Usually taught alongside other hazards like the American Death Triangle, the Magic X is a stepping stone of anchor theory, which is broadly understood as something to avoid and for good reason. The X has narrow margins which may leave it compromised in common anchor scenarios. Furthermore, where the X may be considered appropriate by the few who do use it, there are alternatives that better satisfy basic anchor principle. So why is this so hotly debated by the couch climbers in the deep dark forums of the internet? Corrupting thread after thread the Magic X seems to pull at the imaginations of many who fear that somewhere, lurking in their carefully pretended hypotheticals, that they’re gonna die. And their right…ish.
Let me clarify some ideas and concepts many may consider obvious. It is after all, educational and will help narrow the discussion a bit.
Equipped vs Unequipped, Sport vs Traditional
Write a Quick Article on these terms
Two bolt, multi pitch anchors where failure at either anchor point is judged to be inconceivable.
Occasionally the back and forth ramblings of idiocy wake a rock giant. John Long chimed in
Narrow Margins - This is where many stop their inquiry and that’s fine.
Better Understanding - the Principle Of Redundancy, Non redundant tether, another legitimate tool that isn’t: body belay (Sling with a sheath: redundant vs ‘The Perfect Scenario:’ also redundant)
Consent - Why use the Magic X at all? For many climbers, “It’s not wrong,” is simply not good enough and that’s fine with me. Consent is a far more important climbing principle than my pitiful intrigue.
Better Alternatives - Limiter Knots, Quad, Girth Hitch, Bowline.
Obsolescence - Hip Belay
A better question: Why discuss the Magic X?
Anchor principles, Comfort zones, consent and partnership, education principles, the principle of redundancy, soloing, simuling, body belaying. why the x is different than soloing. why is it different than a body belay.
To say it out front, I use the Magic X once in an exceedingly rare while. I expect most partners would be immediately disconcerted if they arrived at an anchor to see it. On this note, I think it’s important that both climbers understand the
context completely and shave the margins knowingly.
we shave margins all the time why is the x different.
I’m of the mind that the Magic X is inappropriate unless it’s attended, you’re partner That is to say, multi-pitch climbing or else single pitch when the belay is set from the top. Here movement which has potential to cause abrasion can be monitored
John Long included it in his book, so and so wrote an article about it for alpine savvy and it’s even addressed by Josh Beckner in a SEIT tutorial video.
Here is a quick and ill advised tutorial.
Set Up:
A sling is clipped to two anchor points and both the top and bottom strand are brought down to a V shape. The top strand is twisted to form a single turn, which provides the name sake, X shape. Both the eye of the X and the lower strand are clipped as the main point of attachment. Note the tremble inducing absence of limiter knots—Oh no!
Before going on, I’d like to state clearly that the magic X is uncommonly used and considered principally compromised by many. The purpose of this article is for the discussion of anchor theory. Practical use of the Magic X is discouraged for anyone without extensive climbing experience and comprehensive understanding of real world variables.
Pros:
The X is of course, self-equalizing, distributing forces evenly across both pieces as the direction of the load changes.
There is redundancy at the anchor points: if one of anchor points blows, the twist in the sling will capture the carabiner and the second anchor point will catch the load. (Of course material redundancy will be addressed under cons.)
There are no knots to untie and which makes it time efficient and glove friendly. (This is perhaps its best appeal.)
The absence of knots allows for maximum retention of material strength—the magic X has a ‘quick-math’ value of something like double the sling’s strength rating.
Cons:
Shortcomings become apparent when looking for potential extension. Should one of the two pieces fail, the attachment point would extend significantly and the impact would be transferred to our second anchor point with unfavorable forces. This shock loading could causing the remaining piece to fail and is one of the major shortcomings of this system. Sudden extension could cause other problems too for example, cross loaded carabiners, scrapped knees, lost footing, the need to change your pants, etc.
The greatest concern with the X; there is no material redundancy. Abrasion, or falling rock, could sever the sling and cause catastrophic anchor failure. Likewise, a high factor fall on an anchor without any dynamic elements in the system could theoretically snap a dyneema sling resulting the same catastrophic effect. This should certainly disrupt your peace of mind when using anything less than brand new materials.
It is absolutely appropriate to dismiss the Magic X from your practice all together. I’d even say it’s important to discourage its use in educational spaces. And
Despite the appeal of its simplicity, the Magic X should not be used by as a stand alone anchor. The margins are too thin to managed safely without an extensive base of knowledge and experience.
In the alpine, when gloves and cold hands play a roll in anchor selection, the x may show up occasionally, but only with highly experienced or else negligent teams. Experts forfeit material redundancy and limited extension only when there is no possibility of abrasion, the load potential is small, and the anchor points are strong beyond question.
not for unattended toprope anchors
There are many less compromised solutions out there. The pre-tied mini quad, the girth hitch anchor, the fixed point bowline, etc. are, perhaps, b if your hands are too cold to untie knots. Likewise, a magic-x with added limiter knots, or even a magic-x using two slings are both classic solutions to the redundancy problem.
For conversation sake: A sling with a sheath and core may satisfy, in small part, concerns for wear related strength reduction. The Edelrid Tech Web is somewhere like 30g for 60cm and has such a sheath.
