Great resource, thanks Aron, but I would like to challenge your definition of "equalised" you define it "the anchors points are being loaded towards the mater point" I disagree, my definition of equalised is "the load at the master point is being shared equally (hence "equalised") by the two anchors". I would say the death triangle is "equalised" as both anchors are holding an "equal amount" ......don't get me wrong I am aware of the dangers of the death triangle as it multiplies the load at the master point because of vector forces and I'm not advocating its use I'm trying to define the terminology. Perhaps we need a definition that includes equal sharing of the load, direction of load on the anchors and no magnification of the load due to vector forces.
Interesting question, but I think the problem comes from the term equalized. It is a misnomer because in the real world you can almost never achieve equal sharing of the load. A better term is "load sharing", but it doesn't fit nicely into the acronym. The shortest leg and the leg most in-line with the load direction take more load than the other legs. There are more factors as well.
This configuration won't allow for dynamic equalization. If you simply tie a separate overhand knot in each arm you will still have the sliding x, and the anchor will remain equalized if the climber veers to the side. It's just one more knot, and far safer.
now I understand finally the principles ...greay job
Good bottom line up front video
Excellent...
Great resource, thanks Aron, but I would like to challenge your definition of "equalised" you define it "the anchors points are being loaded towards the mater point" I disagree, my definition of equalised is "the load at the master point is being shared equally (hence "equalised") by the two anchors". I would say the death triangle is "equalised" as both anchors are holding an "equal amount" ......don't get me wrong I am aware of the dangers of the death triangle as it multiplies the load at the master point because of vector forces and I'm not advocating its use I'm trying to define the terminology. Perhaps we need a definition that includes equal sharing of the load, direction of load on the anchors and no magnification of the load due to vector forces.
Interesting question, but I think the problem comes from the term equalized. It is a misnomer because in the real world you can almost never achieve equal sharing of the load. A better term is "load sharing", but it doesn't fit nicely into the acronym. The shortest leg and the leg most in-line with the load direction take more load than the other legs. There are more factors as well.
This configuration won't allow for dynamic equalization. If you simply tie a separate overhand knot in each arm you will still have the sliding x, and the anchor will remain equalized if the climber veers to the side. It's just one more knot, and far safer.
Don’t you need two carabiners, opposite and opposed, at the bottom of the master point?
I am not 100% sure but I think that’s just for non-locking carabiners. But it definitely doesn’t hurt to have another.