2007 Rules

Yo Yo Mahk- I am obviously not as technically sound or adept as you- Cams would have worked better there replacing "teeth". I was refering to ascenders not Mar Bars. But you cleared some things up for me, especially in the area of lateral movement. Don't mistake what I am getting at- all I want to understand is at which point are the ascenders backed up. And realistically (probabally not statistcally) if the cam on the left side of the upper set failed at the same time as the right cam on the lower set you could travel some distance right?

I am also behind on the quote deal- how now brown cow?

None of this really affects me right RemovalWiz. You have seen me with the ascenders!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I was the one that used this tech. in Charlotte.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about that Rob. I knew someone used it, but my memory is not as good as it used to be. Come to think of it my memory has never been good. At least not that I can remember anyway.

I don't see any problem with the method, the fact that both legs of the line are locked in place by the upper ascender means that even if one side of the lower ascender were to fail the knot above the ascender (Prusik , Klemheist or other knot tied onto both legs of the rope) would provide back up. It would not be possible for one side of the ascender to fail and pull through the knot tied for back up which could occur if each leg were not locked down in a normal situation. Good God I am really starting to confuse myself over here. Am I seeing this correctly? Rob, have you ever seen a situation where that system could fail completely with the failure of one side of the ascender?

For the record, Rob had one of the best ARs that we saw that day. If I am ever in a situation where I needed an AR, I would be more than happy to see Rob using this method to come and save me.
 
[ QUOTE ]


For the record, Rob had one of the best ARs that we saw that day. If I am ever in a situation where I needed an AR, I would be more than happy to see Rob using this method to come and save me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not agree more. Just don't waste time with that stretchy yellow thingy
grin.gif
 
Does 'ascender' here mean the Kong double-handled ascender? I think that is what is meant and will respond to that.




[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any problem with the method, the fact that both legs of the line are locked in place by the upper ascender means that even if one side of the lower ascender were to fail the knot above the ascender (Prusik , Klemheist or other knot tied onto both legs of the rope) would provide back up.

[/ QUOTE ]


No--the upper set of Kongs would provide the backup, not the knot. The knot would just create more drag.

You are right that both legs of the climbing line are locked in place by the upper ascenders. But, if one side of the lower ascenders were to fail, the cam on that side of the upper ascenders would provide the backup by jamming the upper ascenders against the branch/friction saver. That is what holds the whole system in place and that is the point of the upper ascenders. If you pull down on either leg of the climbing line the other leg of the climbing line pulls the ascenders up into the branch/friction saver. Because this is done before the climber starts their ascent, the upper ascender is jammed against the branch/friction saver for the whole ascent. There is very little or no slack and the climber might not even notice if one of the cams on the lower ascender failed.

The prusik cord <u>might</u> provide a backup if <u>both</u> cams of the lower ascender were to fail. But, the Prusik cord has to be set very loosely on the climbing line because the Kongs create a gap in the legs of the climbing line (see attachment). Because of the looseness of the Prusik the climber might fall some distance before the Prusik tightened on the climbing line. The Prusik is not required, however, and seems superfluous. It creates added drag for every ascent and <u>might</u> work only in the very unlikely chance that both cams of the lower ascenders failed at the same time.
 

Attachments

  • 75853-dsc01939_rotated_resized.webp
    75853-dsc01939_rotated_resized.webp
    41.2 KB · Views: 120
[ QUOTE ]
And realistically (probabally not statistcally) if the cam on the left side of the upper set failed at the same time as the right cam on the lower set you could travel some distance right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.


[ QUOTE ]
I am also behind on the quote deal- how now brown cow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you lost me. Did I string together too many quotes, or are you asking how to show a quote in your reply.

If the former--sorry, my writing can be thick.

If the latter--two ways. (1) Hit the 'Reply' box of the post you want to quote. That will bring you to the 'Reply To' page. below the blank space where you type your reply you will see a heading that says 'Instant UBB Code' with 11 options. Click 'quote'. 'quote quote' will appear in the blank space where you type your reply. If you are in the middle of typing something the 'quote quote' will appear wherever you left the cursor.

At the very bottom of ythe page you will see the post whose 'reply' box you had clicked. Copy whatever you want to quote, then paste it between the two 'quote quote' 's that you just created.

(2) Hit the 'quote' box of the post that you want to quote. The 'Reply To' page will come up and the entire post that you want to quote will be in the 'Post' box of that page. Leave it all or delete what you don't want or need to reply to.

For both methods be sure to place the cursor outside of the 'quote quote' 's before you start typing your response.

Hope this helps.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The knot would just create more drag.


The prusik cord <u>might</u> provide a backup if <u>both</u> cams of the lower ascender were to fail. But, the Prusik cord has to be set very loosly on the climbing line because the Kongs create a gap in the legs of the climbing line (see attachment). Because of the looseness of the Prusik the climber might fall some distance before the Prusik tightened on the climbing line. The Prusik is not required, however, and seems superfluous. It creates added drag for every ascent and <u>might</u> work only in the very unlikely chance that both cams of the lower ascenders failed at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

My feelings exactly(and Rich's).... I just wish that the people who made the call had the same opinion. I'm not crying over split milk, i just want to use this method in the future.


Rob
 
Hi Craig

Hope you're well mate!
I'm interested to learn why the rule under aerial rescue potential disqualifications,

"4.4.2 Repeated unsafe actions. The first instance will result in a warning. The second instance will"

is not also included within the work climb &amp; masters challenge. I may have not read comprehensively but I would have thought that DQ's &amp; potential DQ's would have been the same for all of these events?!.

Also, with the throwline event:

"5.2.36 The contestant shall issue an audible warning, such as “stand clear,” and receive confirmation
of “all clear” from the head judge before removing the throwline with the throw weight
attached. An audible warning shall also be issued before manipulation of the throwline when
the possibility of accidental removal of the throw weight exists."

You mentioned before about four throws without audible warnings equals DQ. Why not just make that point clear in the rules as it is potentially just as dangerous as those times when it is made clear. i.e. "When throwing or retrieving a throwbag a clear audible warning must be offered to the judging team. Failure to do so will .....etc etc"

Cheers
Nod
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not here to take points or DQ you, but I would have to agree with you judge on # 4 being a DQ. We should get clarification before we get to HI.
Any more comments from you guy's and gal's?
Be safe be happy Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a great work habit to get into... I agree too.
 
Hi Nod
things are almost back to normal.

the events are scored differently which is reflected on the score sheet, although the actions leading to a DQ are more or less the same. in the wok climb if you look under 3.9.9-11 and also 3.10.1-4 it list the same as the AR in 4.4.1-5 although not shown on the score sheet is again the same as the Mc in 8.4.1-5. which is why we put in 2.3.8,
wink.gif


the throwline wording is a good idea and i will look at it again later, we try not to make too many changes each year, the year that we dont make any will be the best, but some one will up with some great and not so great new ideas or get-a-rounds that the rules do not cover, so we have to keep changing and also to reflect best pratice, which i think this is.
 
What are the chances that we can come to a solid ruling that everyone is aware of and agrees on regarding the use of ascenders before ISA Southern TCC? I remember this same discussion at Birmingham last year. At the events and during setup.
 
the chapters can run their own, different rules/changes to the ITCC rules, as long as these changes are made before the start of the comp and that all judges/ tec's and climbers are imformed. you could make your own appendix that applies to your comp, but remember that when the winner comes to the itcc only the things in the little red book count. no point playing base ball if your planning to win the super bowl.
 
IMHO, the backups have become too complicated, but not without purpose. That should tell us something about applying these devices (double ascenders) to tree climbing.

As a competitor, I take a page out of Bernd Strasser's book and use a prussik loop instead. KISS, and it's a lot cheaper and a lot less involved than a set of Kongs, a Double Microscender, shackle, and bungee.

For what it's worth...
cool.gif
 
Pancake wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
What are the chances that we can come to a solid ruling that everyone is aware of and agrees on regarding the use of ascenders before ISA Southern TCC?

[/ QUOTE ]


Judge wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
no point playing base ball if your planning to win the super bowl.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree with Judge.

I also think that the person who said that Mark C.'s technique (running one set of ascenders up to the false crotch and then climbing off of a second set of ascenders) is "illegal as of 2007" was wrong.

These questions should all be worked out during gear inspection, the event walk through, and the event meetings. If any climber has any question or doubt about gear or techniques that they may or may not use they should present their question(s) during one or more of these gatherings. If a climber speaks with more than one official (which they are welcome and encouraged to do) and gets conflicting answers then mention this so that everyone can discuss the matter together.
 
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, the backups have become too complicated, but not without purpose. That should tell us something about applying these devices (double ascenders) to tree climbing.

As a competitor, I take a page out of Bernd Strasser's book and use a prussik loop instead. KISS, and it's a lot cheaper and a lot less involved than a set of Kongs, a Double Microscender, shackle, and bungee.

For what it's worth...
cool.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
True.very True.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom