CNCC resin anchor scheme (split from "Car Pot anchors" topic)

Well that's me baffled then Simon. If the CNCC are the regional council for the north, and they approve installations, then why can't they request X amount from BCA to cover some resin and bolts (plus maybe your design time - who knows..), then at least the installers would get their hardware and consumables subsidised.

This all seems very easy to me which is a classic indication of me missing something!  If I ever meet you at a CNCC meeting, you are going to have to run me though this....
 

Alex

Well-known member
The CNCC are not involved financially; all they do is approve the installations.

Maybe they should be, by seeking a grant as I suggested before. That way we are not dependant on private individuals and will not be needed to install un-approved bolts. Otherwise people will just go for the cheapest option so they can do these caves. i.e. through bolts or something similar as they are affordable and most people know how to place them (but may not place them well).

 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Alex said:
I think that is because climbing bolts are even-more controversial than caving bolts! Placing bolts in climbing world is generally seen as a bad thing as they should be using cams etc.

I suspect that they are referring to sport climbing routes, rather than to traditional routes.
 

Bob Mehew

Well-known member
I am afraid the current situation with respect to choice of anchors is more complex than might be imagined.  Several points immediately spring to mind.

Bolt Product anchors are also designated by BCA and are used in other regions.  But there is serious concern over whether one can extract the anchor at end of life and reuse the 'location'; a serious conservation concern.  CNCC have rejected the use of Bolt Product anchors on those grounds.

There is also concern over chloride stress corrosion cracking.  Some regions including CNCC have decided they will only accept Type 316 stainless steel anchors and not Type 304 stainless steel anchors.  The only supplier of Type 316 known to us is Bolt Product (apart from IC anchors).

The resin has to perform in caving conditions, using it in wet locations reduces its strength. 

We test because although the Bolt Product anchor is claimed to meet EN 959, that is only with it's specified resin which we do not use.  There is also a question of using it in appropriate rock.  As we have found, limestone is not the same across the country.   

You can read (a lot) more on the BCA E&T web site at http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=equipment_techniques:anchor_scheme.

Perhaps we have made it more complex than it needs to be.  If you think you have a good case to make that claim then I suggest you apply to Nick Williams to attend the next E&T meeting and present it there.  Even more so if you have either expertise or related professional experience.  (Meetings are done via the internet not F2F.)
 

topcat

Active member
Bob Mehew said:
topcat said:
Rigged for SRT means rigged dry [or as dry as possible], using as many re belays or deviations as required.  Surely we can all agree on that?
Sorry I could not resist.  Is that for a one in ten year flood event, one in a hundred or one in a thousand?  Oh and what is the standard arm length?  Plus of course, agreement between cavers is a rare thing.  :sneaky: 

I think we can disregard the above as we won't be caving in flood conditions.  You know, maybe I have more common sense than most, and give cavers credit for having the same.............or maybe my club members know what 'dry' and dry as possible' means in the real world?  In any event, we all know when we are getting wet on a P bolted pitch in 'normal/standard' conditions, and wishing for a deviation  :LOL:
 

georgenorth

Active member
Simon Wilson said:
MJenkinson said:
What are the issues Simon? You are seen as knowledgeable on this subject and so forgive me if you don't want to answer. but in the interest of open debate, we have someone here keen to get involved and help out - what are the issues? people don't want new anchors in harder caves? Landowners? I have no idea myself.

The last batch of 430 anchors was partly funded by the BCA but I get no recompense for time away from my work and other commitments. The installers have had no funding whatsoever and have paid for their hardware and consumables such as resin themselves....
It sounds like what we need is a regional bolt fund. The climbing bolt funds receive donations from the BMC, businesses, clubs, and individuals. Last time I was climbing at Kilnsey somebody came round to collect money in a hat! This seems to work pretty well for climbing - I'd be surprised if it didn't work well for caving also.
 

Mike Hopley

New member
I'm getting the impression that the BCA anchor scheme has become mired in perfectionism. This may be entirely wrong of me and I apologise if that's unfair on the people who have worked so hard on it; it's just how it appears to me, from the outside.

Simon's work is hugely commendable and impressive (and thank you also for those wonderful cave descriptions/topos. They are works of art). Yet I find it bizarre that, as a community, we have decided to design, test, and manufacture our own anchors. There are numerous high-quality anchors on the market. It smacks of "not invented here".

I understand you need to think about cost when you require lots of them. But a Raumer Superstar, for example, is ?3.25 per anchor (and that's not bulk prices). Not counting the huge amount of unpaid time Simon has put in, how much has it cost to make each IC anchor? How much could you reasonably expect a manufacturer to charge, given that they will want to turn a profit?

I expect Simon may be dead right about the IC anchor being better in various ways than all the other anchors. But does it matter? Is our objective to design the perfect bolt, or to find a practical option for long-lasting anchors?

Bob said that concern about "chloride stress corrosion cracking" (i.e. corrosion from salt water) has made the CNCC and others reject all anchors except those made from a particular type of stainless steel, drastically limiting the options. But surely this is only relevant to anchors placed near the sea? Why would you need "salt water proof" anchors in the Dales?

Is this symptomatic of the thinking around this topic? Are excellent existing products being rejected because they are not 100% theoretically perfect?

For that matter, and here I expect I'm truly flaunting my ignorance, what's wrong with Rainox bolts? I understand that Spits are no good, since they're not made from stainless steel, whereas Rainoxes are. How long do Rainoxes last? How does that compare to resin anchors?

(We used to use Spits on Spanish expeditions, but then changed to Rainoxes because they last longer and can be drilled easier. I've never had the chance to go back and check them after several years, so I don't actually know how well they hold up long-term.)

Presumably Rainoxes (or similar) were considered and rejected. Was that decision made on durability or strength grounds?

Sorry if I sound like I'm whinging! I don't mean to. I just find the subject baffling.
 
I get the sense that the idea behind the bolts (note I am talking about bolting caves that people other than the initial explorers go in) is that you do it once, you do it using the best gear you can, and when that anchor fails / needs replacing it can be easily pulled and the same location used for a replacement - thus minimising the impact in the cave.

Not sure how this applies to things like the Rainoxes mind.  Might seem like trying for perfection but it does mean we avoid a proliferation of random old bolts and spits everytime we need a new one.
 

droid

Active member
Adopt Kenilworth's conservation-minded idea of not going down caves and the problem (if it exists) disappears....
 

owd git

Active member
I, for one found your post refreshing Mike. Thanks for putting your head above the parapet, or whatever.
Ric'.
 

Chocolate fireguard

Active member
Mike Hopley said:
I expect Simon may be dead right about the IC anchor being better in various ways than all the other anchors. But does it matter? Is our objective to design the perfect bolt, or to find a practical option for long-lasting anchors?
If I was one of the people in BCA who have to decide what anchors should be used, and put that in writing for all to see, I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry at this point.

Quite apart from wanting to do the best job I could when making such an important decision, I would be very aware that it has been many years since "OK, that's fair enough, it may not have been the best bolt but it was a good practical option" is something likely to be said by relatives of a caver who has sustained life-changing injuries as a result of bolt failure.

Quite apart from the human consequences of such an accident I suspect that the BCA insurance scheme could not stand many hits of the likely size, and then where would we be?

 

topcat

Active member
Mike, where I've used Rainox 'spits' I've left a s/s hanger in place too.  Like spits, the Rainox threads can still get gritted-up.

I've not seen figures, but feel they might not have the same holding power of a trad spit on account of only a 2 way rather than 4 way split/expansion.

But whatever, they won't match a resin anchor for strength.

But then again, they are not the weakest link in the chain: your jammers are, by a long shot.
 

Bob Mehew

Well-known member
MJenkinson said:
I get the sense that the idea behind the bolts (note I am talking about bolting caves that people other than the initial explorers go in) is that you do it once, you do it using the best gear you can, and when that anchor fails / needs replacing it can be easily pulled and the same location used for a replacement - thus minimising the impact in the cave.

Not sure how this applies to things like the Rainoxes mind.  Might seem like trying for perfection but it does mean we avoid a proliferation of random old bolts and spits everytime we need a new one.

Thank you for your summary. 

As topcat alludes to, the problem with spits was that given cavers were mean, they took the hanger away with them.  So every trip required a bolt and hanger to be inserted.  In some places that would mean several times a weekend.  Inevitably they wore out.

I have not seen any test results for Rainox and can't immediately recall one for a spit but would guess they are limited by the hanger which usually tears at just above 25kN, its rated capacity.   


 
 

MarkS

Moderator
Mike Hopley said:
I expect Simon may be dead right about the IC anchor being better in various ways than all the other anchors. But does it matter? Is our objective to design the perfect bolt, or to find a practical option for long-lasting anchors?

Bob said that concern about "chloride stress corrosion cracking" (i.e. corrosion from salt water) has made the CNCC and others reject all anchors except those made from a particular type of stainless steel, drastically limiting the options. But surely this is only relevant to anchors placed near the sea? Why would you need "salt water proof" anchors in the Dales?

Is this symptomatic of the thinking around this topic? Are excellent existing products being rejected because they are not 100% theoretically perfect?

When I read this thread at lunch time today, I was heading towards exactly this conclusion. Do our anchors need to be better than those generally sold by well respected manufacturers and exceed the usual ratings? This appears to come down to the issue of 316 stainless steel, which the CNCC have minuted was recommended over 304 by Hilti, DMM and Lyon (http://cncc.org.uk/doc/55), and having read that I can fully understand a reluctance to go against that recommendation.

Having said that, there's a balance to be struck. If a reliable affordable source of suitable 316 anchors is not forthcoming, it seems ridiculous to avoid improving the current safety of caves on the basis that we don't yet have the ideal solution.
 

Simon Wilson

New member
MarkS said:
Mike Hopley said:
I expect Simon may be dead right about the IC anchor being better in various ways than all the other anchors. But does it matter? Is our objective to design the perfect bolt, or to find a practical option for long-lasting anchors?

Bob said that concern about "chloride stress corrosion cracking" (i.e. corrosion from salt water) has made the CNCC and others reject all anchors except those made from a particular type of stainless steel, drastically limiting the options. But surely this is only relevant to anchors placed near the sea? Why would you need "salt water proof" anchors in the Dales?

Is this symptomatic of the thinking around this topic? Are excellent existing products being rejected because they are not 100% theoretically perfect?

When I read this thread at lunch time today, I was heading towards exactly this conclusion. Do our anchors need to be better than those generally sold by well respected manufacturers and exceed the usual ratings? This appears to come down to the issue of 316 stainless steel, which the CNCC have minuted was recommended over 304 by Hilti, DMM and Lyon (http://cncc.org.uk/doc/55), and having read that I can fully understand a reluctance to go against that recommendation.

Having said that, there's a balance to be struck. If a reliable affordable source of suitable 316 anchors is not forthcoming, it seems ridiculous to avoid improving the current safety of caves on the basis that we don't yet have the ideal solution.

The BCA Equipment and Techniques Committee are ahead of you on this debate. However, I am certain that others with far more experience than me on the committee will agree (because they have said so) that the committee would benefit from more input from knowledgeable people and very much welcome more people getting involved.
 

Mike Hopley

New member
As topcat alludes to, the problem with spits was that given cavers were mean, they took the hanger away with them.  So every trip required a bolt and hanger to be inserted.  In some places that would mean several times a weekend.  Inevitably they wore out.

Thanks for clarifying the fundamental problem with spit-type anchors (including Rainoxes). That makes perfect sense. In the context we were using them, that particular problem wasn't likely to ever show itself. It seems obvious now you've said it!

I hope I haven't distracted too much from the relevant discussion of resin anchors by mentioning Rainoxes. I was just curious; thanks for your patience! :)


Quite apart from wanting to do the best job I could when making such an important decision, I would be very aware that it has been many years since "OK, that's fair enough, it may not have been the best bolt but it was a good practical option" is something likely to be said by relatives of a caver who has sustained life-changing injuries as a result of bolt failure.

