acronyms

In my opinion, there are just too many ways to climb on a single rope to leave out the moving or stationary part. If the definitions and acronyms are important at all, they should be able to completely describe a system and how it is being used. It's a bit late since the terms static and dynamic are already applied to rope characteristics, though it should be 'low elongation' and 'high elongation' (maybe even 'medium elongation', too). This would leave static and dynamic to be used more appropriately when describing configuration. The terms 'moving' and 'not-moving' are especially poor compared to other options.
 
Why is it important to distinguish the two at all? How does it benefit? In terms of safety. OSHA doesn't care one way or another. SPRAT doesn't care. IRATA doesn't care, cavers don't care, rock climbers don't care. Why should we? I would be fine if we just left it at SRT and DRT. And leave ddrt out of it all together.
 
Last edited:
I just think it's important to have good definitions that allow us to describe our systems. I totally understand your point of view with your last post. We just need to have terms that really mean something when it comes time to convey our systems to new climbers, or climbers that don't understand our systems.
 
I think explaining mechanical advantage and pulley systems might be appropriate. A 2:1 or a 1:1. How many arrangements can be done with a single line. There is the M method, there is being belayed by a person on the ground, there is lead climbing. The term SRT is already defined. It has been understood to mean single rope technique forever. Ddrt is fine to say but it cannot be used in contrast to SRT. It is SRT.
 
Last edited:
treebing said:
...Ddrt is fine to say but it cannot be used in contrast to SRT. It is SRT.
Click to expand...
Right, so good definitions can help us convey the configuration accurately. The true contrast is that one is static and the other dynamic. Over the weekend, I was climbing around on a single line that was doubled, but static. Now I could have the same up and down performance in a DRT system where each leg is static and anchored off in a remote location. The system I used this weekend is like having two adjustable anchor locations.
 
I kinda like the terms the way they are now and see no reason to change them, its so easy and we all know what they mean already. Seriously its tree climbing no reason to muddy the waters .
 
In my opinion There should not even be a mention of SRT in the ITCC as no one has suggested that anyone climb any other way.
 
Im pretty sure I know what SRT is and what your getting at but honestly it doesn't matter to me what we call any of this stuff. Technically you are right but You don't have to climb using both sides of your rope when you choke a rope off a tip ,so that's a true SRT system. But using a true Ddrt system you do have to climb off one single rope doubled over . I understand that you recently started experimenting with a DRT systems but there's no confusion here on the difference between the 3 . But it doesn't matter at all to me what you call any of this, I honestly think it would be a great idea if we all used 2 points of attachment when using any cutting tool.
 
What Jimmy just said...for big-group discussions. When I'm talking to a peer/climber I try to be as clear, concise and explicit as possible. When I'm talking with people who don't understand the alphabet soup language I get more descriptive and less acronymic.
 
Maybe it's just me. I have been confused by it for a long time. I have even been saying I used to climb ddrt now I clib SRT. And now I know that is wrong. There is a problem when everyone is talking about SRT as something different than ddrt. To me it is confusing an misleading. And nobody thinks SRT means stationary rope technique
 
Last edited:
What is one thing that should never be done SRT but is okay to do ddrt? I've been racking my brain all day and I can't think of one.
 
http://www.itcc-isa.com/resources/rules_ITCCRules_ProposedRevisions_ReviewDraft.pdf

Read 2.2.20.

There is some confusion going on somewhere. Reading this I am to understand that if you fold the rope it has to be 11 mm.

and that if you don't fold the rope than you need to make sure you don't need a backup and you can climb on skinnier rope.

I could be way over thinking the whole thing. My head was blown last week with DRT and the true difference that is from SRT. Bear with me on this one I am thinking out loud here and I don't mean to confuse anyone.
 
Last edited:
(Sorry if this seems like spam. I re-posted something written for another thread on similar subject)

The thing about acronyms (and really all names) is that they take on a life of their own and don't really have to be totally self-explanatory. Today everyone knows what SRT and DdRT mean even if, as Kevin points out they are misnomers. (DdRT is a special case of SRT). Also once learned and in common usage, the original derivation is not important. Really who cares what IBM stood for? We know who they are.

But in the spirit of Treebing, I'll toss some thoughts into the ring.

The "T" in SRT, dDRT is for Technique and we know what that means: particular tools, particular configurations. In this spirit, let SRT stand as a Static Rope Technique and let Ddrt stand as a doubled-back Dynamic Rope Technique (which, by the way, will become a rarity in the future used only when mechanical advantage is needed, much like the RADS 3-to-1 is a special technique for , say, limb-walking.)

Now comes the DRT issue. Unlike SRT and dDRT, the meaning of DRT is a bit vague in arborist circles because it's rarely used and unfamiliar. What it's really about is redundancy. (In computer circles, they call it HA - high availability) Technically, a second doubled-back dynamic line could be paired with a single strand static line, two static lines can be paired, and a lanyard can be paired with any other technique - and they'd all be redundant or HA versions of the specific techniques.

So with the introduction of the word redundant, or its synonym, highly available, you can say, "today I am climbing with redundant SRT lines", or redundant Ddrt lines etc.

The salient point is SRT implies certain tie ins, certain redirects, certain tools (RW, HH, RR) - fine. That would be equally true with or without redundancy. Redundancy is an independent orthogonal attribute that can be combined with the various "rope techniques".
 
To me, in an event like the ITCC. There are thousands of ways to skin the cat. Defining each system seems like its beyond the scope of the hand book. If all they can offer is that SRT can use 10 mm and ddrt can use 11. Why mention it at all? Or at least give a reason. It should go without saying that gear should be approved for use SRT (if it used that way)regardless of wether it 1:1 or 2:1.
 
treebing said:
What is one thing that should never be done SRT but is okay to do ddrt? I've been racking my brain all day and I can't think of one.
Click to expand...
Allowing neither of the two ends of your climbing line to be tied to anything. I'll try to think of others but that's all i got right now.
 
Last edited:
So whatever the case is, I think it is important for the ITCC to understand that a single rope means a single rope. As far as regulations and standards go, there is no difference between ddrt and SRT. Ddrt is just a form of SRT. Climbers should understand that as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom