Footlocking technique...

Agree with 'Bing and Tom that footlocking single rope is ultimately a more efficient technique. Good point though that if you're doing single rope ascent mechanical devices make life better.

Point of clarification on footlocking the tail DdRT. I'm not advocating 2:1 tail footlocking as a replacement for 1:1 footlocking, just as an introductory training method to gain skill in acquiring a good lock. For climbing in the crown footlocking the tail DdRT is an excellent technique, I don't have much "sit back" or loss of progress doing that, it's the same as using a Pantin, the hitch rides as I ascend, my system is tuned so there is very minimal sitback. If you go 5, 6 or more pulls in a DdRT ascent cycle (without loading the hitch), the one minimal sitback you get resting between a ascent cycles is a very small percentage of total height gained per cycle.

And finally, thanks TM for returning to the actual subject and explaining practical footlocking for work climb tree entry.
-moss
 
i can consistantly go up my the rope in my front yard now (about 15ft up) it takes me between 4 to 6 locks depending how high i can get my knees up. today i spent most of my time at the top of my rope sitting on my lock getting used to not having to use my arms. im really starting to get the hang of it and hopefully once i make a prusik ill be able to try it on the job in about a month or so.

thanks again for all the tips from everybody and thanks to Blinky for starting the thread.

Jay
 
[ QUOTE ]
do you guys ever use hand ascender when you are footlocking?

[/ QUOTE ]
This one does, absolutely, yes. And if something comes along that is more effective and more efficient, count me in on that.

We've covered the advantage of 1:1 ascent over 2:1. Other advantages of an ascender, namely a handled ascender, more specifically a dual ascender, and most ideally a Single Handled Dual Ascender is the handle itself. Without a handle, you are limited to having to push a friction controller (rope clamp, whether mechanical or cordage-based) up from beneath. This means your grip must always be on the rope. It's better to have a choice in this.

The ascender does a couple critical things. It does up to 100% of the gripping of the rope, allowing 100% of your weight to be placed on it, without penalty. Resting along the way is perfectly fine and fully weighting the ascender between strides goes without question.

Another, you can use the handled ascender to pull yourself upward when needed and since you also need to advance the ascender upward after advancing yourself up, your hand is already on it so advancing the ascender literally takes place within the same second. Fast. Then the ascender gives the promise of 100% secure grip, no slip-back. As well, the promise of near friction-free advancement.

Ascent is work. It can be much <u>more</u> work than it really needs to be. Cordage-based friction requests of you to not place weight on it, or it can lock up and require you to break it's grip while you are on rope. This is what is meant by being more work than it needs to be. You shouldn't have to accommodate your friction gear by by being forced to stay in constant vertical motion, all the way to your first landing zone or the top. Your gear should accommodate you, assure you predictability, performance and safety and make the vertical work less strenuous.

Lastly, the ideal ascender allows you 1:1 SRT, 1:1 twin line ascent or 2:1 DdRT. You have the complete variety of choices as far as which rope technique. The ascender facilitates the footlock. They are a team.
 
although seriously, if you are worried about effeciency, footlocking is not that. Footlock is bad for your body, it kills your knees and wears out your muscles. completely ergonomically not recomended. that said, its way cool.
 
That's a troll if I've ever heard one.

I'll address the point of ergonomics, though.

If you're racing (i.e. competition) it's done differently than if you're just going for a reasonable pace. Things shouldn't feel forced. In tree care, we're just not racing. You shouldn't be out of breath when you get up there.

If you can fully weight the rope between strides, muscle contraction is released in between advances. This makes a huge difference.

If you can avoid leaning back, you then don't have to un-lean back.

In 2:1 DdRT, since you are only gaining, at best, half of what you can grab with your feet's reach, I see guys 'over-reaching' trying to gain that little bit more. Splaying knees wide, leaning back, going for a high grab, that is less than ideal form, more motion, more work. Bad ergonomics.

In 1:1, keep your knees more or less together, lift crossed feet, lock rope, stand &amp; progress. You should not look like a cross-footed frog falling backwards. It should literally look like a common deep knee bend, only not so deep. Lift feet to the point of comfort. The easier you make it, the easier you'll find it to be. It should be comfortable, no pain to your knees, nor hips. If you experience pain, you're doing it wrong.

A good footlock should look clean, feel comfortable, be swift and require about the same effort as climbing a ladder.
 
your avidly promoting an ascender to footlock with, why not just add a pantin or marbars or somethin and create an SRT system that really doesn't burn up energy. If your going to corrupt the purity of footlocking with ascenders, you might as well take it all the way. footlocking is not the most efficient or practical form of climbing trees. It is the funnest, the cheapest, and a skill you absolutely should master.

I honestly feel that you should only footlock in competitions or for fun. Doing it at work is bad for your body in the long run. Or bad for mine anyway, maybe I do it wrong. One should not look at climbing at work as working out. The goal should be to minimize effort. that is why the wraptor is a good investment if you can do it. (i can not at this moment).

Also, There is no way footlocking can be as easy as a ladder, faster yes. But it doesn't take core strength or arms to climb a ladder, neither does a good SRT system. do a few normal knee bends and then do them withe your feet crossed in footlock form. there is no way that can be good for you.

I realized how energy intensive footlocking is when I did hurricane work in texas. It was up and down all day, no real lateral movement. I was freakin exhausted and after three weeks I was basically done for. My elbows ached and my legs ached. If only I knew then what I know now. But then again I wouldn't have learned what I know now with out experiencing that kind of work.

but I should shut up because I am doing exactly what Blinky said not to do in bold face at the beginning of this thread.

So, as for form, my advice is, its all about rhythm. watch for the double motions or hicups. I liken these to the double jump that beginners do when learning to jump rope. I see a lot of beginner footlockers pause and hitch between locks, which is really wasted energy and motion. I also like to think about swimming when I am footlocking. Like the butterfly. Be streamlined, balanced, and in rhythm. Try for full contraction, full extension too. Your boddy is weakest at the points in between so dont hang out very long in that middle ground. Be all the way extended or as tight as you possibly can.
 
Kevin, you need to take into account that people use energy differently. For instance if you cycle you probably prefer spinning... I can't spin it makes my knees feel like they're on fire. Ropewalking is like spinning, you aren't using less energy, you're running a lower gear... no wait, that's not right... you're spreading the energy over a wider range of motion.
Footlocking is different from ropewalking in that it relies more on power, force applied over shorter time. It's like honking a steep hill. Some of us suck at spinning but we can pretty much climb any hill. It's how we use energy, explosively versus steadily.

I'll admit footlocking isn't the most ergonomic activity but bodies are adaptable. Just like rolling a kayak, some people are physically built for it, some aren't. But with enough practice almost anybody can work it out though.
 
I can run a 400 better than both a 200 and an 800. Not a long distance person but also not a sprinter.

I would say rope walking is 1:1. so its not in a lower gear. the main difference is you dont use your arms, and your feet are not splayed in funky directions as you climb. I take big long strides and so engage powerfully my leg muscles while rope walking. I am similar in footlocking- long powerful strides that get me up there quick. The difference to me is that I can probably go 80 feet footlocking before needing to rest while I think I could easily go 500ft rope walking without a rest, although that has never been tested. I can go 50 feet faster footlocking, but I can go 80 feet faster ropewalking. that is only because of the pantin hicuping at the beginning. once the weight of the rope takes over I can cover more ground faster ropewalking.
 
OK you win. But this thread is for the folks that WANT to footlock... like the ones that can't bear to pronounce the name 'Pantin' or be seen wearing a chest ascender.
 
Lol. I know, I know. I have been following this thread because I truly do love footlocking, I love watching good footlockers and there is something so pure and elegant about it. The point I was trying to make to Tree machine was that if your going to add acenders into the mix, why not just go all the way. I would never discourage anyone from mastering footlocking. I just found that for me it is too hard on my body for everyday use.
 
Why the anti-ascender thing? This tool will facilitate the mastering of footlocking because it eliminates variables, allowing you to focus on what your feet are doing. Once there, try more difficult means (prussiks) for comparison.

Addressing some of treebings troll statements does offer the opportunity to get clear on a few of the finer points of footlocking.

[ QUOTE ]
your avidly promoting an ascender to footlock with, why not just add a pantin or marbars or somethin and create an SRT system that really doesn't burn up energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No avid promotion. I'm not selling anything, just sharing experience. I find great joy in ascending with ease and general swiftness. It causes me pain when someone can't quite get it and they're frustrated. That's why I'm putting in some time here. To help. Not to promote anything.

I use a dual ascender because it allows me to employ any of the three rope techniques, SRT being one of them. This is important to me. Twin line ascent is my favorite. I'm confident any SRT guy who has <u>not</u> experienced twin line ascent with really good dual ascenders will disagree with this, twin line is more swift and easy, beginning-to-end. The dual ascender is the ONLY piece of gear needed to do this. I like the simplicity and the versatility and the minimalism required to achieve a full cover of all the ascent modes. I own pantins, I have used mar bars, Z-rigs, every friction hitch known to man and a host of other ways shown here and elsewhere. I'll try anything at least once, just to understand it. But from a practical standpoint, I'll keep coming back to what works best because this is how I make my living.

[ QUOTE ]
If your going to corrupt the purity of footlocking with ascenders, you might as well take it all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Corrupt the purity....? That's the best troll yet! LOL, Now, knock it off, the humor is dwindling. Footlocking is simply a means of getting up a rope. Ideally, you use the least amount of energy possible and save that energy for crux moments. I use the best tool I have come across to aid in footlocking, and am always looking for better.

[ QUOTE ]
footlocking is not the most efficient or practical form of climbing trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, you pour it on thick. First, we're not talking about climbing a tree. We're talking about ascending a rope. You ascend the rope until you're able to climb the tree, if climbing the tree is easier at that point.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way footlocking can be as easy as a ladder, faster yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, personally, don't race up the rope. I shoot for rhythm and pace. And footlocking CAN be as easy as climbing up a ladder. It's different, of course, on a ladder you go up one leg, then the other. Footlocking it's both legs simultaneously. The work is the same, assuming you're wearing the same gear going up the ladder, the elevation of your mass is just being approached in a different manner. Having an ascender that advances with near zero friction and a saddle that doesn't cost you in sit-back losses are key issues, and not having the rope slip between your feet, of course. Cover these bases and its rather amazing how well footlocking works.

[ QUOTE ]
do a few normal knee bends and then do them withe your feet crossed in footlock form. there is no way that can be good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here would be a problem. You do not footlock with your feet crossed. You lift your feet with the feet crossed, and that's only to keep track of where the rope is without having to look down. There is no pressure on your crossed feet elevating. Early footlockers, try this: Try sitting back in a chair, feet on the floor. Lift your feet. Now put your feet back on the floor, cross your feet, lift them up. Note any difference? Of course not, your feet weigh the same, there's no change in force, your feet are just shifted laterally.

In the footlock, once the feet reach their height, you uncross the crossed-over feet to a side-by-side configuration, or one just a little higher than the other, then advance upward. I do not recommend lifting the feet as high as you can go to get the fullest amount of advance. Go the distance of two ladder rungs and call it good. Ergonomically, this is not very taxing. Try this simple example to prove the point to yourselves. Stand upright. Do a full deep knee bend and come back up. Note the effort required. Now do a 2/3 or half knee bend and come back up. Note the diminished effort required. You see the point.

In footlocking, find your comfortable depth of bend, choose your own pace and use SOMETHING to clamp the rope above you that doesn't require you having to exert effort to advance it. I don't care if it's an ascender, single or dual. But if whatever you're using is creating resistance, your footlocking will likely suffer because of it. Whatever you're using above you should advance near-effortlessly, instantly and clamp with absolute certainty. For me, that is a well-configured, versatile dual ascender. Treebing has called this 'corrupting the purity of footlocking'. For kicks, I'll call it cheating. Call it what you will.
 
Im not sure what it means to troll, i have heard that term elsewhere and am not sure if its good or bad. If it means stoking the fire and keeping you going, then guilty as charged. ;) I think your points are good, although I have had slightly a different experience.

I do agree that footlocking with an acenttree is easier than with hands on the rope, but for those that don't like pronouncing the word pantin and abhor chest ascenders, it is borderline blasphemy. I admire purity, every climber should strive for fluid climbing up a rope with nothing but a prussic as a backup in case they pass out or get stung by bees. The prussic is a fairly recent addition to footlocking really. I say that footlocking without a prussic is as safe (tho not as easy) as climbing a ladder. I am not saying ladders are safe.

I cant find an ergonomic knee bend possible in footlock position. Go to any physical therapist or fitness trainer and do a footlock style knee bend and see what they tell you. I give a lot of blame to footlocking for blowing out my ACL. Thats why i shy away from it. I am also new to the world of SRT and probably still overly excited about how much easier my life is now. I, for myself, do not forsee a return to footlocking at work.

I also still find that grabbing a lock on a fat single line is easier than on double line. I have watched a lot of people struggling trying to untangle the lines at their feet while they are learning. Try footlocking on a fatty 5/8 line to begin.
 
A prussik does not want to be loaded. If you load it, it will bind, and you have to break its grip to advance it. All the while the climber is standing stiff, trying to maintain the footlock position and not slip back down while the struggle to advance the prussik goes on. This is not footlocking.

So then the effort becomes to not load the prussik, which means NO rest between strides. OK, sometimes I don't rest between strides, but you know what? I want the option.

In really feeling and paying attention to my footlocking yesterday, I fully load the rope in between strides; Sit, elevate, footlock, ascend, advance the ascender, repeat, it should take you longer to read that sequence than to actually do it.

And the prussik is not a recent addition to footlocking. And footlocking is nothing new. These have been around since manila rope. It's the mechanical devices that make ascent so much easier and certain that are rather new to our industry. Proof? Some of us still ascend on prussiks, much the same as 100 years ago. Works essentially the same now as it did then.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...I have been following this thread because I truly do love footlocking, I love watching good footlockers and there is something so pure and elegant about it....I just found that for me it is too hard on my body for everyday use.

[/ QUOTE ]
Treebing
I have to say I agree! It certainly is a style and technique worthy of admiration. I also heartily agree with your last line - "...too hard on my body for everyday use."

I think like many topics, we find different people have varying experiences. I kinda think of this like watching an athelete at his sport. Just because I admire what he/she can do, doesn't mean if I practice hard, I'll ever be able to achieve a significant efficiency at it.

It may also be that lighter climbers can footlock far more effectively than heavier climbers; that would also account for some of the differences in experiences with footlocking.

Just like sports, etc. not everyone can perform anywhere near the levels of atheletes, and the same may be true for footlocking, not everyone is gonna get good at it. E.g. I wonder if there are many older guys footlocking? I've read some posts reflecting that very thing - "I use to be pretty good at it when I was younger, but...."

I even tried cheating, i.e. an Ascentree and two Pantins, and I was NOT impressed with my perfomance on that. But, I do need to try that again, I may get a totally different impression the next time.

But, like you said, I like the elogance and simplicity of footlocking - I just can't seem to get the footlock working.

BTW, a troll is a poster that stirs the pot for the sake of stirring the pot. You are NOT a troll in any sense of the word!
 
Had a good talk with Frank Chipps the other day on footlocking...that man knows his shite!

he gave me his recommended cordage to use and a bit about his style, it is all about going up the rope, not up, lean way back then up again, too much wasted movement.

And I agree with Chip, some people are born to it, others learn with meticulous detail to technique, others?? well others may never get it due to bad body bio-mechanics...

I love it! but being that I was born with predominately white, or fast twitch muscle fibres ( which allows you to do speed or endurance, if you are born with red as the majority, you will just never be fast), I can go explosive for the amount of time I have to to get up the tree, all boils down to picking you parents baby!
cool.gif
cool.gif
 
From my perspective, I don't understand why people say footlocking is so rough on the body. I'm a kinda old guy and so far, it's not hurting. I tweaked a knee working a while back and had to footlock lefty for a while, but it wasn't the footlocking that caused the problem.


I don't like lots of gear on me but I swear by my paired ascenders. That's how I footlock at work, two ascenders taped together... make resting between each push easy and natural. I don't like the short rapid, low energy motion of ropewalking, makes my knees burn. I don't like the Pantin cuz it pops off the rope at the wrong times and then it stays ON the rope when I want it to come off... it's just an annoying tool to me.
Those two handed ascenders are annoying as hell too... I mean what the hell are you supposed to do with that thing once you're up? A pair of regular ascenders taped together tucks away nicely but that big two handled thing doesn't stow neatly anywhere but in a bag on the ground.


I don't footlock for purity or macho or anything like that (although footlocking is TOTALLY macho and frankly, ropewalking looks kinda ghey) I footlock because it's the fastest, easiest way for me to climb a rope. If I was going a hundred or so feet all the time I'd want to be Wraptoring or ropewalking but going 50' by footlocking with ascenders is quick and easy.
 
I appreciate everyone's input. I try to see from the various climbers' descriptions, what they're doing, what gear, what rope technique and if they're having problems, why?

Here's a 'for example'. Ron says [ QUOTE ]
even tried cheating, i.e. an Ascentree and two Pantins, and I was NOT impressed with my perfomance on that.[/i]
Well, that's no surprise. That's predictable. You give up rope control using pantins, especially the first 20 feet and the other reasons blinky mentions. An analogy might be that to your first bike may have had training wheels and you did just fine with that, but eventually you wanted to ride faster and lean into the corners. Your training wheels, as valuable as they were in keeping you from tipping over, now are holding you back now that your confidence is higher and your ability is more refined.

Eventually you move up to a better bike altogether.

Top level bikers have top level bikes. It should be understood that top level footlockers (not competitive racers, I'm talking working arborists) should have top level gear to aid their footlocking.

Ascentree ascenders are not it, not by a long shot. I appreciate Petzl's try, but they create more problems than solutions.

Any dual handled twin ascender out there has one too many handles. One hand goes on the ascender, the other on the rope below it. The second handle is useless. We're not doing frickin pull-ups with these tools.

Blinky and I are using very much the same setup, and though we are not conspiring in any way, we came into this completely independent of one another, but our general approach and outlook on footlocking is quite similar; it's easier than many make it out to be. My feeling is that we have a unique advantage in having single handled, paired ascenders, without which no one can experience footlocking quite like we can.

The reason we have them is because the industry manufacturers have not created them yet, so a very few arborists on the planet have gone ahead and created them for themselves. Here is a picture that came out of Belgium, with an interesting and effective backup.
231183-belgian.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 231183-belgian.webp
    231183-belgian.webp
    86.5 KB · Views: 32
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom