2016 srtwp redirects

Man, glad you bumped this post Mark, I must have missed it when I did a full site read through last year.
I have something new. I started working with Richards On Bight several months ago and made a lot of advances and simplifications that play really well with the Akimbo and likely the other newer mechanicals like the BdB.
Still vetting and making a video but should have something to show and tell shortly.
 
FreeFallin said:
Man, glad you bumped this post Mark, I must have missed it when I did a full site read through last year.
I have something new. I started working with Richards On Bight several months ago and made a lot of advances and simplifications that play really well with the Akimbo and likely the other newer mechanicals like the BdB.
Still vetting and making a video but should have something to show and tell shortly.
Click to expand...

Haven't forgotten about this, finally have enough testing and simplification done to share - http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/scam-3-1-ma-and-remotely-retrievable-redirect.36715/
 
Thanks Richard! I don' think I came across this video in my research but I watched a lot so it's possible.

This is similar to what I am doing with the SCAM, but with a couple of distinct differences that jump out at me.

First, in my version only the rope bight passes over the redirect so that on removal there is no hardware to pass through the crotch, this could be an advantage in some situations.

Also my system does not cinch onto the branch, it is a separate knot (a munter hitch with an additional 1/2 wrap) that places the carabiner in a fixed position on the rope. This avoids hardware contact with the branch which can lead to additional rope abrasion where it gets pinned, abrasion of the hardware on the tree itself, and potentially side loading or bend loading the hardware against the limb.

My system also has reduced friction options to improve the efficiency of the MA by using a roller carabiner.

I don't think these are major concerns, and Benjamin's design is brilliant, but I do see improvement in my design for some situations.
 
FreeFallin said:
Thanks Richard! I don' think I came across this video in my research but I watched a lot so it's possible.

This is similar to what I am doing with the SCAM, but with a couple of distinct differences that jump out at me.

First, in my version only the rope bight passes over the redirect so that on removal there is no hardware to pass through the crotch, this could be an advantage in some situations.

Also my system does not cinch onto the branch, it is a separate knot (a munter hitch with an additional 1/2 wrap) that places the carabiner in a fixed position on the rope. This avoids hardware contact with the branch which can lead to additional rope abrasion where it gets pinned, abrasion of the hardware on the tree itself, and potentially side loading or bend loading the hardware against the limb.

My system also has reduced friction options to improve the efficiency of the MA by using a roller carabiner.

I don't think these are major concerns, and Benjamin's design is brilliant, but I do see improvement in my design for some situations.
Click to expand...
Yep, the munter method works too.

Here is the over view.
 
yoyoman said:
Yep, the munter method works too.

Here is the over view.
Click to expand...

Richard, I am trying to understand what you are saying here and don't want to jump to any conclusions. I have a ton of respect for you and the way you contribute.

Did you watch my videos? I am asking because you just posted the exact video of yours that I show a clip of in my video as the inspiration. Also the exact video that I posted a link to in the description on Youtube.

I can't tell if you are saying that the SCAM 3:1 is the same as girth hitching an aluminum ring for 3:1, or if making a redirect out of that system is the same as the On Bight? I need more info to see what you are saying.

Also be warned, I just filed for a patent on tying a rope around a carabiner :risas2:

Seriously though, I have no interest in starting any misunderstanding about the innovations I am presenting now based on things you have presented before. I obviously think you are a rope physics rockstar.
 
@FreeFallin
no it's all good I think we're talking about the same thing and I appreciate seeing the variations and your excellent video I know how much work those are to put out. I think it has been a while since I've been on and forgot what we had talked about before. anyway great job keep up the good work thanks
 
Testing out the scam with a pulley. Not sure about the first one as it may have the ability to side load the biner . Second picture is an alternative to reduce friction
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0260.webp
    IMG_0260.webp
    332.5 KB · Views: 82
  • IMG_0261.webp
    IMG_0261.webp
    386 KB · Views: 78
goodaking said:
Testing out the scam with a pulley. Not sure about the first one as it may have the ability to side load the biner . Second picture is an alternative to reduce friction
Click to expand...

Thanks for testing this out, I could be wrong but on first look -

The first picture will work, but has a little more setup, and will no longer tend your runner for you.

The second is no longer remotely retrievable, you would need to climb back up to it to get your gear back.

There is an ongoing discussion on page 4 here -http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/scam-3-1-ma-and-remotely-retrievable-redirect.36715/page-4 about multiple configurations of a SCAM to reduce friction, if you have time they might be worth testing with the runner.
 
Second pic is retrievable . The night goes through the pinto pulley. The risk of side loading the carabiner is there
 
Now I see the second line, the angle had it hidden, that would actually retrieve. the pinto is a little tight, do you notice any friction from the bight rubbing together?
 
FreeFallin said:
Now I see the second line, the angle had it hidden, that would actually retrieve. the pinto is a little tight, do you notice any friction from the bight rubbing together?
Click to expand...
Not to bad definitely worth trying. Obviously lots of gear and gadgets in this set up but i like what you had posted and wanted to see if it was possible with the gear i had at hand. curious as to what others thinks about possible side loads of the biner in my set up where the bight goes through the Dmm pulley and not the biner.
 
goodaking said:
...wanted to see if it was possible with the gear i had at hand.
Click to expand...

Love it, this is exactly the goal I set out with, to come up with a system that everyone could probably hobble together a version of, from the junk already on their saddle. Sometimes I get too focused on optimizing to an ultimate solution, but this is what it's all about.
 
The Munter Redirect is an SRS(WP) redirect that is remotely set-able and retrievable in-tree. It uses only the climb-line and does not use ANY extra gear. So, it's always available. The Munter Redirect is based upon a Munter hitch so that is cinches the redirect and shares some load with the TIP. Since the Munter Redirect cinches it can even be used on a vertical stem where no branch union is available. The Munter Redirect does NOT depend on any slip-knot or toggle. So, as with most safe redirects, it does require three lengths of rope for the range of the redirected travel. If it is Tied, Dressed, and Set just right; it will pull-out easily.

THIS VIDEO IS A DEMONSTRATION -- NOT AN INSTRUCTION. This trick is very easy to use but very easy to mess-up. So, be careful. -- If you want to try it, try it Low & Slow. -- Be Safe!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom