- Location
- Chattanooga
So, the reference to a three ascender configuration, does that refer to a sit-stand or rope walker system?
Backups in SRT
- Thread starter rangerdanger
- Start date
Fairfield
Participating member
- Location
- Bucks County pa USA
Man I look at the sit and stand way of doing it and I get tierd. IMO if you want to use as less energy as possable you should get a chest ascender also in the system.
[ QUOTE ]
So, the reference to a three ascender configuration, does that refer to a sit-stand or rope walker system?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am referring to the rope walker system. Though the chest ascender does not move it is definitely not passive. It facilitates upright body position thous reducing upper body and arm fatigue. It also captures progress with zero set back that is helpful and noticeable once balance and rhythm are achieve.
The systems shown so far that use the hitch have none of these benefits. The hitch is merely there to prevent fall off the rope.
Dave
So, the reference to a three ascender configuration, does that refer to a sit-stand or rope walker system?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am referring to the rope walker system. Though the chest ascender does not move it is definitely not passive. It facilitates upright body position thous reducing upper body and arm fatigue. It also captures progress with zero set back that is helpful and noticeable once balance and rhythm are achieve.
The systems shown so far that use the hitch have none of these benefits. The hitch is merely there to prevent fall off the rope.
Dave
- Location
- Chattanooga
[ QUOTE ]
I am referring to the rope walker system. Though the chest ascender does not move it is definitely not passive. It facilitates upright body position thous reducing upper body and arm fatigue...
[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what I've found. Some seem to have little problem with the upper body falling away from the rope, but my upper body is constantly falling away from the rope and as you indicate, requires a lot of arm strength to stay upright. Hence, and again as you say, a ropewalker needs a well tuned and placed middle ascender to help support the upper body. At least that's what I've found.
I've played with a bunch of different ropewalker rigs, including the double bungie and Mitchel systems. I find that if my toes are in contact with the tree, a rope walker is extremely efficient and fast. If I'm in space, I find it to be less efficient, because the body is not oriented over the feet as well.
I am referring to the rope walker system. Though the chest ascender does not move it is definitely not passive. It facilitates upright body position thous reducing upper body and arm fatigue...
[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what I've found. Some seem to have little problem with the upper body falling away from the rope, but my upper body is constantly falling away from the rope and as you indicate, requires a lot of arm strength to stay upright. Hence, and again as you say, a ropewalker needs a well tuned and placed middle ascender to help support the upper body. At least that's what I've found.
I've played with a bunch of different ropewalker rigs, including the double bungie and Mitchel systems. I find that if my toes are in contact with the tree, a rope walker is extremely efficient and fast. If I'm in space, I find it to be less efficient, because the body is not oriented over the feet as well.
Fairfield
Participating member
- Location
- Bucks County pa USA
The system that I have shown in the pics, once you are standing and find your rythem there is no set back (of course unless you some way come off the rope with the top ascender). I will agree that there is less to do in the way of setting the arrester when you come to a stop. That is easly done by moving the hitch up a little (no diffrent then dbrt with a hitch pulley combo). I wounder if a Petzl Basic would work just as well as the hitch in my set up.
[ QUOTE ]
I find that if my toes are in contact with the tree, a rope walker is extremely efficient and fast. If I'm in space, I find it to be less efficient, because the body is not oriented over the feet as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel I could have written these last words myself. Though the ropewalker is the easiest I have found to go up mid-air, once toes come in contact with the tree, it is astonishingly easy. Very similar to just walking up a ladder.
Dave
I find that if my toes are in contact with the tree, a rope walker is extremely efficient and fast. If I'm in space, I find it to be less efficient, because the body is not oriented over the feet as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel I could have written these last words myself. Though the ropewalker is the easiest I have found to go up mid-air, once toes come in contact with the tree, it is astonishingly easy. Very similar to just walking up a ladder.
Dave
- Location
- Chattanooga
[ QUOTE ]
...Though the ropewalker is the easiest I have found to go up mid-air, once toes come in contact with the tree, it is astonishingly easy. Very similar to just walking up a ladder.
Dave
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, I hope my words didn't imply that in space the walker becomes harder than other techniques, I meant it the way you said it in the above quote.
...Though the ropewalker is the easiest I have found to go up mid-air, once toes come in contact with the tree, it is astonishingly easy. Very similar to just walking up a ladder.
Dave
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, I hope my words didn't imply that in space the walker becomes harder than other techniques, I meant it the way you said it in the above quote.
treebing
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Detroit, Mi.
In my set up, by slinging my lanyard over my shoulder and holding my hitch high and close to the chest, it does maintain my body from falling off the rope. This could be done even more effectiveley with an actual chest harness hooked to the chest.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
But then you'd have to have a chest harness too. Stuff all over me when I'm climbing makes me crazy.
Fairfield
Participating member
- Location
- Bucks County pa USA
[ QUOTE ]
But then you'd have to have a chest harness too. Stuff all over me when I'm climbing makes me crazy.
[/ QUOTE ]
yup x2
But then you'd have to have a chest harness too. Stuff all over me when I'm climbing makes me crazy.
[/ QUOTE ]
yup x2
- Location
- Chattanooga
[ QUOTE ]
But then you'd have to have a chest harness too. Stuff all over me when I'm climbing makes me crazy.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much why I climb SRT with a RADS. It's not the most efficient, but you don't have to have a chest harness, the Cinch backs up the ascender and the ascender backs up the Cinch. A pulley is attached to the top ascender hole via a biner, which adds security, and a RADS has a fast escape mode for an emergency descent.
But then you'd have to have a chest harness too. Stuff all over me when I'm climbing makes me crazy.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much why I climb SRT with a RADS. It's not the most efficient, but you don't have to have a chest harness, the Cinch backs up the ascender and the ascender backs up the Cinch. A pulley is attached to the top ascender hole via a biner, which adds security, and a RADS has a fast escape mode for an emergency descent.
- Location
- NJ
[ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what I've found. Some seem to have little problem with the upper body falling away from the rope, but my upper body is constantly falling away from the rope and as you indicate, requires a lot of arm strength to stay upright. Hence, and again as you say, a ropewalker needs a well tuned and placed middle ascender to help support the upper body. At least that's what I've found.
[/ QUOTE ]
HHmmmmm, ok this is where having knowlege of the complete system comes into play. I say complete I mean the whole picture, rope, tools used, and SADDLES. If you understand the working of a saddle this falling off is just a simple understanding of your bridge and how it works.
A simple adjustable bridge will cure this falling backwards. A long bridge makes you sit more in an upright postion, in other words forcing your upper body toward the rope. A short bridge forces you backwards upper body away from the rope. Toes against the tree helps force the upper body toward the rope.
That's exactly what I've found. Some seem to have little problem with the upper body falling away from the rope, but my upper body is constantly falling away from the rope and as you indicate, requires a lot of arm strength to stay upright. Hence, and again as you say, a ropewalker needs a well tuned and placed middle ascender to help support the upper body. At least that's what I've found.
[/ QUOTE ]
HHmmmmm, ok this is where having knowlege of the complete system comes into play. I say complete I mean the whole picture, rope, tools used, and SADDLES. If you understand the working of a saddle this falling off is just a simple understanding of your bridge and how it works.
A simple adjustable bridge will cure this falling backwards. A long bridge makes you sit more in an upright postion, in other words forcing your upper body toward the rope. A short bridge forces you backwards upper body away from the rope. Toes against the tree helps force the upper body toward the rope.
Fairfield
Participating member
- Location
- Bucks County pa USA
For the guys having a hard time keeping there body upright and near the rope, how many times have you tried practicing it in free space (not near the tree)? Reason I ask is because I have a group of guys at work that have the hardest time with the same thing and from what I see it is a technique issue. I tell them that they would just have to practice but they run back to cheast ascender and dont look back. No big deal really but I wounder what they would do if they found them self without the cheast ascender.
Hey Fairfield, just a thought on your system which looks like a good setup. I have been very interested of late in methods of backing up an SRT setup and one thing that I have been horrified to learn is that a mere 10' drop onto those toothed ascenders will sever the rope with a 175 lbs climber.That is you top conection right. I for 1 have had a 10' drop whilst ascending an SRT caused by a sucker breaking that I didnt see, if I had had a toothed ascender I would have fallen 40'+. FWIW I dont think a friction hitch pushed up above the ascender would help either as I doubt it would grab on the 2-3" of rope available to it.
Just food for thought. Bottom line ALWAYS have visual contact with TIP
Just food for thought. Bottom line ALWAYS have visual contact with TIP
Fairfield
Participating member
- Location
- Bucks County pa USA
pctree, good looking out. I was aware of that, have been blessed with not having that happen to me (yet). When I SRT I always have a good visual on my high point for that reason. If it seems that I could have an issue with small limbs/twigs giving me a false security I just start lower or for that matter just not SRT and go with DbRT. I try not to have tunnel vision when it comes to my climbing setups.
Good warning to put out about the asenders or grabs that have teeth.
Good warning to put out about the asenders or grabs that have teeth.
Just to clarify the situation which caused me to drop 10', I set a line at about 70' in a red oak crotch, both stems about 5', bomber. It was a friday afternoon and I was pushing for just one more tree. My groundie and I jump tested it out of our usual protocol. What I failed to notice was on the backside of the tree the line was way out on a limb over a sucker at maybe 40'. Still dont understand why it didnt break at jump test but heh. Bottom line we followed our usual protocol of being in visual contact with TIP and jump testing but due to fatigue didnt notice the other relevant factors.
I for one think that climbers should be wary of those toothed ascenders due to the many unforseen events in tree work and the possible fatal consequences of their use. However I am biased on this
I for one think that climbers should be wary of those toothed ascenders due to the many unforseen events in tree work and the possible fatal consequences of their use. However I am biased on this
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
I'm with you on this issue PC.
- Location
- Chattanooga
[ QUOTE ]
...I have been horrified to learn is that a mere 10' drop onto those toothed ascenders will sever the rope with a 175 lbs climber....
[/ QUOTE ]
The real lesson is don't fall. Typical arborist and rec harnesses are not fall protection harnesses. The industry standard of a maximum 8kN fall arrest force is based totally on a properly fitting and adjusted full body harness.
The distance of the fall is really irrelevant, what is relevant is how fast the fall is caught. E.g. if a 200 lb climber falls 10' and decelerates to a stop in 1 foot that would generate a lot more force that if he fell the same distance and decelerated in 2 feet. That's why rock climbers use dynamic rope - it decreases the force by decreasing deceleration and hence force.
I have not seen anywhere where a toothed ascender will sever a rope. Toothed ascenders start to tear and peal the cover at about 1000 lbs. However, the instruction sheet for a Gibbs ascender (shell and cam type rope clamp - no teeth) clearly states that it can sever a 1/2" rope if 2000 lbs is applied to the device.
However, if a fall generates even 1800 lbs, you are very, very likely gonna be seriously injured. While tests have shown that a 1800 lb force is survivable, that is based on a properly fitted and adusted full-body harness that keeps the body essentially straight up. I think again, the lesson is defy gravity - don't fall.
Again fall impact does not depend on fall distance, it depends on stop distance. The faster you stop, the more force is generated. Surprisingly large forces can be generated by a one or two foot fall if there's little to absorb the energy.
Consider this: A climber has a ground tie with his rope over a limb 50' high. Just as he reaches the TIP a spur fails that the rope was actually over and the larger limb below it catches the fall. Lets say the climber falls 5 feet. His fall is absorbed on 55' of rope, that's a fall factor (not fall force) of about 0.1 (5 / 55). That's a pretty soft fall.
Now let's consider the very same thing but on a DdRT setting. In this case the climber is on a doubled rope so it has half the stretch as a single rope and there isn't anywhere as much rope to catch the fall. The climber falls the same 5 feet, but due to the DdRT setting and the doubled rope he's actually not getting the benefit of all the rope, in fact it's working against him. So he falls 5 feet on about 5.5' of rope effectively for a fall factor of about 1.0 (5/5.5) or about ten times the magnitude of the ground tie.
Fall factor doesn't indicate the amount of force but the higher the fall factor the greater the force. So for a climber of a given weight, a DdRT setting would generate about 10 times the force as the same fall on a ground tie.
Note that it would be even different for a cinched limb. The fall factor would be about 5/5.5 but there would be more stretch in the single line than in a doubled rope so the force would be considerably less.
...I have been horrified to learn is that a mere 10' drop onto those toothed ascenders will sever the rope with a 175 lbs climber....
[/ QUOTE ]
The real lesson is don't fall. Typical arborist and rec harnesses are not fall protection harnesses. The industry standard of a maximum 8kN fall arrest force is based totally on a properly fitting and adjusted full body harness.
The distance of the fall is really irrelevant, what is relevant is how fast the fall is caught. E.g. if a 200 lb climber falls 10' and decelerates to a stop in 1 foot that would generate a lot more force that if he fell the same distance and decelerated in 2 feet. That's why rock climbers use dynamic rope - it decreases the force by decreasing deceleration and hence force.
I have not seen anywhere where a toothed ascender will sever a rope. Toothed ascenders start to tear and peal the cover at about 1000 lbs. However, the instruction sheet for a Gibbs ascender (shell and cam type rope clamp - no teeth) clearly states that it can sever a 1/2" rope if 2000 lbs is applied to the device.
However, if a fall generates even 1800 lbs, you are very, very likely gonna be seriously injured. While tests have shown that a 1800 lb force is survivable, that is based on a properly fitted and adusted full-body harness that keeps the body essentially straight up. I think again, the lesson is defy gravity - don't fall.
Again fall impact does not depend on fall distance, it depends on stop distance. The faster you stop, the more force is generated. Surprisingly large forces can be generated by a one or two foot fall if there's little to absorb the energy.
Consider this: A climber has a ground tie with his rope over a limb 50' high. Just as he reaches the TIP a spur fails that the rope was actually over and the larger limb below it catches the fall. Lets say the climber falls 5 feet. His fall is absorbed on 55' of rope, that's a fall factor (not fall force) of about 0.1 (5 / 55). That's a pretty soft fall.
Now let's consider the very same thing but on a DdRT setting. In this case the climber is on a doubled rope so it has half the stretch as a single rope and there isn't anywhere as much rope to catch the fall. The climber falls the same 5 feet, but due to the DdRT setting and the doubled rope he's actually not getting the benefit of all the rope, in fact it's working against him. So he falls 5 feet on about 5.5' of rope effectively for a fall factor of about 1.0 (5/5.5) or about ten times the magnitude of the ground tie.
Fall factor doesn't indicate the amount of force but the higher the fall factor the greater the force. So for a climber of a given weight, a DdRT setting would generate about 10 times the force as the same fall on a ground tie.
Note that it would be even different for a cinched limb. The fall factor would be about 5/5.5 but there would be more stretch in the single line than in a doubled rope so the force would be considerably less.
Ron wrote:[ QUOTE ]
Fall factor doesn't indicate the amount of force but the higher the fall factor the greater the force. So for a climber of a given weight, a DdRT setting would generate about 10 times the force as the same fall on a ground tie.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course no one likes stretchy rope. This leads me to wonder if a fall absorber could be integrated into a saddle? Say an absorber is placed on the backside of the belt or back of the legstraps and then attached to each side of the bridge?
Earlier in this thread the ascender/twig issue was mentioned. This might be improved by some sort of add-on plastic snap-over cover.
Fall factor doesn't indicate the amount of force but the higher the fall factor the greater the force. So for a climber of a given weight, a DdRT setting would generate about 10 times the force as the same fall on a ground tie.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course no one likes stretchy rope. This leads me to wonder if a fall absorber could be integrated into a saddle? Say an absorber is placed on the backside of the belt or back of the legstraps and then attached to each side of the bridge?
Earlier in this thread the ascender/twig issue was mentioned. This might be improved by some sort of add-on plastic snap-over cover.
- Location
- Chattanooga
[ QUOTE ]
Ron wrote:[ QUOTE ]
Fall factor doesn't indicate the amount of force but the higher the fall factor the greater the force. So for a climber of a given weight, a DdRT setting would generate about 10 times the force as the same fall on a ground tie.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course no one likes stretchy rope. This leads me to wonder if a fall absorber could be integrated into a saddle? Say an absorber is placed on the backside of the belt or back of the legstraps and then attached to each side of the bridge?
Earlier in this thread the ascender/twig issue was mentioned. This might be improved by some sort of add-on plastic snap-over cover.
[/ QUOTE ]
A climber's moto should be: Don't fall
But, a shock absorber built into a saddle is an intriguing idea, I can readily see what you're talking about.
I suppose the true need for fall arrest gear is the risk the climber feels he is exposed to. Slips that result in minor falls, etc. probably could never justify fall arrest gear. The problem is, if one should take a nasty fall, the consequences could be really bad.
I think another consideration is that even with fall protection, if the climber hits an obstacle below him before the fall is arrested, he's still gonna get hurt, probably seriously.
As for the ascender debris/limb 'shield' I was thinking of getting a small plastic funnel, cut off the long thin part and make a very thin longitudinal cut the full length of the funnel. You would open the funnel just enough to install it upside down on the rope over the ascender. I suppose the 'final' version would have some way to secure, i.e. velcro, snap, etc.
Ron wrote:[ QUOTE ]
Fall factor doesn't indicate the amount of force but the higher the fall factor the greater the force. So for a climber of a given weight, a DdRT setting would generate about 10 times the force as the same fall on a ground tie.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course no one likes stretchy rope. This leads me to wonder if a fall absorber could be integrated into a saddle? Say an absorber is placed on the backside of the belt or back of the legstraps and then attached to each side of the bridge?
Earlier in this thread the ascender/twig issue was mentioned. This might be improved by some sort of add-on plastic snap-over cover.
[/ QUOTE ]
A climber's moto should be: Don't fall
But, a shock absorber built into a saddle is an intriguing idea, I can readily see what you're talking about.
I suppose the true need for fall arrest gear is the risk the climber feels he is exposed to. Slips that result in minor falls, etc. probably could never justify fall arrest gear. The problem is, if one should take a nasty fall, the consequences could be really bad.
I think another consideration is that even with fall protection, if the climber hits an obstacle below him before the fall is arrested, he's still gonna get hurt, probably seriously.
As for the ascender debris/limb 'shield' I was thinking of getting a small plastic funnel, cut off the long thin part and make a very thin longitudinal cut the full length of the funnel. You would open the funnel just enough to install it upside down on the rope over the ascender. I suppose the 'final' version would have some way to secure, i.e. velcro, snap, etc.
