A friend in need.

Re: that telltale click

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
single-action autolockers (twist action)

[/ QUOTE ]

and

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
double-acting (type 4) autolockers, with two distinct motions to unlock and another to open the gate.

[/ QUOTE ]

RM

I'm sure you have more rock climbing experience than I, but I think you have confused some terms. 'Locking' and 'acting' have different meanings. 'Locking' refers to how many distinct motions are required to prepare the gate to open. A non-locking 'biner requires no motion to prepare the gate to open. You simply push on the gate and it opens. Single-locking 'biners require one distinct motion to prepare the gate to open, eg. spin lock and (1/4) twist lock. A double-locking 'biner requires two distinct motions to prepare the gate to open, eg. depress the ball and turn the barrel or push the barrel down (up on some), then turn the barrel. These two motions prepare the gate to open.

'Act/acting/action' refer to how many distinct motions are requred for the gate to be open. A non-locking 'biner is a single action 'biner because there is one motion (pushing the gate) for the 'biner to open. "...single-action autolockers (twist action)..." is a mis-application of terms. A 'single-action' 'biner is not a locking 'biner. Twist lock 'biners are 'single-locking'and 'double-action'. Petzl's Tri-Act 'biners are triple action (three motions for the gate to be open), double locking (two motions to prepare the gate to open) carabiners.

To confuse things, ANSI Z133.1-2000 (3.7 and 8.7.5) refers to double-locking 'biners as 'positive-locking'.

Mahk
 
Re: that telltale click

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think you have confused some terms. 'Locking' and 'acting' have different meanings

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why these terms are so confusing. If we're refering to the gate, then it might be called triple-acting, but if we're refering to the locking mechanism then surely it would be called double-acting.

As much as I'm an advocate of using a common language to describe equipment and techniques, as you point out there is no commonly accepted terminology for the variety of locking carabiners. And much of the language is confusing.

That's why I described exactly what I was refering to so there would be no confusion.

"double-acting (type 4) autolockers, with two distinct motions to unlock and another to open the gate" - it's very clear what I'm talking about. And that's why I included in parenthesis the best classification system for carabiners:

type 1 = non-locking
type 2 = screw-lock
type 3 = auto-lock
type 4 = double-action auto-lock

This is the terminology that I think would create the least confusion.

- Robert
 
Re: that telltale click

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
What is the heritage of the "type" system that you use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom,

I picked it up from Reed Thorne of Ropes That Rescue in Sedona AZ who learned his trade as a lineman and now teaches rope rescue around the world.

I haven't seen this typology anywhere else, now that you ask, so I don't know if Reed made it up. But it makes more sense than any other classification system I've seen.

Another interesting term I learned from him is "set of fours" for a 4:1 pulley system with two double sheave pulleys.

Reed helped develop the incredibly versatile Arizona Vortex multipod system: VORTEX - click here

and the Aztek Pro multi-purpose set of 4s in a bag:
AZTEK PRO - click here


- Robert
 
Re: that telltale click

I;m familiar with Red.

In his photo archive I found this picture:

http://www.rescueresponse.com/store/ph_backtie.html

Hmmm, from Duluth, MN too. Without seeing the whole picture I'd have to reserve full judgement but...I don't think that I would be using an aspen that small and high for any part of a rigging system. It looks like they're using the tree as a center connection point and have it guyed out. Still, that seems like a really poor choice and a reflecion on the riggers not Reed.

Tom
 
Re: focused anchor

Tom,

It looks scarier than it is. This is one of Reed's advanced rigging techniques, often needed in wilderness rescue where the good anchors just aren't located in line with the drop.

This "focused" anchor could just as well be a rigging plate floating in the air if all the load vectors zeroed out.

The problems I do see, though, in this picture are that the anchor is being used both to tie-back the bipod high directional and for the lowering device (looks like a BMS hyperbar micro-rack). That puts two load vectors on the anchor and possible dynamic and shifting loads.

The other problem is that the blue webbing (probably a wrap-3-pull-2) is not interlaced with the white rope back-tie. This puts the small tree in shear and makes the tree a critical point. If the front and back anchor slings were interlaced, then the tree is doing little more than keeping the focused anchor from moving around and a failure of the tree would have little effect on the integrity of the system.

- Robert

AsubBT2_big.jpg
 
Re: focused anchor

Quote:

If the front and back anchor slings were interlaced, then the tree is doing little more than keeping the focused anchor from moving around and a failure of the tree would have little effect on the integrity of the system.

I thought that's what it looked like to me but I don't know enough about complex rigging setups to fully understand. I bought a couple of oval rings from an industrial rigging supplier to use for setups like that. With some guy-outs, I've floated rigging points in mid air.

Tom
 
Re: that telltale click

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
That's why I described exactly what I was refering to so there would be no confusion.


[/ QUOTE ]


Robert;

You did describe what you were referring to, but you used 'acting' in a way that was contrary to what I have heard elsewhere. In the terminology that I described above, 'locking' refers to the motion of the locking mechanism, and 'action' refers to the combined motions of the locking mechanism and the gate. I had not seen the 'type' system before you described it, so the 'type 4' in parenthesis didn't mean anything to me. "...double-acting autolockers..." sounded to me like a single locking 'biner, with one motion to prepare the gate to open (single locking), and two motions for the gate to be open (double action). But, you also said "...with two distinct motions to unlock and another to open the gate" which sounded like a double locking, (triple action) 'biner.

You seem to be familiar with 'locking' and 'action' being used in the way that I described. What if you called the type 4 biners 'double-locking autolock' rather than 'double-acting autolock'? This would make it easier for people who understand the 'locking'/'action' distinction to understand and use the 'type' system as well and avoid the confusion that I just described. Using 'locking' instead of 'action' doesn't change any aspect or definition in the 'type' system. Also, using 'locking' instead of 'action' avoids confusion regarding one of Petzl's 'biners, the Tri-Act. Tri-Act is short for 'Triple Action', which, if you follow the logical sequence of the definition of type 4 as you described (double-action auto lock) should be a type 5--a triple-action auto lock with three distinct motions to unlock and another to open the gate. But it is not. It simply has two motions to prepare the gate to open and three total motions for the gate to be open.

Grouping 'biners by type does make for consistent terminology and helps to categorize the different terms and mechanisms used to describe carabiners. Omega throws yet another term into the foray, 3-Stage Quik Lok.

Mahk
 
Re: that telltale click

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Tri-Act is short for 'Triple Action'

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking that you likely got your sense of definition from the commercial copy for Petzl. Kind of like everyone knowing facial tissue as Kleenex because that's how it was aggressively marketed.

If you were familiar with the historical development of carabiners, my terminology might make more sense.

First there were just carabiners, and they didn't lock. Then, when lockers came out (screwgates), regular carabiners became non-lockers (not single action), and lockers were just lockers (not double action).

Then the regulators got into the picture and they required a double-action lock on work-positioning and fall arrest links and carabiners (not triple-action).

Perhaps you can correct me, but I don't know of any regulating body that uses the term triple-action. It's just an advertising name.

- Robert
 
Re: that telltale click

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
...sense of definition from the commercial copy for Petzl.

[/ QUOTE ]

Robert;

Actually, I thought that it was the other way around. I had heard the term 'single action' to refer to a non locking carabiner long before I heard of the Tri-Act. I thought Petzl got the term from the vernacular, like the original 'Footlocker'. But, I don't know when the Tri-Act first came out. I first saw it when it appeared in Sherrill's 2003 catalogue.

I don't know of any regulating body that uses the term 'triple action'. Is the term 'double action locking carabiner' used? Double action lock?

I still think that the basic sequence 'non locking, single locking, double locking' is easier to understand than 'non locking, locking, double action locking'. The former seems like a logical, straight forward progression. I realize that these are further organized by the 'types' that you described and would have various designs, definitions and descriptions. But, it seems that the basic definitions should be pretty basic.

I hope that the ASC discusses this when the Z 133.1 is next revised. The definition there now ('positive locking') is even more confusing.

Mahk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom