The last point is so crucial. In structural engineering we say "stiffness attracts load." As you show, unless you are intentional with where you are adding stiffness in the system, the load does not always go where you might want it to.
Absolutely! In rock climbing and indeed, any vertical endeavors there will be components that do not live up to expectations as much as we would like and being able to recognize this and distribute load in response is a valuable skill! Cheers!
Gold!🙌 (Freshly minted SPI here, who has learned so much valuable info from your media). Love you, Brother! Appreciate you and your content so very much. Hope we get to climb together one day. It would be my privilege and my honor.
Great concise video - always great to hear anchor assessments from different people because you never know what situation you are given when you pull onto that belay ledge.
Thanks Cody, another very informative video! Question: in the scenario you illustrated, would it also be possible to address the unfavourable distribution of the load by moving that #2 substantially further down the crack on the left so that it makes up the shortest leg of the anchor?
That is certainly another solution, but you don't always have that kind of option. It would work in that crack, but it would also mean that with that length of cord, it may prove a bit cumbersome. It is indeed another way to manage the distribution by limiting the stretch!
Great video man!!! Love the explanations and positive energy!! Keep up the good work! Try to keep that audio clean and crisp and isolate your voice from background distractions to take your videos to the next level!
A couple questions: Is there a cutoff in kN on when you would want to limit the load on that piece or is it more situational? If you have two bomber big cams and a micro nut that is less than bomber, should you try to distribute the load onto the two big ones and limit the weaker piece? Is this possible? Should pitons left behind (if examined and look ok) be treated like weaker pieces and less load put on them? Is there data on how strong these can be or is that again too situational? Thanks for the awesome video definitely learned a lot.
Its a great question and one that, as you pointed out, is fairly situational and can have many answers. The data that exists on things like old pitons is limited to non-existent and the rest would only apply to that situation with that piece of protection and that rock type. To your first point, a simple answer is that a toproping fall with body weight from the belayer can generate up to 8KN or so of force onto a system, but obviously this is subjective as well. I consider any piece of protection rated to 10+ my larger pieces and ones when placed well and in good rock, will confidently stand up to any force. If I had two great pieces (10+) in awesome rock, placed well, I would likely not even bother with a third piece. Those 2 pieces are good enough on their own. I don't have a metric for how many pieces I place. 3 just happens to be a good number in terms of material economy, stregnth and efficiency with traditional systems.
Great rule of thumb suggesting that any anchor should always have at least one component that could support the maximum load case! On an unrelated note, do you know if any research or testing has been done about the strength of a bowline that is finished with the tail inside vs outside the loop? Thanks for the videos!
I don't have any research immediately on hand, however, traditionally the tail finished inside the loop. This was because of the braided nature of ropes at the time the bowline was widely utilized in "life line" capacities. The way the braid behaved in cyclical loads (the bowlines weakness as it unties itself) was correlated with whether the tail was inside or outside. With modern climbing ropes and the expectations of backup knots while using bowlines, this is not an issue. For me, it is easier to tie my backup knot in a "pretty" way when the tail is on the inside.
@@CodyBradford I have heard the same information from another rock guide about the bowline's origin and why it used to be important to finish inside - he added that, from an outside finish, the braids would work together and untwist themselves, whereas from the inside finish, they'd lock each other in place. Thanks for the reply!
also, the load doesnt always need to be equalized. if its a bolt, it will hold. it is perfectly fine to just load one bolt and only use the second as a backup. you might also use just a single super bomber glue in
Awesome video man! I was just talking to some friends about equalization today via a quarantine hangout. The method that you showed at the end where you place emphasis on the larger piece is interesting. What do you think of the three-piece quad in that same scenario? Also, I've been following you on Instagram for a while. Stoked your posting your videos to RUclips now. You have a natural ability for instruction!
Thank you very much, my friend for those kind words and all of the support! The quad has the very potential force we are trying to avoid in situations like this; shock load. The quad would accomplish a similar goal to what I demonstrate in this video, but to an even lesser degree. Remember that we think we are getting even load distribution with the quad, however we cannot. So that will inevitably lead to spikes in load to our less desirable pieces. On top of this issue, because you isolate the two lesser components with a knot (essentially making them a two piece system on that side of the quad) you end up fixing the location of where the load can be distributed evenly. This means that any given change in direction in the masterpoint will drive all of the load at times to just a single piece (your worst one, potentially). In edge-case scenarios like this, I do not believe (still just my opinion) that a three-piece quad or any self-adjusting system is appropriate.
