120cm slings may not be too short for a quad after all

Like most people, I tried making a quad out of a 120cm sling years ago and concluded it was too short.  That was a retired Mammut sling made around 2005.  Recently a new 120cm Mammut fell into my lap, and it is 10cm longer (the old one is apparently only ~110).  That extra 10cm made a big difference.  Basically it now works if you're willing to do special things in rare cases:
- with bolts up to 10" apart, it works fine
- with bolts 12" apart, it's marginal
- with widely spaced bolts that have chains, clip part way down the chains and it's fine
- with widely spaced bolts without chains, extend each leg with a quickdraw
- with vertically offset bolts, one can extend one leg with some combination of carabiners/slings/quickdraws.  But IMO that's optional - who cares if the quad stops being a quad in some small % of situations.

(the photo doesn't quite do the V-angle justice - under load it actually stretches to about 70 degrees for bolts 10" apart, which is fine; I personally wouldn't even mind 90 degrees).

Besides not having to buy a special 180cm sling, this saves 5-6" of master point sag, which I find valuable for belaying comfort.  And having knots close together addresses the objection of too much extension with typical quads.

Not saying this is for everyone.  Having to check the V-angle and occasionally extend is a downside.  Also, I don't know if standards have improved to where we can count on "120 cm" slings all being 120, or if this new one I got is a fluke and they still make 110cm ones.  I'm also not entirely sure that these things don't shrink over time (like ropes supposedly do) - perhaps new 120cm slings don't stay 120 for long ?  Finally, I wonder if having the stitching ends within 0.5" of the knot / carabiner is a problem (AFAIK the Mammut sling shown here, with 4" of stitching, is about the worst case known).

To the inevitable "quads are stupid, use a banshee belay" (or similar) comments - I don't necessarily disagree, I haven't used quads enough to form a strong opinion.  I'm certainly not trying to sway anybody who is happy with their favorite other anchor type.  My intent is a thread about marginally-long-enough quads made of 120cm slings vs typical 180cm sling ones.  If we must, let's do 1 "quads are stupid - use something else" comment with 100+ upvotes and leave it at that, i.e. not turn this into another generic 2-bolt-anchor-options thread.

That’s called a mini quad. It’s a thing. Pretty great for two bolt anchors in my opinion. 

180cm (triple) I’ve found to be the perfect quad, blue ice makes a nice one 

I prefer the black diamond or camp ones. Shorter stitched section means you can get the knots a little higher.

With the center of the quad being that small, it looks like it kind of negates the self equalizing element of the quad. At that point, why not just use a single overhand on a folded over 120?

PS: I am not hating on quads.  I love the quad. A pre-rigged quad is....*chef's kiss*. I just use a folded 240, which does the job really nicely.

Chris C wrote:

With the center of the quad being that small, it looks like it kind of negates the self equalizing element of the quad. At that point, why not just use a single overhand on a folded over 120? 

With a sling with shorter stitched section it is a way better set up. 

https://www.alpinesavvy.com/blog/the-mini-quad-anchor

Chris C wrote:

With the center of the quad being that small, it looks like it kind of negates the self equalizing element of the quad. At that point, why not just use a single overhand on a folded over 120? 

This.

Chris C wrote:

With the center of the quad being that small, it looks like it kind of negates the self equalizing element of the quad. At that point, why not just use a single overhand on a folded over 120? 

It’s also negates much of the ability of the PowerPoint to move side to side, which to me is even more important. I mainly use the quad for TR anchors that serve multiple lines.

I’m not worried about equalization, most bolts and well placed pieces of pro are more than strong enough to do the job on its own, I just want good redundancy, preferably with no extension. 

Glowering wrote:

It’s also negates much of the ability of the PowerPoint to move side to side, which to me is even more important. I mainly use the quad for TR anchors that serve multiple lines.

I’m not worried about equalization, most bolts and well placed pieces of pro are more than strong enough to do the job on its own, I just want good redundancy, preferably with no extension. 

You actually nailed exactly what I meant.  I too often interchange "power point direction" and "equalization" inadvertently. 

Glowering wrote:

It’s also negates much of the ability of the PowerPoint to move side to side, which to me is even more important. I mainly use the quad for TR anchors that serve multiple lines.

I’m not worried about equalization, most bolts and well placed pieces of pro are more than strong enough to do the job on its own, I just want good redundancy, preferably with no extension. 

Your points seem to contradict each other. You say you don't care about equalization and prefer no extension, but then also use a quad? A normal masterpoint solves your stated constraints better.