I feel a bit heartless for saying this, but surely the "someone might die" argument can always be ratcheted up another notch of theoretically improved safety. But how much does it genuinely increase safety to do so?

Relative strength of anchors is largely a non-issue when the weakest link in the safety chain is the rope-ascender interface (about 4 -- 6 kN). It doesn't matter how strong your resin anchor is when your jammer destroys the rope.

What about security/reliability of anchors? Sensible rigging requires that, if any one anchor should fail at the worst possible time, the caver will remain safe and will certainly not suffer any serious injuries. In the case of resin anchors especially, the probability of a single (correctly installed) anchor failing is extremely low.

Let's say that the chance of one resin bolt failing on a given use is about 1/10,000. Then the chance of two failing at the same time is about 1/100 million. That figure is probably far too pessimistic. My actual guess would be closer to 1/100,000 for one resin anchor, giving 1/10 billion chance for simultaneous failure of two resins.

Of course there are specific situations where multiple simultaneous anchor failure is a real danger. For example, we know that multiple resins have failed together in highly corrosive sea environments. We also know that anchors installed right next to each other are dependent: if one fails, it may cause the other to fail. (Do we know of any other possibilities?)

And of course my hand-waving figures can be debated. But how many resin anchor failures do we even know about, other than those in seaside areas due to salt-water corrosion? Even with spits, anchor failure is rare.

Sadly, there are still plenty of serious accidents in caving. I hear about (and know) people who abseiled off the end of a rope. I hear about (and know) people who lost control of an abseil and hit the deck. I hear about (and know) people who fell off an electron ladder without a lifeline. I hear about (and know) people who were hit by falling rocks. I hear about (and knew) people who drowned.

Some of these people got away with minor injuries. Some of them were seriously affected. Some are dead.

I don't hear about, or know, anyone who has been injured from two bolts failing at the same time. And there are a lot of people who have done a lot of caving on some really grotty bolts.

That is not to say that we should accept poor bolts. The resin anchors installed in the UK are superb, and everyone involved deserves our thanks. The IC anchors look excellent too and I hope the project succeeds and makes the whole topic moot. But when all commercially available products have been rejected because they are imperfect, I wonder whether we've lost perspective.

Yet equally I recognise that I know far, far less about the subject than the people involved. Perhaps I place too much faith in commercial anchors. I suppose when you're used to hanging off rather shocking-looking anchors -- I recall an ancient heavy-duty pair that appeared to have become mostly gel, which was rather alarming to see just after flinging yourself over the knife-edge pitch head balcony -- then any kind of resin feels like an enormous luxury. ;)

For myself, I'm grateful for the splendid P-bolts that I use. I'm also happy to use existing Spits, especially when there are not enough P-bolts to ensure safety; there are many cases where the rigging becomes safer by using one. And in the spirit of cooperation and respect, I refrain from adding anchors even when I know there aren't truly enough of them to rig perfectly.
 

adam

Member
Mike Hopley said:
Of course there are specific situations where multiple simultaneous anchor failure is a real danger. For example, we know that multiple resins have failed together in highly corrosive sea environments. We also know that anchors installed right next to each other are dependent: if one fails, it may cause the other to fail. (Do we know of any other possibilities?)

There's also the likelihood that anchors installed next to each other will be from the same batch, use the same tube of resin and have been installed by the same person - all of which means that one failure increases the chance of a second. The greatest unknown though is the rock the anchors are placed in, which is much more variable (and therefore prone to failure) than the anchors or resin. This also makes simultaneous anchor failure more likely, as the rock is likely to be of similar quality in the same area.

None of the above is unique to resin anchors; you could say the same for spits or throughbolts or anything else. The training and experience of installers helps prevent poor placement of resin anchors, but this becomes difficult when there is spit rash to contend with. Spits will usually be placed in the best place for them i.e. good rock, good rope hang - which would also be the best place for a resin anchor. When space is limited, even one set of spits could make finding suitable resin anchor sites challenging. When there are multiple sets, the problem is compounded.
 
Top