

Edit to add: this anchor appears to use the deadly grey C4, which has recently been shown (in a 10 page MP thread) to have serious design flaws.

Seems kinda excessive in the number of pieces but i Don't know the rock quality and shape etc. 

Need to double up all carabiners - opposite, opposed, and locking.  If you don’t have enough lockers you can always TIG weld them shut.  Make sure welds are inspected by an AWS certified welder.

Why not use the rope to tie into all 8 pieces?  You could even bring each leg down to a common master point that way.

FFS tie into that anchor twice NOOB. Jeez, thought everyone knew that!

:P

Northeast Alpine Start wrote: Just a quick clip I made today of a three-piece gear anchor using a "mini-quad" I wanted to share...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spTmmJmSPPY

Comments, questions, critiques welcome!

- Gear Looks Good.  Not a fan of the Quad.  Why not just use a sling to join them all at a master point? - eliminates extension hazards on that small (ish) gear.
-  I'm dubious of the idea that the cams are multi directional and protect the nut.  Multiple threads (incl the most recent 10+ pager on the UL 0.4) all support the  idea that small cams (PARTICULARLY double axle ones) don't do well when the direction of pull causes rotation.  I'd say even more so if they rotate dramatically from a downward to the opposite UPWARD orientation.  Better to just throw in an upward position piece.    

Northeast Alpine Start wrote:

pre-built mini-quad > magic X!

I did use a few magic-x's today though!

More details on this anchor and more over at my IG:  

https://www.instagram.com/northeast_alpine_start/

You forgot the boat anchor 

mbk wrote: I’m not sure you are supposed to mix carabiners like that on the cordelette.    They could be made of different metals, leading to corrosion.   Also, because they are different lengths, they’ll stretch different amounts, meaning the load won’t be distributed equally.   Also, the red anodized carabiner will probably heat faster than the silver ones, exacerbating the problem due to thermal expansion.

Nit: it is hard to tell from the photo, but it appears that several of the cams are simply resting on the crack.  That kind of “passive placement” is not as strong as when the cams are engaged with the rock.   It is true that Totem cams can be used with only two lobes engaged, but these are not Totem cams.

Edit to add: this anchor appears to use the deadly grey C4, which has recently been shown (in a 10 page MP thread) to have serious design flaws.

nice.

I'm not seeing any load limiter knots in all that dyneema. If DMM taught me anything, it's that skinny slings are instant death.

mattm wrote:

- Gear Looks Good.  Not a fan of the Quad.  Why not just use a sling to join them all at a master point? - eliminates extension hazards on that small (ish) gear.
-  I'm dubious of the idea that the cams are multi directional and protect the nut.  Multiple threads (incl the most recent 10+ pager on the UL 0.4) all support the  idea that small cams (PARTICULARLY double axle ones) don't do well when the direction of pull causes rotation.  I'd say even more so if they rotate dramatically from a downward to the opposite UPWARD orientation.  Better to just throw in an upward position piece.   

You should consider the quad, especially the "mini-Quad" as a possible tool. I hate to take this down the serious road but what do you mean by "use a sling to join them all at a master point?". Assuming you mean tying it off with a bight knot to eliminate the smallish potential of extension? A little extension ain't as bad as you think when you factor in the energy absorbing portion of the climbing rope... And the whole rotation thing is based on some pretty rare massive FF that violently lifts the belayer over the anchor. Has that ever happened to you? And I'm 100% certain these two cams would have handled it if it did (though the climb wasn't steep enough to see that kind of force)... and "upward pieces" are often incorporated in ways that create slightly questionable vectors... be sure you incorporate them in a way that doesn't leave a 170 degree vector in your anchor.

Northeast Alpine Start wrote: You should consider the quad, especially the "mini-Quad" as a possible tool. I hate to take this down the serious road but what do you mean by "use a sling to join them all at a master point?". Assuming you mean tying it off with a bight knot to eliminate the smallish potential of extension? A little extension ain't as bad as you think when you factor in the energy absorbing portion of the climbing rope... And the whole rotation thing is based on some pretty rare massive FF that violently lifts the belayer over the anchor. Has that ever happened to you? And I'm 100% certain these two cams would have handled it if it did (though the climb wasn't steep enough to see that kind of force)... and "upward pieces" are often incorporated in ways that create slightly questionable vectors... be sure you incorporate them in a way that doesn't leave a 170 degree vector in your anchor.

He means use a long sling, clip into each piece and pull down between each piece and tie into a knot to make a master point.  Pretty standard, quick and simple setup for a 3 piece anchor.  

How do you define a little extension?  In your anchor it looks like you have possibly 6 inches of  extension.  Is that "little" in your opinion?  And do you think that's acceptable for dyneema?

You don't need a large FF to pull a belayer over the anchor.  A 200lb leader with a 110lb belayer could easily do it for just about any FF.  

What do "questionable vectors" have to do with "upward pieces"?  Where do you get a 170 degree vector?  If a leader falls from above and the belayer gets pulled upward, the "upward" piece will be pulled upwards too.  In line with the direction of force.  Where is there a force vector to worry about?

