balance point rigging

[ QUOTE ]
are you saying to notch straight down to preload that line or to notch into the turn or to notch away from the turn to put more preload into the line, spidey?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lot of question there, many answers; i really don't believe in single answers in this multi-dimensional wierld. Everything is relative to another thing in considerations. Also any force or strategy is under a 'GoldiLocks Theory'; you can have too much, too little or just enough in ranges. So, about any strategy is good for a certain range(?). So, must choose on orchestration of all events, no global answer...
(and if there was , then maybe anyone could do it!!).
The more you move load away from the support, the more line tension X length from hinge to hitch. So, can do this on vertical and horizontal axis. But not talking about Jammin's Vertical load. Will face to direction of eventual travel, but back cut to load line, so may face and have support to right, and back cut down and left to load line, then sweep across into face when line tension is right; have to kinda L-earn to read that part.

i like close to balance point rigging for predictable rigging like Mark notes. Balance hard to hit, and can be too 'light' on line; ie any bump can give too much movemeant. But if head is heavy end and spar is ballast and lever, but still lighter, then you know which end is going down with positive motion, and bumps and stuff won't upset it too much. Also, vertical load easier to weave thru to ground than horizontal i think. So, we want the ballast and lever of almost balance point rigging, but also the loading of the line as pivot(most loaded in event), even while on hinge, so hinge carries less load, and just steers lightly. Also, less/Zer0 force from change of mechanic from hinge as pivot to hitchpoint as pivot, and while line is being impacted. Done right, more grace to this ballet; by ballet i mean lightly, deftly controlled power. It makes it look easy too; kinda slick show from a sales point of view also.
 
I'd love to see a video of this close to balance point rigging in action Spidey. Any links? I watched Daniels vid and didn't like what I saw, despite the confident manner Pat used to do it with in the vid.

Thanks,

jomoco
 
Technically speaking I've got some of this type of rigging on video.
blush.gif
But, I'm too busy to find it.
bangtard.gif


If/when I do this, I make sure my groundie knows to let the load run at the appropriate time. (He already knows it, I just emphasize it).

But, I guarantee this; the day someone gets hit with the butt end of a load, it will be the last time that technique is used.
 
well while your groundmen are winching away.................. i'll be setting up for the next balance point pic. some off us "lower class climbers" only have a porta wrap or two. i mean how can you do tree work with out a hobbs or a grcs. this discussion is on balance point rigging versus butt tie or tip tie. they all have their place as mark said. don't bring in the hobbs or grcs, this conversation isn't about them. you don't have to be right. you can learn: can't you. my daddy always said, " you can learn something from everyone." those are wise words jomoco
 
Well golly Jeff, I'm a tryin tu learn all I can about it good buddy.

But so far the only riggers here that have even come close to explaining the method in an understandable way are Spidey and Mark C, whom I thanked for atleast trying to explain it to me.

Maybe I'm just to thick headed and dumb to keep up with you new school whipper snappers and your vague methodologies?

Make a video of it in action Jeff, I'd love to see it and learn how to be cool too.


jomoco
 
"new schoolers" i'm rigging on 2 portys. i don't have a "fancy hobbs" or stuff like that. sounds like your the new schooler here. (my impersonation of you) them danged ol guys and their fancy knots and rigging making me luk duuumb n stuff. i can't even tie one of them new french prussic knots (even though it was invented in 1920). why they got to be so smart. i need to argue about it and i will look smart.
 
Good thread.....great discussion by all. Technique well explained by a few, especially Mark.

jomoco, I know that you have tons of experience, and are a very capable arborist. But I don't quite get why you have such a problem with this rigging technique.

Personally, I want to do the job as safely and fast as possible, and will always choose whatever technique needed. As I have all the toys, including a GRCS which is far easier and faster than a Hobbs for lifting, we too have all the bases covered.

So, for most easy stuff, that means butt tying. But tying out just a ways is great for getting the swing often needed to clear an obstacle, and, it allows for sweating in the rope (bow to Spidey) to give that pretension needed, and limit dynamic loading. A properly angled hinge and good rope work will reduce chances of the butt coming back. And mid tying makes swings even easier, and in most cases is all that needed. Why take the time to tip tie unless it's really needed?

For heavier wood sections, I agree that lifting them off if there's an available overhead rig point is great. A bit slower than butt hitching, but not so harsh on the rigging or the climber. But, never use a clove hitch! Marl/half, finished with running bowline, or preferably, shackle in eye terminated line.

So, that's it in a nutshell. All methods work.

And, of course, many times two lines are needed. That's where Reg's new twin capstan device would be slick, as long as only a bit of lifting is needed. The tool's lifting ability does look to be rather slow.
 
I would just like to see the technique in action for it's intended purpose and decide for myself Roger.

I don't doubt that pros like Mark and Kevin have used it very successfully at all, it's just that I want to see it for myself before jumping on that particular bandwagon.

I'm old school and stubborn about my rigging methods, but I am willing and even eager to learn this new method. But for me seeing with my own eyes is believing.

I've done lots of scary stuff over my career that I don't promote or try and pass on to anyone else because of the very real dangers involved, and sleep better because of it.

The next time I'm in Seattle Roger, I'd like to meet you in person and learn all I can from you and your fine crew.

Work safe guys!

jomoco
 
WOW, brother Roger joins us once't again!!

Should we allow Daniel to start this much chit a-gain??

[ QUOTE ]
well while your groundmen are wenching away.................. i'll be setting up for the next balance point pic. some off us "lower class climbers" only have a porta wrap or two. i mean how can you do tree work with out a hobbs or a grcs. this discussion is on balance point rigging versus butt tie or tip tie. they all have their place as mark said. don't bring in the hobbs or grcs, this conversation isn't about them. you don't have to be right. you can learn: can't you. my daddy always said, " you can learn something from everyone." those are wise words jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

For years i've tried to express this tech as a non-GCRS option too. If you can do this; this way on something, the GRCS would then just come into play for massive heavy, shorts-that you couldn't use the length against it self to set line, for real hard turns and for lifting etc. (as far as rigging).

So, once again there is use for everything in it's range, each mechanic has it's own powerband, and everything used can have a range of too much, not enough or just right. Sometimes, nickling and diming something out is quickest and best too-without ropes!!
bigeyes.gif
Especially for dead above another layer you aren't taking out, so small pieces can sneak thru, where large couldn't etc.

Also, there is a certain edumacation to doing stuff with the simplest of tools, that seems to lend the power of the pyramid(but i mean in the see deeply into, peer a mid sense); that makes it all make more sense; and also appreciate the fancy tools, realize the tradeoffs of using them and not etc. There is something extra special about dropping out as many fancies as possible; to get closer to touching the forces in the rawest way possible, to then understand them the most. Like you can hear about something, maybe reading is better, then video, but nothing replaces the lessons of doing. Then even that has it's layered depths, of getting closer and closer to touching the real deal...

Like i tell the kids about math; the well armed gunslinger will L-earn each tool well, practice it until knows the ins and outs, then holster. When meeting an opponent will pull the right gun out quickly and efficiently and take out target; or sometin' like dat!
propeller.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to see a video of this close to balance point rigging in action Spidey. Any links? I watched Daniels vid and didn't like what I saw, despite the confident manner Pat used to do it with in the vid.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I recall, there’s a good proportion of balanced stuff in this video Jon….although purely for the purpose of swinging the limbs while keeping them clear of obstruction.

http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=142206&an=0&page=5#142206

[ QUOTE ]
And, of course, many times two lines are needed. That's where Reg's new twin capstan device would be slick, as long as only a bit of lifting is needed. The tool's lifting ability does look to be rather slow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch it Barnett
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


Watch it Barnett
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]


yes sir!!

Of course I think the lifting design is really ingenuous. It obviously works as designed, and works well. And, adds only minimally to the mfr costs, compared to the two pricier tools we have at our disposal.

Good chestnut videos. I think I'd missed that job.

Excellent use of balance point rigging, too! The loads tip over slowly. Plus, they are quite easy to pull to the desired landing spot. Swinging the back loads into the rigging is slick. Less climbing up and down than with tip tying, which also may not provide as optimum a line angle for the pull needed to get the swing going.

As noted, just gotta watch that butt. Good teamwork and attention to detail required.
 
Good stuff Reg, as usual.

When working down a decurrent tree like the horse chestnut in your vid, where your lowering point is not in close proximity to your bodyline tie in point, a midpoint load tie off makes a little more sense in that the load is always moving away from you as the climber.

Working down an excurrent tree I myself would not use any midpoint rigging ties without a very good reason.

I am beginning to see the vertical gain advantages involved in midpoint rigging though, particularly for speedlining scenarios.

Thanks for the tutorial vid link Reg.

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
Good stuff Reg, as usual.

When working down a decurrent tree like the horse chestnut in your vid, where your lowering point is not in close proximity to your bodyline tie in point, a midpoint load tie off makes a little more sense in that the load is always moving away from you as the climber.

Working down an excurrent tree I myself would not use any midpoint rigging ties without a very good reason.

I am beginning to see the vertical gain advantages involved in midpoint rigging though, particularly for speedlining scenarios.

Thanks for the tutorial vid link Reg.

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

For clearing obstacles while keeping your cutting to a minimum, I’d say balancing achieves this very well. Out of the 3 options of Tip-tie, Butt-tie or a Balance-point, the latter will almost always ensure the greater clearance…..more often than not negating the need to apply any kind of lift after the cut has been made, within reason!

Other than that for relatively tall trees with plenty of clearance, I personally wouldn’t bother too much with it.
 
Jeff, am I your Dad?
smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
my daddy always said, " you can learn something from everyone."

[/ QUOTE ] I always say that when I teach.

Jo, I appreciate your position and agree with what you say about cranking stuff up/in. I do that all day long. What I am also saying is what Roger and Riggs and Reg said about using this technique like all others- when they make the most sense to me.

I don't have a good video to show this, but here is a little peak about how I use this technique in a not so big tree where Brian Noyes and I were doing a demo/workshop for the NYC park arborists last month. Maybe it could show a little about what I mean to write here.

NYC Demo
 
Good example video Mark, Thanks for that.

One Question would you not use that technique if you were unable to have your lowing point out away from you? Say it was just a single center lead, how would you have gone about lowering the same piece(s) with as little movement to the piece and the tree?
 
Good stuff Mark C.

The way you position yourself with the main trunk between you and the load is a very smart move when using a midpoint tie off in my opinion.

You resemble a climber I know named Jim Harris alot Mark, you guys have the same build.

I can really appreciate why you would want to minimize any dynamics/shaking of a hollow tree like that while rigging it down.

I appreciate both the feedback on this matter and your professionalism in the tree.

jomoco
 
Perfection Mark and Brian. I myself am a fan. After reading this whole thread it seems to me that the whole issue is the rigging point (RP). If the RP is not out and away you will run into other issues the main one being Kick back (KB). I've used this Technique a lot before it had a name as I'm sure a lot of you have and have found KB to be the only real danger/ downside (ie: getting hung up against the trunk in lower crotches). Experience (trial and error) will dictate how and when it should be used.

Out and away
Out and away
Out and away
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.



jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't the whole point of this discussion reducing shock loads on lowered pieces without use of a GRCS or Hobbs? By using the weight of the log to pretension the rope. If you are using either one, it makes this discussion moot.

Right?

I'm still not positive that I'm on the same page.
 
There's just reasons for different rigging applications in tree work. The theories of which have have been weighed and cited through so many threads and posts in these forums.

Balancing the work, or keeping the C.G. fore or aft of the rigging point is a crucial point, and one that I have found myself taking a minute or two to decide on which is the best direction.
 
I'll readily admit that balance point rigging makes a heckuva lot more sense if you don't have a GRCS or Hobbs KYLimb.

But anytime I bid on strategic takedowns, I do so with use of my Hobbs foremost in my mind.

All the easy takedowns in my area are usually done for dirt cheap by someone else.

Seems like the only time I get called these days is for nasty removals that no-one else wants anything to do with.

jomoco
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom