How important is equalizing (load sharing) anchors, in canyoneering?

[Bo_Beck]

Mod Note: Post moved from "Instructional Video" by request.

Ditto on anchor building, but not too sure about equalizing? Maybe assessing multi-point anchor systems and determining (guessing) load sharing and maximizing total strength at the focal point?


"Yup. I call equalizing - load sharing."

First of all.... I didn't make this above quote. Apparently the quote was added when the original post was moved from the "Instructional Video" thread?

I have seen many contingency anchors that are not load shared (and all the weight is on the one anchor). This is a deceiving practice to noobs and they assume that "all is well" when they connect in.

Secondly.......I would never ever assume that a load should be shared equally by two anchors! My original point was to stress critical evaluation of each anchor and determine if the load should be shared, and if so how best to distribute the load. If I have 2 trees...one of them a bush with a 1/2' trunk and the other with a 1" trunk why the hell would I want to distribute the load equally!? I'll assume that the 1/2" trunk will fail at 1kn and assume the 1" trunk will fail at 2kn. If the load is "equalized" so that each anchor sees one half of the load (20 degree angle as demonstrated in graphics in following post), and I have some unexpected dynamic "blip" while rappeling and the forces reach 2kn; that means that each anchor sees a 1kn force. The 1/2" trunk fails and the one remaining 1" trunk possibly sees the same 2kn blip?! What next? My point is that webbing stretches (a lot).....why not favor the 1" trunk so that as the webbing stretches and at some point during the dynamic event the 1/2" trunk begins to take a chunk of the "blip" hit rather than a hit right off the bat??!! No...I do not advocate equalizing anchors to a focal anchor point without critical evaluation.

Now...in the case of the second graphic....in-line anchors....different story.....A Hard connection between the 1/2" and 1" trunks means a stronger focal anchor point....they are not equalized, but become one anchor.

[Bo_Beck]

Ditto on anchor building, but not too sure about equalizing? Maybe assessing multi-point anchor systems and determining (guessing) load sharing and maximizing total strength at the focal point?

I guess what I'm getting at is how to maximize strength of a constructed anchor system when using very marginal anchors?

[ratagonia]

Ditto on anchor building, but not too sure about equalizing? Maybe assessing multi-point anchor systems and determining (guessing) load sharing and maximizing total strength at the focal point?

Yup. I call equalizing - load sharing.

I have seen contingency anchors (that are not load shared, and all the weight is on the one anchor). This is a deceiving practice to noobs and they assume that all is well when they connect in.

I am curious, Bo, as to how important you think equalizing is for canyoneers. Yes, we see plenty of sloppy anchors out there - but, would careful equalization contribute significantly to canyoneer safety?

(Perhaps Ice would be so kind as to bring over the relevant posts from the video thread).

(Perhaps it is easy to see in the way I worded the question, but to be explicit:)
My belief is that it is helpful for canyoneers to understand the concept, but in a practical sense it is only useful now-and-then in the field. Before bludgeoning people with my opinion, I'm interested to know what other people think, and what their experiences have been - especially Bo's, as he is a technical master :hail2thechief: though we seem to disagree on a lot of details. :duel:

Tom :moses:

[qedcook]

Well, I'm not Bo or Iceaxe, but I think redundancy and equalizing important. Obviously redundancy is more important, but that old anchors book of climbing that had the R.E.S.T. or whatever it was, talked about repetition and equalizing in terms of anchors and rappelling. If you don't equalize, the distance between the back-up and the bomber anchors needs to be very small. Even the distance of three feet can snap webbing in two when switching over from the failed anchor. Equalizing also tests both anchors' effectiveness immediately, so you can correct any deficiencies.

[ratagonia]

Well, I'm not Bo or Iceaxe, but I think redundancy and equalizing important. Obviously redundancy is more important, but that old anchors book of climbing that had the R.E.S.T. or whatever it was, talked about repetition and equalizing in terms of anchors and rappelling. If you don't equalize, the distance between the back-up and the bomber anchors needs to be very small. Even the distance of three feet can snap webbing in two when switching over from the failed anchor. Equalizing also tests both anchors' effectiveness immediately, so you can correct any deficiencies.

Thank you, Q.

Anyone else? Bueller???

:moses:

[Iceaxe]

Alright... I'll play... I see a lot of backup anchors in canyoneering that scare the snot out of me. Because I look at them as an engineer and know dang well the back up anchor will probably not survive the shock loading if the primary anchor fails.

Off to see if I can find some pictures of what I'm talking about....

[Scott Card]

Since I am no engineer, let me throw this out. If the anchor is equalized, therefore much better lookin', do you feel safer and check it with less scrutiny? Or IS the equalized anchor safer requiring less scrutiny? I admit that I probably check a nice, pretty equalized anchor with less scrutiny because I figure that if it is properly equalized someone knew what they were doing. I know..... bad assumption but I think a natural and perhaps dangerous one. :popcorn:

[Scott Card]

Alright... I'll play... I see a lot of backup anchors in canyoneering that scare the snot out of me. Because I look at them as an engineer and know dang well the back up anchor will probably not survive the shock loading if the primary anchor fails.

Off to see if I can find some pictures of what I'm talking about.... Adobe Swale??? Oh wait, there was no backup to the hecho anchor....:lol8: (Pardon my spelling of Spanish, English, Utah boy combining both Spanish and English...or other languages)

[Iceaxe]

Adobe Swale??? Oh wait, there was no backup to the hecho anchor....:lol8:

Oh yeah.... the Adobe Swale anchor. I think the little tiny sandstone rock on the right is equalizing the little tiny sandstone rock on the left. :haha:


40539


FWIW: It's hueco, sometimes called a solution pocket for those playing the home edition.

[Bo_Beck]

See my original post Tom: I have edited it as it seems that it was edited by someone else for me when it was moved from the original thread. How important? Not very, unless you remember the failed anchor in Russell Gulch about 12-14 years ago, and the failed anchor on Isaac an equal number of years ago, and the numerous other anchor failures that have occured over the past few decades all over the world? How Important is it to check your rope after each rappel??? How important is it to check your harness? How important is it to check the webbing or screwlinks? How important is it to check your locking carabiner?

"Blush"....My original statement "post" was meant as a suggestion only. There are a lot of pieces apparently in the "Canyoneering Puzzle" and some are key pieces and some apparently are not. It seems that most folks are curious (some are obsessed with detail), and I've always found that little details sometimes all of a sudden become "Key Pieces". Spectra "Dyneema" slings are rated the same as 24mm tubular slings; 22kn. How come recently in the climbing world there has been some concern because of failures? Did you know Tom that if Spectra material is subjected to 50-55 degrees celsius heat it loses 50% of it's strength......? Permanently!!!!!! I'm pretty sure that the inside of my car reaches 125 Deg. inside during the summer? Just a mere trivia, but something to think about?!

Bo Beck

[canyoncaver]

I suggest that we stop thinking of anchors as primary and backup. Here's what I mean:

If an anchor is bomber, then it does not need a backup.

If an anchor is not bomber on it's own, then it needs to load-share with another anchor. When load-sharing, neither anchor is "backing up" the other. They are both helping to do the job and in a sense are just two parts of the same anchor.

The concept of primary and backup leads to the situation that Iceaxe describes. This is where someone rigs an untensioned backup anchor because they don't trust the primary. A dangerous situation. In the same situation, if we share the load between the two anchors, then there is more anchor strength for the given load. Also, each marginal anchor is less likely to blow because each one only sees part of the load.

[Bo_Beck]

I suggest that we stop thinking of anchors as primary and backup. Here's what I mean:

If an anchor is bomber, then it does not need a backup.

If an anchor is not bomber on it's own, then it needs to load-share with another anchor. When load-sharing, neither anchor is "backing up" the other. They are both helping to do the job and in a sense are just two parts of the same anchor.

The concept of primary and backup leads to the situation that Iceaxe describes. This is where someone rigs an untensioned backup anchor because they don't trust the primary. A dangerous situation. In the same situation, if we share the load between the two anchors, then there is more anchor strength for the given load. Also, each marginal anchor is less likely to blow because each one only sees part of the load.

A Back-up anchor would be an anchor system COMPLETELY independent of another Anchor system. No shared components....... Thanks for clarifying.

Now back to my original post. HOW TO MAXIMIZE the strength of an "ANCHOR SYSTEM". Critical evaluation becomes the Faire.....

[Iceaxe]

[B][I][FONT=Verdana]See my original post Tom: I have edited it as it seems that it was edited by someone else for me when it was moved from the original thread.

Bo, you orgianal post was moved, it was not edited. A mod note stating where the post had come from was prefixed to the post when it was moved.

[Bo_Beck]

Bo, you orgianal post was moved, it was not edited. A mod note stating where the post had come from was prefixed to the post when it was moved.


Shane, I did not make these statements:
Yup. I call equalizing - load sharing.
I have seen contingency anchors (that are not load shared, and all the weight is on the one anchor). This is a deceiving practice to noobs and they assume that all is well when they connect in.

First of all I rarely discuss "Contingency Anchors", second I don't call novices, "Noobs".

[jman]

Shane, I did not make these statements:
Yup. I call equalizing - load sharing.
I have seen contingency anchors (that are not load shared, and all the weight is on the one anchor). This is a deceiving practice to noobs and they assume that all is well when they connect in.

First of all I rarely discuss "Contingency Anchors", second I don't call novices, "Noobs".

If we must pass blame, I was the one who said the above in the other thread.

[oldno7]

To start off, I think we need to clarify the reason to use multi point anchors, whether natural(rock,tree,bush,etc)or artificial(bolts,pitons,rebar,etc.)
If one anchor point is enough(large tree,large rock,etc.) Then we have no reason as a recreational canyoneer to add more. If one anchor point causes concern
for anyone in the party, then a need for a second point comes into play.
The easiest, or hardest if we lack brain cells, is to use and "understand" the acronym "EARNEST"

E--Equalized, this means that both sides of your multi point anchor, share equal load in the direction of intended rappel. If lateral movement is required on the rappel, there are ways to enhance your anchor to accommodate this.
A--Angle, this goes to Bo's drawing of the angles of webbing coming from your 2 anchor points. Smaller angles reduce load on the 2 points.
R--Redundant, This addresses the possibility that if one of your anchor points, or one side of your webbing fails, the load is transferred to the remaining anchor point. There are ways to make webbing redundant, even if wrapped around a single tree or rock.
N
E--No Extension, This plays into redundancy, if one anchor point fails, you don't want to have slack in your system so that failure of one anchor point, results in shock loading the second and possible failure of second.
S--Solid, When evaluating any anchor points, this plays out, it can be very subjective. The idea of "solid" changes somewhat with experience.
T--Timely, To me the least important letter of the acronym, but important non the less. My theory is to take as much time as necessary to construct a safe anchor. Experience leads to speed.

I would be glad to offer help to any bogley members in the way of a one day anchor building session, for free. If there is enough interest let me know. I could do one in Cedar City, or possibly Bo's shop?

[Bo_Beck]

I would like to clarify what my original post was getting at. When I refer to an anchor I should suggest "Anchor Focal Point". An anchor focal point could consist of a single huge tree wrapped with a sling and a locking carabiner attached to that sling becomes the "Anchor Focal Point". Or an Anchor Focal Point could consist of a dozen anchors joined together to create an Anchor Focal Point. In any case all Anchor Focal Points I'll refer to as created by an "Anchor System with an Anchor Focal Point". I don't like referring to the term "equalizing", because that implies to me that each anchor within a system should be equal in strength and therefore share equally in the job of preventing failure of the focal anchor point. I prefer to suggest that each anchor should and can share in maximizing the strength of an anchor focal point (not necessarily equally).

[oldno7]

I would like to clarify what my original post was getting at. When I refer to an anchor I should suggest "Anchor Focal Point". An anchor focal point could consist of a single huge tree wrapped with a sling and a locking carabiner attached to that sling becomes the "Anchor Focal Point". Or an Anchor Focal Point could consist of a dozen anchors joined together to create an Anchor Focal Point. In any case all Anchor Focal Points I'll refer to as created by an "Anchor System with an Anchor Focal Point". I don't like referring to the term "equalizing", because that implies to me that each anchor within a system should be equal in strength and therefore share equally in the job of preventing failure of the focal anchor point. I prefer to suggest that each anchor should and can share in maximizing the strength of an anchor focal point (not necessarily equally).
Great point!!

