# How to tie the optimal cordelette in this specific 7 point scenario?

This is a followup to this question: How to fasten one end of a rope to multiple points so as to distribute load equally?

Specifically, I'm following this answer's advice about using a cordelette. Here is an informative article that shows how to tie a cordelette.

These two images from the linked article illustrate the general idea:

This image illustrates a multi-cordelette scenario:

In my case, there are 7 points available amongst which I'd like to equalize the load. They are arranged in a complicated way, and I'm wondering if I can indeed use all of them or not.

Offhand diagram of the potential fixing points' arrangement; notice the area where no rope can pass through:

Color-coded diagram illustrating possible cordelettes:

In the second diagram, the points are numbered 1 through 7, and their connections with the cordelette's knot (marked X) are color-coded. Green is good, meaning I am fairly certain they will help with equalizing the load. Red ropes are bad, either because they go through the no-rope area (rope 7X), or because their V-angle (explained in the article) is too steep, i.e. more than 60 degrees (ropes 1X and 3X).

It's the orange ropes that I'm unsure about. They go around other fixing points so as to reduce the V-angle, but they also increase the load exerted on those go-around points.

For example, the orange 7-6-X rope that goes from 7 to X through 6. Obviously fixing point 7 then takes on part of the load, but since this rope is pulling on 6 as well, load on it is increased as well. The question is: does the 76X rope add more load to its go-around point than it takes off? Same question applies to all three orange ropes in the diagram.

If the orange ropes increase the load on go-around points (6 and 2) more than they reduce it, it's not worth it.

To sum up, the question is: how to tie the optimal cordelette in this scenario? If going by my illustrated idea, would the orange ropes increase the load on points 6 and 2 more than decrease it?

• While quite well constructed, I don't consider this a home improvement question. – isherwood Mar 6 '19 at 13:46
• Hello, and welcome to Home Improvement. Please don't post the same question twice; it raises the noise level and won't get you what you need. – Daniel Griscom Mar 6 '19 at 14:22
• @DanielGriscom Both questions are on related topics and they concern the same project (not that that's relevant), but the questions are different. The first asked about general techniques for equalizing load between multiple points; the second about a detail of implementation of a specific technique, learned in the first's answers, in a very specific scenario. – Dominykas Mostauskis Mar 6 '19 at 16:16
• @isherwood I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. If there were a rock climbing Stack Exchange site, I would have used it. I was choosing between Home Improvement and Outdoors. I chose Home Improvement, because I got somewhat related expertise on the related question, and because my use case is actually home improvement. I'm installing a vertical hammock-type device and I can't drill for creating better load bearing fixing points, so I'm using a cordelette to hang it on multiple weaker fixing points. – Dominykas Mostauskis Mar 6 '19 at 16:20

## 2 Answers

Honestly I think you are over thinking this. As long as your anchor point spread out too far you shouldn't have a problem you don't really need to worry too much about transferring load because there is only one load on it. If you plan on swinging in your hammock that's a different story. On the other hand you don't have to worry about plummeting to your death either.

You could try something like this Using six of the anchor points that you have outlined you can easily make adjustments to the load-bearing points by adjusting three lengths.

Test your anchor points

Start with your best anchor points. Fix a rope in place at a comfortable height for you to hold on to and do a pull-up and then bounce a little. Use your judgment to figure out the quality of the anchoring. I often mount things over people's heads and the best of field test I've come up with is to hang off an individual anchor effectively quadrupling the load it would possibly see.

perhaps this is a more accurate representation of what you need

Once you have one or two decent anchor points the rest are just insurance. with this setup always make sure the two best anchor points are together.

• ... aren't those breadboard connectors designed to easily pull out? ;) – Daniel Griscom Mar 6 '19 at 16:20
• Your insights about testing the anchor point are useful, and I appreciate the keep-it-simple perspective; but this question is actually quite specific, and you've not directly addressed the questions posed. You've posted the exact copy of this answer on the related question, my previous question, that is, which asked about general techniques for distributing load between multiple points. I think this answer fits over there much better. To be clear, I value the commentary and info, but this might not be a very fitting answer to this question. – Dominykas Mostauskis Mar 6 '19 at 16:41
• @Daniel Griscom Yes they are. They are fantastic and very inexpensive. Dominykas Mostauskis sorry if it seems like I'm brushing aside your concerns, I'm not. I saw the one post before the other after writing the answer and just copy/paste because it was directly related. Can you post a picture of the proposed location for the hammock? – Joe Fala Mar 6 '19 at 16:57
• @JoeFala actually explaining it through photos would be more complicated than the (already pretty complicated, I guess) diagram. The project spans two floors and relies on some railings found on the second floor, and the area where the ropes will pass through isn't visible from any one point, hence the difficulty to take a photo. I think the diagram simplifies it, without losing any important details. I tried to make it as simple as possible, but it might take a few minutes to get the gist. – Dominykas Mostauskis Mar 7 '19 at 11:29

A cordelette is probably overkill. When I am building a climbing anchors with a cordelette, I am trying to create a SERENE anchor:

1. Solid/Strong
2. Equalized
3. Redundant
4. Efficient
5. No Extension

Incorporating your 7 points makes your anchor solid (hopefully). Equalized is also important to you since you want to distribute the load. Redundant if one point fails, the whole anchor does not fail. There is a big difference between a total failure at 2 feet and 2000 feet above the ground. Efficient refers to how long it takes. If it takes you an hour to build an anchor, you get to drink more beer. If it takes a climber an hour to build an anchor, they are not going to get to the top and will end up drinking less beer. No extension means if an anchor point fails that the master point does not move (as this could drop a climber over the edge or something else bad).

With this in mind I would create a loop between 6 and 7 and run it through the master pint carabiner. If either point fails, they both fail, but it will be equalized (and even handle slight shifts). I would also run a loop between 4 and 5 and the master point and another between 1 and 3 and the master point. I would then make a single loop between 2 and the master point.

• Do you mean in principle tieing for example 6 and 7 together and using the resulting rope as the fixing point? If so, that seems to violate the V-angle principle, as described here vdiffclimbing.com/anchors-equalize – Dominykas Mostauskis Mar 7 '19 at 11:24
• @DominykasMostauskis I am suggesting to tie them together with a really long cord that sags down all the way to the top of the chair so that you get a really nice V. – StrongBad Mar 7 '19 at 11:59
• Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it's applicable here. I can't do that with 6 and 7, because that V would cross the "no-rope" area (it's a crossed block in the diagram). With 1 and 3, that wouldn't work because it would form a V-angle of more than 60 degrees. In my situation the 1X3 angle might be closer to 100 degrees, so weight sharing would be very minimal, given that 120 degrees is no weight sharing at all. – Dominykas Mostauskis Mar 7 '19 at 13:52