 |
| OK it is more than 2 inches across, but it is right on the edge of the cliff. The roots don't have much to hang on to. Saying "I've got another anchor," doesn't make this good enough. |
 |
| Seven MM cordalettes, single carabiners, gates down so they can be forced open, and old stretchy climbing ropes, that will saw over edges when loaded. |
I dunno, that first tree seems perfectly fine to me. Various studies estimate that healthy trees typically have a safety factor of 4-10x over what it takes to keep them standing. Think of the winds that tree has seen exposed on the edge, and the forces that would produce at the butt. This tree hasn't just survived them, in all likelihood, it's survived them with a significant margin of additional strength.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above -
Delete- John, while your site documents many instances of very poor and very dangerous anchors, it also contains many instances of legitimate anchors that simply don't match an ideal standard. I've noticed on your page (and in person, as I've climbed at Carderock), that many anchors that are totally sufficient to handle the relatively low forces generated by top rope climbers still end up on your blog.
Maybe offer a grade to the anchor (A = perfect, no issues, B = totally sufficient but a few minor errors, C = sufficient but many minor issues, D = significant issues, safety of climbers at risk, etc.) and provide photos of great anchors as well, so that the aspiring generation of climbers coming along behind you can learn from your legacy and climb safely!
Climbing has inherent risk, you have to accept that. Making choices that introduce more risk is unacceptable, period. If you are sloppy with something as simple as a top rope anchor, where you have control of everything, you will apply the same principles in situations where risk is unavoidable. Risk is cumulative, you will end up on the short end.
Delete