@@CodyBradford thanks for pointing that out about the 3 piece quad. Makes sense! Is there an official name for the technique shown in the video? It's almost like a hybrid between an equalette and pre-equalized. But, with much more customization.
I'm a noob, which will be obvious by my next question. Referring to the anchor at 3:07, do you agree with the general rule of thumb, "Any point that cannot fail ought to be secured with a locking mechanism"? I googled and found that since I wasn't initially sure why that anchor had non lockers at the bolts.
Steven Miller yes I agree. That is why where you see one component (the locker securing my clove hitch) it is a locking carabiner. Above there are two separate bolts that are not experiencing any dynamic load such as will be experienced by the masterpoint. It may be helpful to watch my redundancy video for better clarity. Again, the components of my anchor are not experiencing the dynamic loads in a single location like the masterpoint will. They will only experience a mostly singular direction of load the entire time. This would change should one of those components be encumbered by terrain, wherein the carabiner gate is being manipulated. I would likely change the component or add as locker should I not be able to. Cheers!
Yes! So long as it is rated for climbing and is not nylon (should be 7mm) it is a great application for that tool. I would advise erring on 200cm or less to make it less awkward in length.
The last point is so crucial. In structural engineering we say "stiffness attracts load." As you show, unless you are intentional with where you are adding stiffness in the system, the load does not always go where you might want it to.
Absolutely! In rock climbing and indeed, any vertical endeavors there will be components that do not live up to expectations as much as we would like and being able to recognize this and distribute load in response is a valuable skill! Cheers!
Gold!🙌 (Freshly minted SPI here, who has learned so much valuable info from your media). Love you, Brother! Appreciate you and your content so very much. Hope we get to climb together one day. It would be my privilege and my honor.
Thank you so much for the kind words, my friend! I hope the same and congradulations! Well earned!
Great concise video - always great to hear anchor assessments from different people because you never know what situation you are given when you pull onto that belay ledge.
Thank you so much for the kind words, my friend!
Great video Cody. Awesome to see someone re-examining some of the concepts that are at the foundation of our safety and education related to climbing.
Cheers, my friend. Hoping to go through all of them at some point!
Thanks Cody, another very informative video! Question: in the scenario you illustrated, would it also be possible to address the unfavourable distribution of the load by moving that #2 substantially further down the crack on the left so that it makes up the shortest leg of the anchor?
That is certainly another solution, but you don't always have that kind of option. It would work in that crack, but it would also mean that with that length of cord, it may prove a bit cumbersome. It is indeed another way to manage the distribution by limiting the stretch!
Great video man!!! Love the explanations and positive energy!! Keep up the good work! Try to keep that audio clean and crisp and isolate your voice from background distractions to take your videos to the next level!
Very much appreciate the feedback, my friend! Agreed, and since this have bought a lav mic and it has greatly improved production! Cheers!
Please keep on with your videos!!! They are tremendous!!
He unfortunately passed away 😢
Excellent video!
David Harrington thank you so much, my friend!
Miss you cody
A couple questions:
Is there a cutoff in kN on when you would want to limit the load on that piece or is it more situational?
If you have two bomber big cams and a micro nut that is less than bomber, should you try to distribute the load onto the two big ones and limit the weaker piece? Is this possible?
Should pitons left behind (if examined and look ok) be treated like weaker pieces and less load put on them? Is there data on how strong these can be or is that again too situational?
Thanks for the awesome video definitely learned a lot.
Its a great question and one that, as you pointed out, is fairly situational and can have many answers. The data that exists on things like old pitons is limited to non-existent and the rest would only apply to that situation with that piece of protection and that rock type.
To your first point, a simple answer is that a toproping fall with body weight from the belayer can generate up to 8KN or so of force onto a system, but obviously this is subjective as well. I consider any piece of protection rated to 10+ my larger pieces and ones when placed well and in good rock, will confidently stand up to any force.
If I had two great pieces (10+) in awesome rock, placed well, I would likely not even bother with a third piece. Those 2 pieces are good enough on their own. I don't have a metric for how many pieces I place. 3 just happens to be a good number in terms of material economy, stregnth and efficiency with traditional systems.
Great rule of thumb suggesting that any anchor should always have at least one component that could support the maximum load case!
On an unrelated note, do you know if any research or testing has been done about the strength of a bowline that is finished with the tail inside vs outside the loop?
Thanks for the videos!
I don't have any research immediately on hand, however, traditionally the tail finished inside the loop. This was because of the braided nature of ropes at the time the bowline was widely utilized in "life line" capacities. The way the braid behaved in cyclical loads (the bowlines weakness as it unties itself) was correlated with whether the tail was inside or outside. With modern climbing ropes and the expectations of backup knots while using bowlines, this is not an issue. For me, it is easier to tie my backup knot in a "pretty" way when the tail is on the inside.
@@CodyBradford I have heard the same information from another rock guide about the bowline's origin and why it used to be important to finish inside - he added that, from an outside finish, the braids would work together and untwist themselves, whereas from the inside finish, they'd lock each other in place.
Thanks for the reply!
@@patrickhansen1618 Absolutely!
also, the load doesnt always need to be equalized. if its a bolt, it will hold. it is perfectly fine to just load one bolt and only use the second as a backup. you might also use just a single super bomber glue in
Well said, thanks!
Cheers!
Awesome video man! I was just talking to some friends about equalization today via a quarantine hangout. The method that you showed at the end where you place emphasis on the larger piece is interesting. What do you think of the three-piece quad in that same scenario?
Also, I've been following you on Instagram for a while. Stoked your posting your videos to RUclips now. You have a natural ability for instruction!
Thank you very much, my friend for those kind words and all of the support!
The quad has the very potential force we are trying to avoid in situations like this; shock load. The quad would accomplish a similar goal to what I demonstrate in this video, but to an even lesser degree. Remember that we think we are getting even load distribution with the quad, however we cannot. So that will inevitably lead to spikes in load to our less desirable pieces. On top of this issue, because you isolate the two lesser components with a knot (essentially making them a two piece system on that side of the quad) you end up fixing the location of where the load can be distributed evenly. This means that any given change in direction in the masterpoint will drive all of the load at times to just a single piece (your worst one, potentially).
In edge-case scenarios like this, I do not believe (still just my opinion) that a three-piece quad or any self-adjusting system is appropriate.
@@CodyBradford thanks for pointing that out about the 3 piece quad. Makes sense! Is there an official name for the technique shown in the video? It's almost like a hybrid between an equalette and pre-equalized. But, with much more customization.
@@sk8erboob So far as I know there is not. However this means it is a good time to come up with a good name! Let me know if you come up with one!
I'm a noob, which will be obvious by my next question. Referring to the anchor at 3:07, do you agree with the general rule of thumb, "Any point that cannot fail ought to be secured with a locking mechanism"? I googled and found that since I wasn't initially sure why that anchor had non lockers at the bolts.
Steven Miller yes I agree. That is why where you see one component (the locker securing my clove hitch) it is a locking carabiner. Above there are two separate bolts that are not experiencing any dynamic load such as will be experienced by the masterpoint. It may be helpful to watch my redundancy video for better clarity. Again, the components of my anchor are not experiencing the dynamic loads in a single location like the masterpoint will. They will only experience a mostly singular direction of load the entire time. This would change should one of those components be encumbered by terrain, wherein the carabiner gate is being manipulated. I would likely change the component or add as locker should I not be able to.
Cheers!
Would be cool to se HowNOT2 test this 🤩
RIP Cody
@4:58 Heh are you at the base of Toxic Shock at Index?? That corner looks like the View From the Bridge behind you!
I just learned today that Cody took his life last year
@@namelastname2449 Yeah really sad, he was an awesome person and a great resource to the climbing community.
do you think 6mm cord is okay for the quad anchor? thanks
Yes! So long as it is rated for climbing and is not nylon (should be 7mm) it is a great application for that tool. I would advise erring on 200cm or less to make it less awkward in length.
Him succumbing to his illness was such a loss for the climbing community. His legacy remains, though.