- Location
- Phoenix Arizona
Too bad Pat cant chime in on this since he is the one who did the climbing.
balance point rigging
- Thread starter Daniel
- Start date
chris_girard
Branched out member
- Location
- Gilmanton, N.H.
One aspect of balanced point rigging that I’ve used to not only help me, but to help my ground person is the use of a Porta wrap up in the tree with a line tied off to the butt.
Though I have faith in my ability to pick out the balance point in a limb and swing it away from obstacles below, there is always the chance that a limb may rotate and roll along its axis point and offset the weight distribution causing the butt to swing up and strike the climber. This is especially tree of long horizontal limbs the have an arc in them.
A med sized Porta wrap rigged above the climber with a ½” lowering line tied off to the butt and controlled by the climber after he trips the piece loose can help both climber and ground person. This is not considered “butt hitching”, but is more of a form of a safety/tag line. The Porta wrap actually works better lowering limbs when anchored above, up in the tree than at the base of the tree too.
Though I have faith in my ability to pick out the balance point in a limb and swing it away from obstacles below, there is always the chance that a limb may rotate and roll along its axis point and offset the weight distribution causing the butt to swing up and strike the climber. This is especially tree of long horizontal limbs the have an arc in them.
A med sized Porta wrap rigged above the climber with a ½” lowering line tied off to the butt and controlled by the climber after he trips the piece loose can help both climber and ground person. This is not considered “butt hitching”, but is more of a form of a safety/tag line. The Porta wrap actually works better lowering limbs when anchored above, up in the tree than at the base of the tree too.
- Location
- Phoenix Arizona
Reg demonstrates this to extremes in his latest removal vid.
I like big pieces tip and but tied as well if I am to be close to the load.
I like big pieces tip and but tied as well if I am to be close to the load.
TheTreeSpyder
Branched out member
- Location
- Florida>>> USA
Trickier to impossible use rigging under, as must rig to side and steer to opposite. for, the key hear is for it to pretension automatically, load must move away from, not towards rigging point to tighten line.
In overhead climber can still get clobbered if line nagle pulls towards, rather than away from climber. Sometimes with this method, can get load all the way over/ pointing towards ground before tearoff, and load just quietly hangs there and stares back at you. No impact, no movemeant, just like one rope smoothly took over and was pretensioned after first rope was cut. Sometimes if rope is carrying most of load- don't even need to face.
In overhead climber can still get clobbered if line nagle pulls towards, rather than away from climber. Sometimes with this method, can get load all the way over/ pointing towards ground before tearoff, and load just quietly hangs there and stares back at you. No impact, no movemeant, just like one rope smoothly took over and was pretensioned after first rope was cut. Sometimes if rope is carrying most of load- don't even need to face.
Spidey I'm sure you understand those two paragraphs, but I'm still at a loss trying to understand the benefits of balance point rigging over traditional methods, particularly from the climber safety point of view.
It seems to me determining the true balance point of any given branch or log to be lowered from a tree is a gamble when compared to a tip tie or butt tie.
Unless you are some uncanny wizard master rigger or something why gamble? Why would you want to teach another to gamble and risk getting hurt?
Are the totally predictable proven safe methods of tip tying and butt tying such a timely burden that they need to be replaced?
I fail to see how a helicoptering teeter tottering load can be considered either safer or more controlled period.
I don't doubt that in certain very limited situations a balanced load with a clear path to ground may be advantageous in some respects, but they are rare in my opinion, and usually apply to crane picks where I want to be dang sure my pick point has sufficient structural integrity to support the load.
jomoco
It seems to me determining the true balance point of any given branch or log to be lowered from a tree is a gamble when compared to a tip tie or butt tie.
Unless you are some uncanny wizard master rigger or something why gamble? Why would you want to teach another to gamble and risk getting hurt?
Are the totally predictable proven safe methods of tip tying and butt tying such a timely burden that they need to be replaced?
I fail to see how a helicoptering teeter tottering load can be considered either safer or more controlled period.
I don't doubt that in certain very limited situations a balanced load with a clear path to ground may be advantageous in some respects, but they are rare in my opinion, and usually apply to crane picks where I want to be dang sure my pick point has sufficient structural integrity to support the load.
jomoco
TheTreeSpyder
Branched out member
- Location
- Florida>>> USA
i'm not advocating getting a balance point, and that is a gamble. But rather closer too balance point; but leaving tip end heavy/ butt light; so head tips down in positive motion. This gives more predictable handling, plus ballast of the head, and leveraged -automated pre-tightening and steering of the load on hinge before tearoff. This gives like 2 ropes controlling until you cut off hinge. The more drop on hinge and movement on hinge, while pretensioning line at same time; can give less shock impact to line. In fact, much, much less; giving more predictable handling and movemeant too.
Thanks for trying to explain Spidey, and I get your drift a little. However it brings us right back to the danger of leveraging the hinge in a manner that can result in a violent kickback at the climber, particularly if that hinge lets go prematurely while the climber's still cutting.
This new technique may indeed have some benefit in certain scenarios. But whether those benefits outweigh the very real danger to the climber using the technique is still a debatable issue in my opinion.
I guess as long as the dangers involved are explicitly stated in very clear terms by the person promoting the technique's usage, and how best to reduce those dangers via the climber's proximity to the kickback zone or path, it may have merit as a rigging option.
Thanks for the feedback Spidey.
jomoco
This new technique may indeed have some benefit in certain scenarios. But whether those benefits outweigh the very real danger to the climber using the technique is still a debatable issue in my opinion.
I guess as long as the dangers involved are explicitly stated in very clear terms by the person promoting the technique's usage, and how best to reduce those dangers via the climber's proximity to the kickback zone or path, it may have merit as a rigging option.
Thanks for the feedback Spidey.
jomoco
allmark
Participating member
How about this technique with crane removals? If you cant reach the tip but dont want to shock the crane but tie it to the tree first it could be handy. Of course with a crane the cut could be partially made and the limb lowered partilly befor finishing the cut.
Butt hanging big leaders out of the crane's reach onto the tree itself while tagged into the crane ball during the action is a neat trick I've used alot.
However when using a typical crane with a cable winch, there's little reason you shouldn't be able to make each pick do exactly what you want it to everytime.
Using a crane all the time can spoil a good rigging climber in my opinion.
However I do rig big chippable branches at the balance point on crane removals to facilitate feeding them into a whole tree chipper at times.
Good point Allmark.
jomoco
However when using a typical crane with a cable winch, there's little reason you shouldn't be able to make each pick do exactly what you want it to everytime.
Using a crane all the time can spoil a good rigging climber in my opinion.
However I do rig big chippable branches at the balance point on crane removals to facilitate feeding them into a whole tree chipper at times.
Good point Allmark.
jomoco
when you rig anything you want as little movement as possible upon the lifting or lowering device. this puts much less strain on the machine and requires less skill from the operator. i use a simple two leg sling with a prussic to rig most of my technical picks. 90% of my take downs are large oaks with wide limb spreads in tight spots. yesterday i did a crown reduction on a 120 year old sweet gum 6'-7' dbh was over a $400,000 with an extensive secondary canopy i used balance point rigging on all but four cuts on the tree. myself and the ground men were extremely pleased with the results from this technique. limbs that would have normally hung up flip flopped through the small openings in the tree. they also were easier to get though the delicate lower canopy and easier for the ground guys to land. thanks pat and mark c for opening my eyes to the potential of this technique.
TheTreeSpyder
Branched out member
- Location
- Florida>>> USA
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for trying to explain Spidey, and I get your drift a little. However it brings us right back to the danger of leveraging the hinge in a manner that can result in a violent kickback at the climber, particularly if that hinge lets go prematurely while the climber's still cutting.
This new technique may indeed have some benefit in certain scenarios. But whether those benefits outweigh the very real danger to the climber using the technique is still a debatable issue in my opinion.
I guess as long as the dangers involved are explicitly stated in very clear terms by the person promoting the technique's usage, and how best to reduce those dangers via the climber's proximity to the kickback zone or path, it may have merit as a rigging option.
Thanks for the feedback Spidey.
jomoco
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, actually we are leveraging the rope, that lightens the load on the hinge... Sometimes so much so, that if we start with a pretty well pretensioned line, we can sometimes get away with no facing, on this less loaded hinge. In fact at these times the mechanics are altered in that the hinge is less loaded than line, so that the hinge isn't the pivot, but rather the rope is(?). So that, (with hitchpoint as pivot/more loaded) the hinge force (x leveraged length to hitchpoint) has very little force needed/therfore responding with less force; to lightly and deftly 'push' load around, sometimes like light ballet... For, if the same volume of force's movemeant isn't resisted, then distance instead of it's reciprocal Loading is increased (inside the bounds of the original volume of input force, that would always be the same, just used differently). These are truly, truly times were 2 men on same situation and seem to do same exact things; and yet one of them just orchestrates the whole better!
Risk to the climber then would come more from the line angle thru the process; and whether or not if that line angle pulls back towards climber etc.; especially at tearoff, primarily. Another point of risk though is at tearoff, the butt end coming up for perhaps stiff uppercut, as head goes down. But, this force is lessened by the ballast of the equal/opposites more closely matching- but then this usually means more length on butt end- giving more sweep...
But, If we start with the line vertical from support to hitchpoint; as the cut proceeds and the head tips down, the line angle then starts to pull away from climber Naturally. In fact we can start with the line angle pulling away from climber, and then as the load tips down on hinge, it pulls away from climber even more.
Now, this is force on hinge, that will give it less 'hang time'/ sooner tear off. For, if we have the line angle pulling straight back into hinge / towards climber in "batter's box" the climber is more at risk- but also we can get more hang time on hinge by a 'ball-socket' effect. Where by if it was pulling into this ball socket hard enough, it would stay attached-even if seperate pieces. So, if line is straight vertical, we can imagine more of a neutral effect on hinge. But, if line angle pulls away from hinge; it beckons it to separate sooner, and equal and oppositely if the line angle pulls into the hinge, this pressure would then help it hold longer (with more risk to climber etc.
Now, pulls to side can help steer to that direction too, but giving some tourque on hinge, with that force. As far as steering/ increasing that effect, we can use the increasing line tension from this technique to help steer4 even more,a nd perhaps at the end even make the head roll up/over some, rather than so much down over; offering more powerfull turn and clearance. This can be had by staying inside the CG to hinge, but coming down with line on the load to the opposite side of pull direction, under the load, the hitch to load directly on spar, or to sound mount on pull direction side. The longer distance between where the line first meets load and the primary hitching, gives leverage to this flip/ leveraging over to turn direction. This of course is multiplied by the line angle to turn direction and the increasing line tension.
MTL/Flash/rigTourqued.swf
Orrrrrrrrrrr sometin' like'dat!
As all ways and always; please start light and slow (instead of low and slow, to make sure there is good clearance etc.) with the spice of this pepper.
Thanks for trying to explain Spidey, and I get your drift a little. However it brings us right back to the danger of leveraging the hinge in a manner that can result in a violent kickback at the climber, particularly if that hinge lets go prematurely while the climber's still cutting.
This new technique may indeed have some benefit in certain scenarios. But whether those benefits outweigh the very real danger to the climber using the technique is still a debatable issue in my opinion.
I guess as long as the dangers involved are explicitly stated in very clear terms by the person promoting the technique's usage, and how best to reduce those dangers via the climber's proximity to the kickback zone or path, it may have merit as a rigging option.
Thanks for the feedback Spidey.
jomoco
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, actually we are leveraging the rope, that lightens the load on the hinge... Sometimes so much so, that if we start with a pretty well pretensioned line, we can sometimes get away with no facing, on this less loaded hinge. In fact at these times the mechanics are altered in that the hinge is less loaded than line, so that the hinge isn't the pivot, but rather the rope is(?). So that, (with hitchpoint as pivot/more loaded) the hinge force (x leveraged length to hitchpoint) has very little force needed/therfore responding with less force; to lightly and deftly 'push' load around, sometimes like light ballet... For, if the same volume of force's movemeant isn't resisted, then distance instead of it's reciprocal Loading is increased (inside the bounds of the original volume of input force, that would always be the same, just used differently). These are truly, truly times were 2 men on same situation and seem to do same exact things; and yet one of them just orchestrates the whole better!
Risk to the climber then would come more from the line angle thru the process; and whether or not if that line angle pulls back towards climber etc.; especially at tearoff, primarily. Another point of risk though is at tearoff, the butt end coming up for perhaps stiff uppercut, as head goes down. But, this force is lessened by the ballast of the equal/opposites more closely matching- but then this usually means more length on butt end- giving more sweep...
But, If we start with the line vertical from support to hitchpoint; as the cut proceeds and the head tips down, the line angle then starts to pull away from climber Naturally. In fact we can start with the line angle pulling away from climber, and then as the load tips down on hinge, it pulls away from climber even more.
Now, this is force on hinge, that will give it less 'hang time'/ sooner tear off. For, if we have the line angle pulling straight back into hinge / towards climber in "batter's box" the climber is more at risk- but also we can get more hang time on hinge by a 'ball-socket' effect. Where by if it was pulling into this ball socket hard enough, it would stay attached-even if seperate pieces. So, if line is straight vertical, we can imagine more of a neutral effect on hinge. But, if line angle pulls away from hinge; it beckons it to separate sooner, and equal and oppositely if the line angle pulls into the hinge, this pressure would then help it hold longer (with more risk to climber etc.
Now, pulls to side can help steer to that direction too, but giving some tourque on hinge, with that force. As far as steering/ increasing that effect, we can use the increasing line tension from this technique to help steer4 even more,a nd perhaps at the end even make the head roll up/over some, rather than so much down over; offering more powerfull turn and clearance. This can be had by staying inside the CG to hinge, but coming down with line on the load to the opposite side of pull direction, under the load, the hitch to load directly on spar, or to sound mount on pull direction side. The longer distance between where the line first meets load and the primary hitching, gives leverage to this flip/ leveraging over to turn direction. This of course is multiplied by the line angle to turn direction and the increasing line tension.
MTL/Flash/rigTourqued.swf
Orrrrrrrrrrr sometin' like'dat!
As all ways and always; please start light and slow (instead of low and slow, to make sure there is good clearance etc.) with the spice of this pepper.
- Location
- Longmont, CO
I understand the argument of controlling the load is easier with this method. I understand the physics of it too.
But, has anyone though of the physics for the spar? In most locations I have to deal with some sort of tight area to work with.
The illustration can show a typical situation:
We got Granny Smith, who lives to the left, with her prized apple tree below. You've successfully dismantled her side of the tree without incident. It is time to take out that super vigorous lateral branch that has been bugging you all day long. Why? Because there is no safe place for the groundsman to sand when he/she has to absorb the load you're gonna send down to him. So, he has to stand in the kill zone...
I've seen the lateral force it puts on spars. I don't like it one bit.
(FWIW. In that illustration, I would prefer to put in another block for a re-direct, at the point where I tied the rope. I would then lift the large stub out with the GRCS)
But, has anyone though of the physics for the spar? In most locations I have to deal with some sort of tight area to work with.
The illustration can show a typical situation:
We got Granny Smith, who lives to the left, with her prized apple tree below. You've successfully dismantled her side of the tree without incident. It is time to take out that super vigorous lateral branch that has been bugging you all day long. Why? Because there is no safe place for the groundsman to sand when he/she has to absorb the load you're gonna send down to him. So, he has to stand in the kill zone...
I've seen the lateral force it puts on spars. I don't like it one bit.
(FWIW. In that illustration, I would prefer to put in another block for a re-direct, at the point where I tied the rope. I would then lift the large stub out with the GRCS)
Attachments
- Location
- Longmont, CO
Then, if one really wanted to be ambitious, and blow that super vigorous lateral leader out in one cut, then I'd place the rope near the butt. (See illustration).
However, we can all see that if we need that load to "run" (to absorb shock) it is going to hit the climber or come very close to it...
----> I'm merely drawing out the question of increasing the side load on a spar if we are choosing to place our ropes near the mid-point on a leader, when rigging...
I bet Kevin could answer this.
But, if you do Kevin, can you give us the cliff notes.
However, we can all see that if we need that load to "run" (to absorb shock) it is going to hit the climber or come very close to it...
----> I'm merely drawing out the question of increasing the side load on a spar if we are choosing to place our ropes near the mid-point on a leader, when rigging...
I bet Kevin could answer this.
But, if you do Kevin, can you give us the cliff notes.
Attachments
Your simple illustration is appreciated Jamin.
By simply tying the leader off at the 3/4 point, straight across from the block, you can then hinge it up to the block with total control and complete predictability, then lower it safely to the ground.
In your illustrated scenario, the tip tie is the optimum choice in every respect. A midpoint tie or butt tie in that scenario is a foolish risk in my opinion.
jomoco
By simply tying the leader off at the 3/4 point, straight across from the block, you can then hinge it up to the block with total control and complete predictability, then lower it safely to the ground.
In your illustrated scenario, the tip tie is the optimum choice in every respect. A midpoint tie or butt tie in that scenario is a foolish risk in my opinion.
jomoco
TheTreeSpyder
Branched out member
- Location
- Florida>>> USA
Yes, i agree. The methodology the we speak here of can be applied, but would be pushing it and really relying on ground control even more, to be able to immediately lend relief (the equal and opposite of the tension force tool, would be relief of said tension, so should have just as much power as a strategy!!) when needed,
Also, please realize what Daniel is trying to lend, is to take a situation that you worry about length and weight; and flip the binary switch of the mechanics; that these 2 are now allies! For, now we set the weight, and the length as forces to work for you; for they set the line. this might not seem clear at first; because it is the reverse of what you are used to doing! So, then realize too, that when going light and slow; you won't see the fullness of the effect, for you are limiting the weight that now worx for you to control it's own self etc.
Also, please realize what Daniel is trying to lend, is to take a situation that you worry about length and weight; and flip the binary switch of the mechanics; that these 2 are now allies! For, now we set the weight, and the length as forces to work for you; for they set the line. this might not seem clear at first; because it is the reverse of what you are used to doing! So, then realize too, that when going light and slow; you won't see the fullness of the effect, for you are limiting the weight that now worx for you to control it's own self etc.
- Location
- Home of the New Jersey Devils
There are other benefits to this technique that were not mentioned yet. I agree that less motion can be created and thus creating less force. The idea of tip tying and cranking it in/up is a great one, but not for horizontal or very large pieces. Doing this by hand just gives the ground guy more to do.
The idea that large pieces are easier to deal with on the ground when they are balanced is a good reason to try it. But more than that, it adds safety. How?
Well, you can create a more gentle motion by almost getting the balance right. It doesn't have to be perfect to achieve this. One hazard here would be to expect it to be close to balanced and then be way off. That would be dangerous and add more force instead.
A big reason for me is to take the decision making process out of the equation after the cut. Running ropes when things are flying is the toughest job of all. Making a decision on when to hold/release when a climber is cutting a big piece out is a lot of stress to handle. Why not remove that stresss and reduce the motion, slow things down, and tell the ground guy to hold it tight until it comes off the cut? Then they can m,ake decisions under less stress when it isn't so critical.
There are many reasons to do this, but there are plenty of times when you shouldn't too!
The idea that large pieces are easier to deal with on the ground when they are balanced is a good reason to try it. But more than that, it adds safety. How?
Well, you can create a more gentle motion by almost getting the balance right. It doesn't have to be perfect to achieve this. One hazard here would be to expect it to be close to balanced and then be way off. That would be dangerous and add more force instead.
A big reason for me is to take the decision making process out of the equation after the cut. Running ropes when things are flying is the toughest job of all. Making a decision on when to hold/release when a climber is cutting a big piece out is a lot of stress to handle. Why not remove that stresss and reduce the motion, slow things down, and tell the ground guy to hold it tight until it comes off the cut? Then they can m,ake decisions under less stress when it isn't so critical.
There are many reasons to do this, but there are plenty of times when you shouldn't too!
It seems this method is more appropriate for a crew without a GRCS or Hobbs. Just a porta-wrap or something.
One of the reasons I paid a couple grand for a deluxe Hobbs was to achieve a controlled lift on large branches/logs and minimize dynamic loading in critical strategic situations, exactly what they're designed to do.
Absent the Hobbs or GRCS, I can see some benefit in the technique when wraps or a porta-wrap are all you have at hand.
I personally have an extreme dislike of putting my safety as a climber in the tree into the hands of a ropeman unless I'm dang sure of his roping skills being consistent and very sharp.
I haven't reached my old age as a climber from taking unnecessary risks all these years. I love my Hobbs with good reason.
Thanks for the valuable feedback Mark C.
jomoco
One of the reasons I paid a couple grand for a deluxe Hobbs was to achieve a controlled lift on large branches/logs and minimize dynamic loading in critical strategic situations, exactly what they're designed to do.
Absent the Hobbs or GRCS, I can see some benefit in the technique when wraps or a porta-wrap are all you have at hand.
I personally have an extreme dislike of putting my safety as a climber in the tree into the hands of a ropeman unless I'm dang sure of his roping skills being consistent and very sharp.
I haven't reached my old age as a climber from taking unnecessary risks all these years. I love my Hobbs with good reason.
Thanks for the valuable feedback Mark C.
jomoco
- Location
- Louisville, KY
Mark- if I'm reading you correctly, you're stating that getting close to the midpoint allows the most leverage force to be applied to the rigging line prior to release, due to the fact that the length of the arm is longer.
If this is correct, I agree with you that getting close, while still tied in the "butt" region, is pretty good.
Jomoco, Did I read you right? Are you encouraging climbers to tip tie a pieces similar to Jamin's illustration? While necessary in some situations (where the limb is over a powerline), usually the tip tie is an extremely dangerous cut that propels the piece back into the climber.
If this is correct, I agree with you that getting close, while still tied in the "butt" region, is pretty good.
Jomoco, Did I read you right? Are you encouraging climbers to tip tie a pieces similar to Jamin's illustration? While necessary in some situations (where the limb is over a powerline), usually the tip tie is an extremely dangerous cut that propels the piece back into the climber.
Yeah KYLimb, you read me right. The pie notch is on top, the release cut is from below, the hobbs sucks the branch slowly towards the block until it hits it, the release cut is then finished and the branch lowered to the ground.
Why would the climber need to put himself between the load and spar at all during the process?
The whole operation is completely controlled and predictable regardless of the avoidance target. The dynamic forces involved are very effectively minimized.
Look at his simple illustration again and explain to me a safer more predictable way to rope it down with lower dynamics. I've got an open mind to better methods and techniques KYLimb.
jomoco
Why would the climber need to put himself between the load and spar at all during the process?
The whole operation is completely controlled and predictable regardless of the avoidance target. The dynamic forces involved are very effectively minimized.
Look at his simple illustration again and explain to me a safer more predictable way to rope it down with lower dynamics. I've got an open mind to better methods and techniques KYLimb.
jomoco
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
KBNest -Midline Attachable SRS Canopy Anchor.
- Started by TreeSteward
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