PS.  quads are overrated.

rockklimber wrote:

PS.  quads are overrated.

It can never be said enough.  But since John Long released his updated book with his flawed testing and the Quad beginner climbers have been falling over themselves to use it.

mattm wrote:

I'm dubious of the idea that the cams are multi directional and protect the nut.  Multiple threads (incl the most recent 10+ pager on the UL 0.4) all support the  idea that small cams (PARTICULARLY double axle ones) don't do well when the direction of pull causes rotation.

Well pointed out.

IF a cam has room to rotate smoothly it pretty much multidirectional.  Though most cam placements don't have this luxury and any cam that cannot directly align with the force will experience some torque and some increase in loads on the lobes.  Most cams can deal with this to a certain degree.  But push them too hard things can get ugly.

Horizontal cam placements however, come ready made for upwards or downwards pulls.

patto wrote: 
Horizontal cam placements however, come ready made for upwards or downwards pulls.

In 99% of cases. I Can think of weird flares that might cause issues, or if it's spread far enough apart that the cam is at an angle in the horizontal so that upwards force may twist it out. 

If course those are phenomenally rare, but it's worth noting that you should still always think about if the anchor were to be pulled upwards.

rockklimber wrote:

He means use a long sling, clip into each piece and pull down between each piece and tie into a knot to make a master point.  Pretty standard, quick and simple setup for a 3 piece anchor.  

How do you define a little extension?  In your anchor it looks like you have possibly 6 inches of  extension.  Is that "little" in your opinion?  And do you think that's acceptable for dyneema?

You don't need a large FF to pull a belayer over the anchor.  A 200lb leader with a 110lb belayer could easily do it for just about any FF.  

What do "questionable vectors" have to do with "upward pieces"?  Where do you get a 170 degree vector?  If a leader falls from above and the belayer gets pulled upward, the "upward" piece will be pulled upwards too.  In line with the direction of force.  Where is there a force vector to worry about?

PS.  quads are overrated.

6 inches of extension is no big deal when you have at least 3 or 4 feet of rope in the system, and it's a drop in the water when you have 20+ feet.

As for the upward pull piece, I think he's talking about having a large angle between 2 legs in the anchor if your upward pull piece was, say, at your knees while the rest of the anchor was at head level.

Yes quads are overrated in this context but in others they can be great. For multi-pitch sport or even any multipitch with bolts and a small belay stance they are great because 2 people can lean in opposite directions without pulling each other off. For TRing all day long it's great as it offer lots of redundancy in case of abrasion or cutting (4 strands must cut to get failure).

eli poss wrote:

6 inches of extension is no big deal when you have at least 3 or 4 feet of rope in the system, and it's a drop in the water when you have 20+ feet.

As for the upward pull piece, I think he's talking about having a large angle between 2 legs in the anchor if your upward pull piece was, say, at your knees while the rest of the anchor was at head level.

Yes quads are overrated in this context but in others they can be great. For multi-pitch sport or even any multipitch with bolts and a small belay stance they are great because 2 people can lean in opposite directions without pulling each other off. For TRing all day long it's great as it offer lots of redundancy in case of abrasion or cutting (4 strands must cut to get failure).

You seem to have a flawed understanding of the physics of falls, specifically ones where gear is pulled out of anchor.  If you fall on an anchor (lets say it's the worst case FF2 20' fall).  When that first piece blows you are dealing with a rope that is already under load and already stretched so that when you fall the additional 6" of extension there is no spring left in the rope to absorb some of that massive shock loading that will befall the next piece in the system.  Minimizing extension should really be the number one goal of an anchor, well above any lofty ideals of equalization (which is a myth).

Christopher Smith wrote:

You seem to have a flawed understanding of the physics of falls, specifically ones where gear is pulled out of anchor.  If you fall on an anchor (lets say it's the worst case FF2 20' fall).  When that first piece blows you are dealing with a rope that is already under load and already stretched so that when you fall the additional 6" of extension there is no spring left in the rope to absorb some of that massive shock loading that will befall the next piece in the system.  Minimizing extension should really be the number one goal of an anchor, well above any lofty ideals of equalization (which is a myth).

Eli is right Christopher. Your mistake is assuming that because the rope has stretched some, it has no more "spring" left.  Eli correctly notes that an anchor extension that is small relative to the amount of rope out has a negligible effect on the fall factor and so results in little or no increase in the peak anchor load.

But perhaps the amount of rope out isn't the right thing to look at, in which case Eli could be missing the boat too.  If you have a factor 2 fall that rips the belayer off the stance, then the only rope involved in arresting the (now much heavier than bodyweight) belayer's fall is the belayer's tie-in, and the relevant fall factor is the ratio of the anchor extension to the belayer's tie-in length.  A short belayer tie-in could result in a very high anchor load in a factor 2 fall that pulls the belayer off.  If the belayer has, out of what nowadays can only be ignorance, tied in not with the rope but rather with a static tether, then gear-shattering loads are in the realm of possibility.

Right again rich, and agreed Eli. Several inches of extension is prob meaningless w rope in the system. “Shock loading” doesn’t really exist w rope in the system...