UKH

Am I missing something or is this going to shock load your anchor if a piece fails?

http://www.ocun.com/en/products/slings-and-technical-aids/multipoint-belay-...

In reply to radddogg:

I like how it says you can tie a knot in it!

. In case of need it is possible to fix each arm with knot. 

In reply to radddogg:

No  as the assumption is that you and the other climber are attached to it via the rope. 

In reply to radddogg:

It would appear so unless you tie the 'optional' knot they mention.

Perhaps the assumption is that bolt belays are not going to fail.

In reply to David Coley:

That would still create a shock in, relative terms, not to mention being pulled out of position.

In reply to David Coley:

So it's basically like a sliding v. Which everyone will tell you to avoid.

In reply to radddogg:

It's for use on bolted routes . It replicates a very commonly used (in Europe) method of eaqualising bolted anchors. You will shock load the system if one fails but the assumption is that with bolts this is very unlikely to happen and even if it did it would be very unlikely to make the others fail. 

In reply to Andypeak:

Don't do it folks! either:

- you don't need a back up (in which case you don't need to equalise)

-or-

you do need to back up (in which case they need to be equalised and independent)

In reply to gravy:

.. or it is nice to have two points for stability on a hanging stance.

Alan

In reply to Andypeak:

They  say "for making fast belay point while climbing unsecured multi-pitches and big walls", by which they clearly mean non-bolted anchors.

And at least in the part of Europe where I live, the DAV has been recommending against equalising anchors on bolts for years. They teach what David Coley & Co call a "banshee belay": master point on one bolt, redundancy backup to the other one.

In reply to AlanLittle:

And use of the term "multi-pitches" as a plural noun means they simply cannot be taken seriously anyway.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Oh FFS Robert, they're not English speakers, cut them some slack... I suspect if you had to write stuff in Czech you might make the odd mistake.

In reply to radddogg:

I don't really see the issue with this as a product other than it being a bit pointless. Just something else to carry to clutter your harness. I mean you can isolate the legs - it's a recommended way of using it... And if you're using it at a bolted belay stance, unless you are hauling, it's pretty unlikely that anything will happen. Less so on trad, but then why are you relying on anchors which might fail? Go to another belay if you can't get at least two decent pieces?

In reply to beardy mike:

Ok, fair enough, I'll happily blame the English speakers who have brought the horrible term into common usage.

In reply to beardy mike:

I assumed he was making a joke.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Haha - you're a hard task master

In reply to beardy mike:

Exactly my first thought too.

Not always possible. Anyway, if you are so sure that your anchors will never fail, why bother with two anchors in the first place? The whole point of using two anchors is in case one fails, and, if it does, you don't want to shock load the others.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

It's no joke; the the term makes me truly apoplectic.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If you're resolutely against the use of multi-pitch [route], presumably you've also never placed a cam[ming device], bought the latest guide[book] or indeed tied a Figure of 8 [knot]?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Particularly when its used by brand ambassadors I presume?

In reply to john arran:

Who said my revulsion had to be rational? Anyway, I think my revulsion probably stems from the fact that the usage seems to have started among those who see multi-pitch routes as somehow not simply the norm.

In reply to TobyA:

Obviously.

In reply to john arran:

Actually these are all terrible examples; cam, figure and guide are all perfectly good commonly used nouns which are being used as adjectives. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct). Multi-pitch is not; nobody ever used Multi-Pitch as an a noun until it's recent lazy adoption by some climbers.

In reply to radddogg:

Incidentally this design (like the Trango one and the ACR) despite claims that it "distributes evenly the weight" does nothing of the sort, forcing the tape to slide through five 180° bends means nothing is in any way equalised and the Trango version was the worst of any system I measured.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I was under the impression (and this may be a complete misillusion but mechanically speaking it is sound) that it is more about spreading load across multiple belay legs so that there is a huge amount of strength in the belay rather than there being redundancy. I mean the more legs there are the less likely you will be to see an anchor failure in the first place, so you will be less likely to need isolation. By the time you get to three pieces the load each pieces is only around 4kN when it's an absolute whopper of a fall at 14kN (i.e. a crap rope and a belayer landing on the belay at the same time as the leader in a factor 2 fall). 

In reply to beardy mike:

This assumes that the Sliding-X does this but independent tied off anchors do not (or at least not as effectively).

In reply to Robert Durran:

No it doesn't - spreading load across legs works whether they are independent or not. The only real difference in a loaded situation given that all legs are tight is that should an anchor fail, the other anchors should not, and you'll not be pulled from your position. So that's really the distinction here.

In reply to radddogg:

It looks like a commercialisation of the method discussed on this UKC thread from 2010: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rocktalk/acr_anchor_method-399442

Mehmet

In reply to Mehmet Karatay:

It´s actually a copy of the Trango Alpine Equalizer (which is no longer made) and the ACR was a home-made version, none of which do what is claimed.

In reply to jimtitt:

I agree that they are not a good idea. I didn't know about the Trango version.