[Bo_Beck]

To start off, I think we need to clarify the reason to use multi point anchors, whether natural(rock,tree,bush,etc)or artificial(bolts,pitons,rebar,etc.)
If one anchor point is enough(large tree,large rock,etc.) Then we have no reason as a recreational canyoneer to add more. If one anchor point causes concern
for anyone in the party, then a need for a second point comes into play.
The easiest, or hardest if we lack brain cells, is to use and "understand" the acronym "EARNEST"

E--Equalized, this means that both sides of your multi point anchor, share equal load in the direction of intended rappel. If lateral movement is required on the rappel, there are ways to enhance your anchor to accommodate this.
A--Angle, this goes to Bo's drawing of the angles of webbing coming from your 2 anchor points. Smaller angles reduce load on the 2 points.
R--Redundant, This addresses the possibility that if one of your anchor points, or one side of your webbing fails, the load is transferred to the remaining anchor point. There are ways to make webbing redundant, even if wrapped around a single tree or rock.
N
E--No Extension, This plays into redundancy, if one anchor point fails, you don't want to have slack in your system so that failure of one anchor point, results in shock loading the second and possible failure of second.
T--Timely, To me the least important letter of the acronym, but important non the less. My theory is to take as much time as necessary to construct a safe anchor. Experience leads to speed.

I would be glad to offer help to any bogley members in the way of a one day anchor building session, for free. If there is enough interest let me know. I could do one in Cedar City, or possibly Bo's shop?

Where the heck is the "S" Kurt???????

[qedcook]

I suggest that we stop thinking of anchors as primary and backup. Here's what I mean:

If an anchor is bomber, then it does not need a backup.



I would disagree. The whole point of redundancy is to have a second anchor, no matter how bomber the first anchor seems. However, in practice, when I reach a 20 foot drop that has a single anchor that's been used a thousand times before, to heck with redundancy.

[oldno7]

Where the heck is the "S" Kurt???????

Oh geeeees.:oops:
will edit.

[Bo_Beck]

I would disagree. The whole point of redundancy is to have a second anchor, no matter how bomber the first anchor seems. However, in practice, when I reach a 20 foot drop that has a single anchor that's been used a thousand times before, to heck with redundancy.

OK....the redundancy I've seen so often...."A sliding "X" with a screwlink as the focal point"; attached to the screwlink is an additional piece of webbing that is then tied to one of the anchors. Yes..this will prevent extension assuming it isn't the anchor that that it is attached to that fails?! Is this really a back-up? I call it merely a "possible extension eliminator". A back-up the way I see it is a completely separate independant anchor system. If the primary anchor system were to fail completly or even partially then the load would transfer and settle on to the "Back-up" system.

[Bo_Beck]

I would be glad to offer help to any bogley members in the way of a one day anchor building session, for free. If there is enough interest let me know. I could do one in Cedar City, or possibly Bo's shop?

That'd be fun Kurt! I particularly would love to see some of the anchor systems that you've used in your canyoneering experiences. I've really not spent a whole lot of time doing "Canyoneering" specific anchors. Done a few climbing anchors, but most of my anchoring has been done to 20-30kn standards. Not practical in canyoneering by any means or ways.

[ratagonia]

Mod Note: Post moved from "Instructional Video" by request.

Ditto on anchor building, but not too sure about equalizing? Maybe assessing multi-point anchor systems and determining (guessing) load sharing and maximizing total strength at the focal point?


"Yup. I call equalizing - load sharing."

First of all.... I didn't make this above quote. Apparently the quote was added when the original post was moved from the "Instructional Video" thread?

I have seen many contingency anchors that are not load shared (and all the weight is on the one anchor). This is a deceiving practice to noobs and they assume that "all is well" when they connect in.

Secondly.......I would never ever assume that a load should be shared equally by two anchors! My original point was to stress critical evaluation of each anchor and determine if the load should be shared, and if so how best to distribute the load. If I have 2 trees...one of them a bush with a 1/2' trunk and the other with a 1" trunk why the hell would I want to distribute the load equally!? I'll assume that the 1/2" trunk will fail at 1kn and assume the 1" trunk will fail at 2kn. If the load is "equalized" so that each anchor sees one half of the load (20 degree angle as demonstrated in graphics in following post), and I have some unexpected dynamic "blip" while rappeling and the forces reach 2kn; that means that each anchor sees a 1kn force. The 1/2" trunk fails and the one remaining 1" trunk possibly sees the same 2kn blip?! What next? My point is that webbing stretches (a lot).....why not favor the 1" trunk so that as the webbing stretches and at some point during the dynamic event the 1/2" trunk begins to take a chunk of the "blip" hit rather than a hit right off the bat??!! No...I do not advocate equalizing anchors to a focal anchor point without critical evaluation.

Now...in the case of the second graphic....in-line anchors....different story.....A Hard connection between the 1/2" and 1" trunks means a stronger focal anchor point....they are not equalized, but become one anchor.

Bump - enough new material here that it should come down to in-sequence. Tom

[canyoncaver]

I would disagree. The whole point of redundancy is to have a second anchor, no matter how bomber the first anchor seems. However, in practice, when I reach a 20 foot drop that has a single anchor that's been used a thousand times before, to heck with redundancy.

So it sounds like you disagree here on this forum, but in real life you do exactly what I was saying. (If an anchor is bomber, then it does not need a backup)

Or are you basing the necessity of a backup on pitch depth? If so, I'd say you are dangerously mixing apples and oranges. Ever fallen 20 feet? It hurts really bad and even worse when the sub-standard anchor comes crashing down on top of you.

[ratagonia]

Well, I'm not Bo or Iceaxe, but I think redundancy and equalizing important. Obviously redundancy is more important, but that old anchors book of climbing that had the R.E.S.T. or whatever it was, talked about repetition and equalizing in terms of anchors and rappelling. If you don't equalize, the distance between the back-up and the bomber anchors needs to be very small. Even the distance of three feet can snap webbing in two when switching over from the failed anchor. Equalizing also tests both anchors' effectiveness immediately, so you can correct any deficiencies.

Good to see some discussion on these issues.

There are several different concepts to discuss, and perhaps they can be worked through one by one, as sub-threads on this thread. Urgh, makes my head spin thinking about it, but... here is one sub-topic, perhaps not so controversial.

1. Strength of Anchors, climbing vs. canyoning: when building anchors for climbing, you are looking for at LEAST 2000 to 3000 lbs of capability, and I would not consider it bomber until we get to 4000 to 5000 lbs. It is possible to generate 2k to 3k loads when catching leader falls, although this happens rarely. On well-established climbs, the climber would either be able to place several pieces of gear into cracks, or if this is not available, most likely there would be a pre-established bolt anchor, fairly new (=bomber, hopefully) or with some manky old bolts from the first ascent back in the 70's (dubious). For a gear belay, often the climber arrives at the belay spot with a good selection of gear (cams and nuts), and then it is just a matter of putting in 3 or 4 or 5 good pieces and tying them together. Sometimes the climber arrives at the belay with not much gear left and has to make do with what she can get in. (My point being that when building a trad belay, the climber OFTEN has a surplus of resources as far as gear and places to put it, so building a 4000 lb belay can be done easily in a few minutes; and then sometimes that is not so, and a 'marginal belay' must be built and used. The good news is that the 'marginal belay' is used first for bringing up the second (lower loads), and can be reinforced with more gear before the next leader starts leading (higher forces)).

Canyoneering, on the other hand, requires only sufficient strength to handle rappelling forces, in normal course up to maybe 600 lbs. I would consider an anchor of 1000 lbs to be "bomber" in a canyoneering context, and often we use anchors successfully that are only in the 200-300 lb range, but we can use them by using technique to keep our rappelling loads as low as possible.

I bring this up because the requirements for anchors are significantly different, and the tools used are also significantly different - which effects what is "right" or "effective" for anchors and for rigging, in a canyon context, vs. in a climbing context.

Does this make sense? Agree, disagree, adjust?

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

I would like to clarify what my original post was getting at. When I refer to an anchor I should suggest "Anchor Focal Point". An anchor focal point could consist of a single huge tree wrapped with a sling and a locking carabiner attached to that sling becomes the "Anchor Focal Point". Or an Anchor Focal Point could consist of a dozen anchors joined together to create an Anchor Focal Point. In any case all Anchor Focal Points I'll refer to as created by an "Anchor System with an Anchor Focal Point". I don't like referring to the term "equalizing", because that implies to me that each anchor within a system should be equal in strength and therefore share equally in the job of preventing failure of the focal anchor point. I prefer to suggest that each anchor should and can share in maximizing the strength of an anchor focal point (not necessarily equally).

Yes, I think this terminology is more clear. Tom

[ratagonia]

I suggest that we stop thinking of anchors as primary and backup. Here's what I mean:

If an anchor is bomber, then it does not need a backup.

If an anchor is not bomber on it's own, then it needs to load-share with another anchor. When load-sharing, neither anchor is "backing up" the other. They are both helping to do the job and in a sense are just two parts of the same anchor.

The concept of primary and backup leads to the situation that Iceaxe describes. This is where someone rigs an untensioned backup anchor because they don't trust the primary. A dangerous situation. In the same situation, if we share the load between the two anchors, then there is more anchor strength for the given load. Also, each marginal anchor is less likely to blow because each one only sees part of the load.

Support.

If you are going to leave webbing (etc) for a 'second anchor' (or backup anchor), there is no reason NOT to tie it into the primary anchor, thus making a two-component primary anchor.

However, there are times when we use backup anchors. When using dubious natural anchors (or just as a good general practice), we will use a meat anchor backup (snug, but not load-sharing) for at least the first couple of people down, perhaps for the hefty people, but usually until the anchor has 'proven itself', though often for all but the last person (a lightweight canyoneer with good low-force rapping skills). Usually done using meat, but when available, running the rope back to a tree or rock that is easily slung (but quite a ways back) seems like a good idea.

Tom :moses:

[Bo_Beck]

Good to see some discussion on these issues.

There are several different concepts to discuss, and perhaps they can be worked through one by one, as sub-threads on this thread. Urgh, makes my head spin thinking about it, but... here is one sub-topic, perhaps not so controversial.

1. Strength of Anchors, climbing vs. canyoning: when building anchors for climbing, you are looking for at LEAST 2000 to 3000 lbs of capability, and I would not consider it bomber until we get to 4000 to 5000 lbs. It is possible to generate 2k to 3k loads when catching leader falls, although this happens rarely. On well-established climbs, the climber would either be able to place several pieces of gear into cracks, or if this is not available, most likely there would be a pre-established bolt anchor, fairly new (=bomber, hopefully) or with some manky old bolts from the first ascent back in the 70's (dubious). For a gear belay, often the climber arrives at the belay spot with a good selection of gear (cams and nuts), and then it is just a matter of putting in 3 or 4 or 5 good pieces and tying them together. Sometimes the climber arrives at the belay with not much gear left and has to make do with what she can get in. (My point being that when building a trad belay, the climber OFTEN has a surplus of resources as far as gear and places to put it, so building a 4000 lb belay can be done easily in a few minutes; and then sometimes that is not so, and a 'marginal belay' must be built and used. The good news is that the 'marginal belay' is used first for bringing up the second (lower loads), and can be reinforced with more gear before the next leader starts leading (higher forces)).

Canyoneering, on the other hand, requires only sufficient strength to handle rappelling forces, in normal course up to maybe 600 lbs. I would consider an anchor of 1000 lbs to be "bomber" in a canyoneering context, and often we use anchors successfully that are only in the 200-300 lb range, but we can use them by using technique to keep our rappelling loads as low as possible.

I bring this up because the requirements for anchors are significantly different, and the tools used are also significantly different - which effects what is "right" or "effective" for anchors and for rigging, in a canyon context, vs. in a climbing context.

Does this make sense? Agree, disagree, adjust?

Tom :moses:

Makes total sense. But, but, but in the same breath I would say or ask that if the circumstance allows, and it is not a distraction, would it make sense to build an even stronger "canyon" anchor if it is possible?

[canyoncaver]

Makes total sense. But, but, but in the same breath I would say or ask that if the circumstance allows, and it is not a distraction, would it make sense to build an even stronger "canyon" anchor if it is possible?

Yes! It makes sense because you never know when your canyoneering anchor will need to become a rescue anchor.

[Iceaxe]

Shane, I did not make these statements:

Hmmm.... I'll have to keep an eye out for what caused the problem.... your original post should have just moved without changing. From our side it's just a button we push to move the thread and than we click on the destination thread. It appears that this move might have partially combined two threads?

Sorry for any problems.


FWIW: Mod's don't edit posts. They can correct links, embed video links, embed picture links, move posts, combine threads, delete links, delete posts or add a moderator note.

[Bo_Beck]

Hmmm.... I'll have to keep an eye out for what caused the problem.... your original post should have just moved without changing. From our side it's just a button we push to move the thread and than we click on the destination thread. It appears that this move might have partially combined two threads?

Sorry for any problems.


FWIW: Mod's don't edit posts. They can correct links, embed video links, embed picture links, move posts, combine threads, delete links, delete posts or add a moderator note.

No prob.....JMAN homed up to the addition to my original post and it confused me because it certainly wasn't part of my original focus and direction.

[jman]

No prob.....JMAN homed up to the addition to my original post and it confused me because it certainly wasn't part of my original focus and direction.

what's homed up mean?

I was wondering what was going, because initially Tom asked for ideas for his canyoneering instructional videos. I replied and said he should do about anchors and equalizing (and later clarified it to equalizing the anchor points). Anywho, next thing I know, is that a new thread was created and my quote was there (in this threads first post) but it didn't say who it was from (which was me). Taking that out of context, as if you didn't realize what was going on, you would think Bo was going a bit crazy... :wink:

Hopefully that makes sense...(at least it's clear as mud now right)..?:crazy:

[Bo_Beck]

what's homed up mean?
Confessed!................You probably wondered what your statement was doing in the middle of a crazy guys post too!

Taking that out of context, as if you didn't realize what was going on, you would think Bo was going a bit crazy... :wink:

Hopefully that makes sense...(at least it's clear as mud now right)..?:crazy:

Nope....I've been a bit crazy for a while now. Maybe I really do call novices "noobs" and it's possible that I believe that a dead branch should have an equal chance to save my life as a 12" diameter ponderosa has? Poor dead twigs never recieve enough attention in the wild!:cry1:

[qedcook]

So it sounds like you disagree here on this forum, but in real life you do exactly what I was saying. (If an anchor is bomber, then it does not need a backup)

Or are you basing the necessity of a backup on pitch depth? If so, I'd say you are dangerously mixing apples and oranges. Ever fallen 20 feet? It hurts really bad and even worse when the sub-standard anchor comes crashing down on top of you.

What I'm really saying is I'm a lazy, cheap man who doesn't want to build his own redundant anchor, but in terms of safety, a redundant anchor is one of the time-tested practices in climbing, not necessarily canyoneering or in my own life. And yes, I am implying that laziness and ten feet of webbing are more important to me than my own safety. :wink:

[canyoncaver]

What I'm really saying is I'm a lazy, cheap man who doesn't want to build his own redundant anchor, but in terms of safety, a redundant anchor is one of the time-tested practices in climbing, not necessarily canyoneering or in my own life. And yes, I am implying that laziness and ten feet of webbing are more important to me than my own safety. :wink:

Well said! :clap:

[ratagonia]

what's homed up mean?

I was wondering what was going, because initially Tom asked for ideas for his canyoneering instructional videos. I replied and said he should do about anchors and equalizing (and later clarified it to equalizing the anchor points). Anywho, next thing I know, is that a new thread was created and my quote was there (in this threads first post) but it didn't say who it was from (which was me). Taking that out of context, as if you didn't realize what was going on, you would think Bo was going a bit crazy... :wink:

Hopefully that makes sense...(at least it's clear as mud now right)..?:crazy:

Outside Utah, that would be "owned up".

T :moses: