Quad anchor is not redundant at the clip in point?

Quad anchor is not redundant at the clip in point. Why does this thing exist and labeled acceptable?

Edit: quad anchor is redundant but is confusing if not familiar with it. If I chose to go with using it the day it was shown to me I may have clipped either around all 4 or between the single stranded loop. I decided not to use it because learning a new anchor system at the anchor is a terrible idea. Thanks for the criticism everyone. 

Could you elaborate?

It is true that a quad can be clipped incorrectly in a couple of ways (1 or 4 strands), but it is redundant when clipping 2 or 3 strands between the limiting overhand knots.

It certainly has its uses, most importantly for racking pre-made to establish dominance whilst crushing auto-belay 5.10+.

If your quad isn't redundant, you're doing it wrong.

Lyle M wrote:

Quad anchor is not redundant at the clip in point.

Do you mean because it has a single crab? I mean you could add another but you know redundancy only goes so far or do you wear 2 harnesses?

 Why does this thing exist

Because some people find it useful.

 and labeled acceptable?

Because it works when used correctly I suppose, I've never used one but thats because of habit and it doesn't suit the sorts of routes I do.

Lyle M wrote:

Quad anchor is not redundant at the clip in point…

Drinking last night Lyle?

Demetri V wrote:

Drinking last night Lyle?

That would make sense. I couldn’t wrap my head around it without an army of trolls criticizing me. I thought if one of those middle strands broke in the knot the carabiner could some how shock load it and cause the knot to fail, more so than other alternatives. Someone wanted to use one the other day and I was having some trouble figuring out the redundancy. Thanks everyone 

Jason Zevenbergen wrote:

Could you elaborate?

It is true that a quad can be clipped incorrectly in a couple of ways (1 or 4 strands), but it is redundant when clipping 2 or 3 strands between the limiting overhand knots.

It certainly has its uses, most importantly for racking pre-made to establish dominance whilst crushing auto-belay 5.10+.

Thanks. 

Yes, at first glance, it looks like you've clipped into an American X (edit American Triangle,  Death Triangle, whatever it's called) and the impulse could be to twist a cord into a Sliding X configuration, but you don't need to do this if it is properly knotted where the ends clip into the anchor gear.

Lyle M wrote:

Quad anchor is not redundant at the clip in point. Why does this thing exist and labeled acceptable?

Edit: quad anchor is redundant but is confusing if not familiar with it. If I chose to go with using it the day it was shown to me I may have clipped either around all 4 or between the single stranded loop. I decided not to use it because learning a new anchor system at the anchor is a terrible idea. Thanks for the criticism everyone. 

Lyle, your mentors failure to properly show you how or where to clip into is no fault of the design of the quad. That should have been part of the instruction.  It might be a good idea to seek out some qualified instruction in your future.  

Jason EL wrote:

Yes, at first glance, it looks like you've clipped into an American X (edit American Triangle,  Death Triangle, whatever it's called) and the impulse could be to twist a cord into a Sliding X configuration, but you don't need to do this if it is properly knotted where the ends clip into the anchor gear.

There's nothing resembling the ADT in a properly rigged quad. The "top leg" of the triangle - the element that makes it undesirable due to the extra, inward loading on the anchor components (bolts, pins, whatever) - is simply not there in a quad.

DrRockso RRG wrote:

Lyle, your mentors failure to properly show you how or where to clip into is no fault of the design of the quad. That should have been part of the instruction.  It might be a good idea to seek out some qualified instruction in your future.  

I have an anchor system that works for me but didn’t have (left in another bag) a double length sling with me so my partner offered me a prebuilt quad anchor. I had never used or seen one and couldn’t figure out the voodoo on the spot so I disassembled it and went on my way. I have been thinking about it all week and instead of making my own to test I threw it to mountain project. But yes, I accept I could use some qualified instruction, Thanks. 

Lyle M wrote:

I have an anchor system that works for me but didn’t have (left in another bag) a double length sling with me so my partner offered me a prebuilt quad anchor. I had never used or seen one and couldn’t figure out the voodoo on the spot so I disassembled it and went on my way. I have been thinking about it all week and instead of making my own to test I threw it to mountain project. 

Don't you think it might have avoided getting some snarky replies if you had said something along these lines and asked how it was safe rather than 'Quad anchor is not redundant at the clip in point. Why does this thing exist and labeled acceptable?'?

Neil B wrote:

Don't you think it might have avoided getting some snarky replies if you had said something along these lines and asked how it was safe rather than 'Quad anchor is not redundant at the clip in point. Why does this thing exist and labeled acceptable?'?

I actually like the banter and smack talk. I’m also not afraid to ask dumb questions. 

M Appelquist wrote:

Does clipping 3 strands of the quad increase or decrease the “available redundancy”?

Assuming 3 strands are better than 2, but what about the remaining (available for redundancy) single strand. If 3 strands are important for the main attachment isn’t then just a single strand for the redundant side inadequate?

Good point. I've seen 3 strands used before, and the only benefit I can think of is less risk of failure due to abrasion. As you mention, the downside is (presumably) lower breaking strength in the event that one leg fails (by bolt failure, biner unclipping, nose hook, etc.) That said, because a quad anchor moves to self-equalize, there are lots of situations (such as top roping) in which failure due to abrasion seems more realistic than failure of one leg of the anchor with loads over whatever a single loop can hold (with dyneema, maybe 10 kn due to strength reduction from the overhand, could be less).

Using 2 strands is definitely nicer for organization, and probably safer whenever there is a risk of a near factor 2 fall.

M Appelquist wrote:

Does clipping 3 strands of the quad increase or decrease the “available redundancy”?

Assuming 3 strands are better than 2, but what about the remaining (available for redundancy) single strand. If 3 strands are important for the main attachment isn’t then just a single strand for the redundant side inadequate?

There are 4 strands between the knots in the quad. You can clip each carabiner to 3 strands in such a manner that they are both sharing two strands, while each also has independent, different strand.
Quad lines A,B,C,D. Crab 1- ABC, Crab 2 - BCD.
I am quite sure that reduces probability of extremely low probability failure even more. But, perhaps, it would introduce additional failure modes?

Edit -

Ryan of the HowNotToHighLine fame has done some horrible things to quads

Using Dyneema sling -

Using 6mm cord

For top ropes clip one locker to 2 strands and another locker to the other two stands. This isn't rocket science folks!

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

I think you need a better understanding of the term “shock load” if you think it can happen in a matter of inches (with a dynamic rope in the system).

This is a common misperception...that a dynamic rope in the system prevents “shock loads”.   A shock load is just any sudden spike in forces over a short duration.   Quads can very much induce “shock” loads if a piece fails (or a leg) and thus put much more force on the remaining piece(s) upon extension, no matter how short, versus just tying in on a no-extension master point knot.  using a pre-tied quad for beefy bolted belays is pretty much “whatever floats your boat”.   Otherwise there is little to recommend ever using a quad. 

Mark Pilate wrote:

This is a common misperception...that a dynamic rope in the system prevents “shock loads”.   A shock load is just any sudden spike in forces over a short duration.   Quads can very much induce “shock” loads if a piece fails (or a leg) and thus put much more force on the remaining piece(s) upon extension, no matter how short, versus just tying in on a no-extension master point knot.  using a pre-tied quad for beefy bolted belays is pretty much “whatever floats your boat”.   Otherwise there is little to recommend ever using a quad. 

This isn't my understanding of shock loading. My understanding of the point of it is that it's possible to generate massive forces. For example, in a lead environment it's hard to generate over five kilonewtons. However a FF1.5 daisy fall can easily get into the teens or even 20s of kilonewtons. That's the danger of shock loading, and it's hard to replicate once the rope is in the system. An anchor ripping with the climbers directly into the anchor is probably the only situation that's somewhat similar. 

It seems climbers used to think shock loading is a larger problem than it is. Mostly it applies to why PAS-ing or daisying into a bolt isn't a great idea if you have to move above it. Not super relevant to much else. 

Mark Pilate wrote:

This is a common misperception...that a dynamic rope in the system prevents “shock loads”.   A shock load is just any sudden spike in forces over a short duration.   Quads can very much induce “shock” loads if a piece fails (or a leg) and thus put much more force on the remaining piece(s) upon extension, no matter how short, versus just tying in on a no-extension master point knot.  using a pre-tied quad for beefy bolted belays is pretty much “whatever floats your boat”.   Otherwise there is little to recommend ever using a quad.

It's quite easy and effective to use a quad on 3 peice anchors,  just tie a pre-equalized anchor on two pieces with the limiter knot high,  then tie another limiter knot and clip the third peice.  It's super simple and fast to tie. I think the more common misconception is that you WILL create shock loading forces with a short extension and a dynamic component in the system.  Testing has shown shock loading in this case to be very minimal. 

I think the real question is "are the shock loads generated in the failure of these anchors worth worrying about?"

Mark Pilate wrote:

This is a common misperception...that a dynamic rope in the system prevents “shock loads”.   A shock load is just any sudden spike in forces over a short duration.   Quads can very much induce “shock” loads if a piece fails (or a leg) and thus put much more force on the remaining piece(s) upon extension, no matter how short, versus just tying in on a no-extension master point knot.  using a pre-tied quad for beefy bolted belays is pretty much “whatever floats your boat”.   Otherwise there is little to recommend ever using a quad.

Sure, you can be pedantic over what is a shock load. However the material plays a massive role in what peak forces you will see during said shock load.

Testing has shown over and over again, a leg blowing out on a quad or sliding X will not produce forces one should be worried about.