Simpson Chains
- Thread starter Ian Ball
- Start date
Chocolate fireguard
Active member
Damn! Missed it đ°
Vocal minority back again. If you are referring to my viewpoint. I did not use the word pollution, I used the word damage. This is because an anchor which is unnecessary is damage, vandalism even.
JoshW
Well-known member
Yes! Keep talking dirty to me. Via ferrata underground everywhere!!
MediumCharlie
New member
Itâs quite an idealised process and I dread to think how much money you have to give to nature to write an article like that
R&D | Toho Titanium Co., Ltd.
R&D in Toho responds to the demand from customers and contributes to the development of a sustainable society by developing the new processes and products that can reduce the environmental load. We introduce the technology realized based on our ceaseless efforts on R&D at Toho Titanium.
The main selling point seems to be that if electricity were carbon free, there isnât direct release of CO2 associated with their process like with the chlorination of TiO, but they donât really provide any details of how they plan to remove Al from the Ti melt afterwards which I imagine isnât the easiest
If energy were free I think the FFC process would probably be better and thereâs obviously a reason that hasnât taken off
What an interesting thread! Having read through it a few times over a few evenings, to me it seems like there are a few key questions which need to be answered in order to make a decision about this. These are questions which could be answered with experimental data, which would give a bit more weight to whatever outcome they point to. Apologies if anyoneâs provided data like this already, I might have missed your post. And apologies if these questions or data about them were already factored into the recommendation to the CNCC â that wasnât mentioned on the agenda item (probably because it was, reasonably, proposed without the expectation that there would be such intense interest!).
1. This post points out that one of the reasons for the DCA installing chains is to prevent wear from gritty ropes on fixed anchors. Presumably this is knowledge gained through the DCAâs experience of it happening. How fast does it happen â would we expect rope wear on fixed anchors from pulling through to cause premature failure of the fixed anchors? If so, that would be a very good reason for installing a chain (or some other replaceable wear link) to avoid the necessity to re-bolt in future due to pull-through bolts being worn out.
2. It seems there isnât a good grasp of exactly why people keep getting their ropes stuck on pull-throughs. I think it would be useful to have a better idea of why this happens before implementing a solution to try and fix it. If, as some people in this thread have suggested, ropes mainly get stuck due to twisting the two halves together, a chain is not going to improve the situation and would be a pointless intervention. Perhaps weâd be better off focusing efforts on training and publicity about how to pull through correctly. If itâs due to rub between the rope and the rock due to running through a pair of anchors whose eyes are close to the rock, then adding a chain sounds like it would definitely help.
3. I think considerations about embodied energy of materials we bring into the cave is a bit of a distraction, but if itâs something which people think is significant, then the way to understand that problem better would be to do a life cycle analysis of our interventions and trips into a cave, and work out what the significant energy costs are. Having done a few LCAs for other things in the past, I would be willing to bet that the emissions from petrol/diesel cars driving to caves are the vastly significant factor, and the addition of chains/extra bolts/tat/rope wear is insignificant. Not to say we shouldnât minimise it where we can though.
As it stands thereâs obviously a problem (stuck ropes, proliferation of tat), but itâs not clear from the data thatâs been provided that adding chains will actually fix the root causes of those problems. Apologies if it actually is and Iâve missed a key bit of data somewhere.
In any case, thanks to everyone for putting time into trying to solve these problems
1. This post points out that one of the reasons for the DCA installing chains is to prevent wear from gritty ropes on fixed anchors. Presumably this is knowledge gained through the DCAâs experience of it happening. How fast does it happen â would we expect rope wear on fixed anchors from pulling through to cause premature failure of the fixed anchors? If so, that would be a very good reason for installing a chain (or some other replaceable wear link) to avoid the necessity to re-bolt in future due to pull-through bolts being worn out.
2. It seems there isnât a good grasp of exactly why people keep getting their ropes stuck on pull-throughs. I think it would be useful to have a better idea of why this happens before implementing a solution to try and fix it. If, as some people in this thread have suggested, ropes mainly get stuck due to twisting the two halves together, a chain is not going to improve the situation and would be a pointless intervention. Perhaps weâd be better off focusing efforts on training and publicity about how to pull through correctly. If itâs due to rub between the rope and the rock due to running through a pair of anchors whose eyes are close to the rock, then adding a chain sounds like it would definitely help.
3. I think considerations about embodied energy of materials we bring into the cave is a bit of a distraction, but if itâs something which people think is significant, then the way to understand that problem better would be to do a life cycle analysis of our interventions and trips into a cave, and work out what the significant energy costs are. Having done a few LCAs for other things in the past, I would be willing to bet that the emissions from petrol/diesel cars driving to caves are the vastly significant factor, and the addition of chains/extra bolts/tat/rope wear is insignificant. Not to say we shouldnât minimise it where we can though.
As it stands thereâs obviously a problem (stuck ropes, proliferation of tat), but itâs not clear from the data thatâs been provided that adding chains will actually fix the root causes of those problems. Apologies if it actually is and Iâve missed a key bit of data somewhere.
In any case, thanks to everyone for putting time into trying to solve these problems
Well, the chains will solve problem of abandoned tat, as people are leaving it to create a central point that they can abseil from (i.e. the ring!)
If bolts are in opposing walls then that also means additional friction on pull through, which is reduced by having a single point.
BTW I haven't voted in the poll because I don't do those trips very often, but about half the number who voted have commented (percentage who voted in favour has dropped slightly but still over 90%)
If bolts are in opposing walls then that also means additional friction on pull through, which is reduced by having a single point.
BTW I haven't voted in the poll because I don't do those trips very often, but about half the number who voted have commented (percentage who voted in favour has dropped slightly but still over 90%)
From my experience the 'tat' is by the way of traverse lines not Y hang slings.
thehungrytroglobite
Well-known member
Idk, if the route is off particular geological & ecological interest and being damaged, then bolting can reduce that damage. If the alternative is to ban climbing on it altogether then bolting is surely better than nothing. From the photos it looks like the bolts are for the top anchor anyway - tons of trad routes have tat + maillon as a top anchor, they are still trad climbed, it just makes the abseiling safer. So on a busy route I think replacing the tat with chain makes sense
It's both - see photos from Ian P earlier in the thread. It's the Y-hang tat that the chains are proposed to reduce.
Well it did come up on page 1
Brains
Well-known member
No need for extra anchors, and for those that don't want to use them there is space to double rigg đ
Hi all
Below is a âcopy and pasteâ of some information from a document I have put together regarding the chain proposal and some background information on the âbiggerâ project.
I feel in the ârushâ to get the proposal in, I didnât give enough information for due consideration.
I am going to request that this document goes on the CNCC website for the next committee meeting along with the âOfficers reportsâ.
As this proposal was submitted after the official âcut offâ time, I am more than happy for this to be moved onto the next committee meeting, although the water in the duck is not going to be pleasant đ
Hopefully this will provide more information to all, whether a majority or minority and vocal or not.
REF: Information for consideration regarding the proposal to install chains to link anchors in 3 locations in Simpsons pot.
Background Information
Swinsto and Simpsons were not originally anchored for pull through trips, some anchor positions would indicate that there was also a favour towards ladder and lifelines.
I would however like to take this opportunity to put on record my complete admiration for the early installers of resin anchors in our caves. This really is not an easy job, even with today's modern tools and anchors, we really do âstand on the shoulders of giantsâ.
The CNCC committee agreed a number of months ago to allow both caves to have additional work to the anchors carried out. The aim was to bring them up to a standard which would meet modern demands and make descents safer, more user friendly and generally âfit for purposeâ.
Before this project was carried out, descent of both caves as a pull through trip was only possible by either;
⢠Using a single anchor
⢠Using 2 anchors which were not suitably spaced with resulting issues of making rope retrieval more difficult and potentially causing excess wear on the anchors.
â˘Leaving Tat behind or using Tat left in place.
This was not an ideal situation for 2 of our best and most popular pull through trips. These caves really are our âJewels in the Crownâ and working on them feels like it, I am always wearing my âmetaphoricalâ White gloves!
The project aims to provide an anchor situation fit for purpose. Both caves are used for both pull through trips and standard SRT trips, therefore the anchor arrangement has to accommodate both styles.
The process
Traverse
Ensure a pitch head has a sensible traverse approach if required. (A number didnât)
Pitch head
Each pitch head requires a solution for both pull through and fixed rigging. The pull through solution of 2 offset closely spaced resin anchors is the default at ALL pitch heads (except currently at the 3 locations noted later).
The work process goes as follows, with the absolute aim to have as few anchors at the pitch head as possible.
1. Asses pitch head and if existing anchors achieve what is required;
DO NOTHING (This was the case in a couple of instances where additional anchors had been added in the past)
2. Rationalise anchors and/or adding new ones as necessary to achieve a TWO ANCHOR pitch head where both anchors are suitable for either pull through or fixed rigging. This was achieved in a pleasing number of cases.
3. If a two anchor pitch head was not achievable then a THREE ANCHOR pitch head would usually achieve the desired outcome.
4. Only in a couple of instances have we had to resort to a FOUR ANCHOR pitch head. This is generally where the fixed rigging needs to be further out than would be suitable for a pull through.
All pitches in both caves now have the above anchor configurations, except for the 3 locations below which relate to the request of adding chains to the anchors.
Slit Pot
This pitch head currently has FIVE anchors. Work could possibly be done here to achieve a pitch head configuration as per the other ones, however the presence of 5 anchors suggests that this is a problematic area and currently it is not optimised for a pull through.
Linking 2 of the existing anchors here with a chain would provide a single attachment point and allow a clean up of the surplus anchors.
Options for fixed rigging could either use the anchors with which the chain is attached to (as you would if a pitch was already rigged) or simply attach to the centre point of the chain.
Over the top at Slit Pot
This area is currently not shown on the CNCC topos.
The pitch head here has potential to be extremely user friendly, lots of space and an open impressive shaft. Currently work here has included an extra anchor on the traverse to make it more âsensibleâ and 2 anchors suitable for a y hang.
Linking these 2 anchors with a chain would provide a near perfect pull through single attachment point, with NO rope rub.
As with Slit Pot, fixed rigging could use the same anchors or even easier use the central point. This would allow a TWO anchor pitch head suitable for both types of rigging.
Great Aven
This route provides a REALLY nice option for a pull through.
â˘It is much drier than slit pot
â˘It avoids Slit Pot !
â˘It avoids the last wet pitch of Swinsto
⢠Accessing it doesnât require prussicing up a fixed in situ rope.
â˘It visits a really nice chamber on route
The pitch head at the top of the sloping rift which had the most accumulated âTatâ has been rationalised to a TWO anchor pitch head suitable for both styles of rigging.
If descending the rift on fixed rigging, there is an existing anchor partway down for a rebelay.
At the pitch head of the main drop 2 anchors installed here provide the same situation as per âoverâ the top of Slit Pot.
Suitable for a y hang and if linked with chain, a rub free single point which is easy to retrieve a rope from.
A âTwo anchorâ slightly offset solution here would not work due to significant rope rub.
A summary of benefits to linking anchors with chain.
⢠Prevents wear to the resin anchors from rope being pulled down.
⢠Provides an easier solution for pulling down and helps prevent rope twisting.
⢠Places the attachment point in a more user friendly location.
⢠Reduces the number of anchors required at a pitch head whilst still accommodating both styles of rigging.
⢠Removes the need for any âTatâ to be left.
â˘Provides a rub free descent. This is especially important on big pitches. If someone has to do a change over and reascend the rope for any reason, rope rub could have significant consequences.
⢠Easy to replace the abseil ring in future due to rope wear rather than having to extract and replace fixed resin anchors.
I will post some photos in another post.
Ian Patrick
PS
On a separate note:
The troublesome flake on Slit Pot shouldnât be causing any more trouble.
Below is a âcopy and pasteâ of some information from a document I have put together regarding the chain proposal and some background information on the âbiggerâ project.
I feel in the ârushâ to get the proposal in, I didnât give enough information for due consideration.
I am going to request that this document goes on the CNCC website for the next committee meeting along with the âOfficers reportsâ.
As this proposal was submitted after the official âcut offâ time, I am more than happy for this to be moved onto the next committee meeting, although the water in the duck is not going to be pleasant đ
Hopefully this will provide more information to all, whether a majority or minority and vocal or not.
REF: Information for consideration regarding the proposal to install chains to link anchors in 3 locations in Simpsons pot.
Background Information
Swinsto and Simpsons were not originally anchored for pull through trips, some anchor positions would indicate that there was also a favour towards ladder and lifelines.
I would however like to take this opportunity to put on record my complete admiration for the early installers of resin anchors in our caves. This really is not an easy job, even with today's modern tools and anchors, we really do âstand on the shoulders of giantsâ.
The CNCC committee agreed a number of months ago to allow both caves to have additional work to the anchors carried out. The aim was to bring them up to a standard which would meet modern demands and make descents safer, more user friendly and generally âfit for purposeâ.
Before this project was carried out, descent of both caves as a pull through trip was only possible by either;
⢠Using a single anchor
⢠Using 2 anchors which were not suitably spaced with resulting issues of making rope retrieval more difficult and potentially causing excess wear on the anchors.
â˘Leaving Tat behind or using Tat left in place.
This was not an ideal situation for 2 of our best and most popular pull through trips. These caves really are our âJewels in the Crownâ and working on them feels like it, I am always wearing my âmetaphoricalâ White gloves!
The project aims to provide an anchor situation fit for purpose. Both caves are used for both pull through trips and standard SRT trips, therefore the anchor arrangement has to accommodate both styles.
The process
Traverse
Ensure a pitch head has a sensible traverse approach if required. (A number didnât)
Pitch head
Each pitch head requires a solution for both pull through and fixed rigging. The pull through solution of 2 offset closely spaced resin anchors is the default at ALL pitch heads (except currently at the 3 locations noted later).
The work process goes as follows, with the absolute aim to have as few anchors at the pitch head as possible.
1. Asses pitch head and if existing anchors achieve what is required;
DO NOTHING (This was the case in a couple of instances where additional anchors had been added in the past)
2. Rationalise anchors and/or adding new ones as necessary to achieve a TWO ANCHOR pitch head where both anchors are suitable for either pull through or fixed rigging. This was achieved in a pleasing number of cases.
3. If a two anchor pitch head was not achievable then a THREE ANCHOR pitch head would usually achieve the desired outcome.
4. Only in a couple of instances have we had to resort to a FOUR ANCHOR pitch head. This is generally where the fixed rigging needs to be further out than would be suitable for a pull through.
All pitches in both caves now have the above anchor configurations, except for the 3 locations below which relate to the request of adding chains to the anchors.
Slit Pot
This pitch head currently has FIVE anchors. Work could possibly be done here to achieve a pitch head configuration as per the other ones, however the presence of 5 anchors suggests that this is a problematic area and currently it is not optimised for a pull through.
Linking 2 of the existing anchors here with a chain would provide a single attachment point and allow a clean up of the surplus anchors.
Options for fixed rigging could either use the anchors with which the chain is attached to (as you would if a pitch was already rigged) or simply attach to the centre point of the chain.
Over the top at Slit Pot
This area is currently not shown on the CNCC topos.
The pitch head here has potential to be extremely user friendly, lots of space and an open impressive shaft. Currently work here has included an extra anchor on the traverse to make it more âsensibleâ and 2 anchors suitable for a y hang.
Linking these 2 anchors with a chain would provide a near perfect pull through single attachment point, with NO rope rub.
As with Slit Pot, fixed rigging could use the same anchors or even easier use the central point. This would allow a TWO anchor pitch head suitable for both types of rigging.
Great Aven
This route provides a REALLY nice option for a pull through.
â˘It is much drier than slit pot
â˘It avoids Slit Pot !
â˘It avoids the last wet pitch of Swinsto
⢠Accessing it doesnât require prussicing up a fixed in situ rope.
â˘It visits a really nice chamber on route
The pitch head at the top of the sloping rift which had the most accumulated âTatâ has been rationalised to a TWO anchor pitch head suitable for both styles of rigging.
If descending the rift on fixed rigging, there is an existing anchor partway down for a rebelay.
At the pitch head of the main drop 2 anchors installed here provide the same situation as per âoverâ the top of Slit Pot.
Suitable for a y hang and if linked with chain, a rub free single point which is easy to retrieve a rope from.
A âTwo anchorâ slightly offset solution here would not work due to significant rope rub.
A summary of benefits to linking anchors with chain.
⢠Prevents wear to the resin anchors from rope being pulled down.
⢠Provides an easier solution for pulling down and helps prevent rope twisting.
⢠Places the attachment point in a more user friendly location.
⢠Reduces the number of anchors required at a pitch head whilst still accommodating both styles of rigging.
⢠Removes the need for any âTatâ to be left.
â˘Provides a rub free descent. This is especially important on big pitches. If someone has to do a change over and reascend the rope for any reason, rope rub could have significant consequences.
⢠Easy to replace the abseil ring in future due to rope wear rather than having to extract and replace fixed resin anchors.
I will post some photos in another post.
Ian Patrick
PS
On a separate note:
The troublesome flake on Slit Pot shouldnât be causing any more trouble.
Hi Ian, thank you for the post, I appreciate the interaction.
We seemingly have different thresholds for what is fit for purpose and when an extra anchor is required. I don't think that is going to change.
I would hope that I've stated my distaste eloquently enough and that you can take on board not all people will look at the situation of a pitch head and come to the same conclusion on what is fit for purpose. As the work it leads to is permanently scarring the cave, however small a scar, perhaps you can see a benefit in thinking twice about the impact of your choices in all caves not just Simpson and Swinsto.
I find myself asking with 30 years of anchor installers visiting caves and work being done, why no anchor installer before you felt the need to request more anchors in these caves or for pull through trips specifically? What do we do differently that requires extra anchors in seemingly most pitch heads?
I appreciate I am a member of the vocal minority.
Flake no longer an issue?
We seemingly have different thresholds for what is fit for purpose and when an extra anchor is required. I don't think that is going to change.
I would hope that I've stated my distaste eloquently enough and that you can take on board not all people will look at the situation of a pitch head and come to the same conclusion on what is fit for purpose. As the work it leads to is permanently scarring the cave, however small a scar, perhaps you can see a benefit in thinking twice about the impact of your choices in all caves not just Simpson and Swinsto.
I find myself asking with 30 years of anchor installers visiting caves and work being done, why no anchor installer before you felt the need to request more anchors in these caves or for pull through trips specifically? What do we do differently that requires extra anchors in seemingly most pitch heads?
I appreciate I am a member of the vocal minority.
Flake no longer an issue?
Ane
Member
I'm slightly confused here. I can't find information in Ian's post indicating that additional anchors will be needed to support pull throughs in the three locations in question? As I'm reading it, anchors have been cleaned up and/or installed to support standard fixed rigging in these locations, and the proposal is to add three chains to these anchors to make pull throughs simpler. Am I completely misunderstanding this?
