- Location
- healdsburg, CA
I was thinking about the mod. that the Euros made on the fixed bollard. Mark B. posted the picture of it.
In the Euro version the fixed bollard has four (4) hooks welded on to the top of the bollard. Ostensibly to give the user additional points to bend the rope so it pays out at any angle. Or to give the user additonal options in tieing off the rope in order to suspend the load temporarily.
If you look at the side of the fixed bollard in the U.S. version, the space between the base plate and the top of the bollard is approx. 8". In the Euro version the four hooks bend toward the base plate thus reducing the amount of usable space on the surface of the fixed bollard.
Imagine taking wraps on the fixed bollard using the U.S. version. There is a cross member welded at 90 degrees at the top of the bollard. While taking wraps this cross member does not interfere with the actual surface area of the fixed bollard.
On the Euro version the four hooks do.
This may not seem like a big deal when simply looking at the device but when taking wraps the user is whipping on bights of rope around the bollard. beginning with the base plate end and finishing with the rope paying out at the top of the bollard.
Just from looking at the four hooks and imagining the process of taking wraps, I can see that these hooks would be a MAJOR inconvienence in smooth operation.
Why limit the amount of space on the bollard with those hooks? The entire purpose of the fixed bollard is to give the user a huge surface to take as many wraps as needed to quickly and continuously LOWER massive loads.
You dont need to own a GRCS in order to imagine the design flaw inherent in the Euro version of the fixed bollard.
Imagine further if you will: The load is down and you need to remove all tension off of the load line so you can untie, unsnap, etc the load line. You go to whip off the load line from the fixed bollard and the wraps become tangled in those stupid hooks.
In the U.S. version, the cross member at the top of the fixed bollard is out of the way, and, it does not reduce the working area of the fixed bollard.
I am thinking that the four hook modification was done in a poorly thought out attempt to increase the ability to tie off a load. The cross member on the U.S. version allows this because you can tie the rope off using the same technique as tieing off a boat using a CLEAT. Wrapping under the ends of the cross member then crossing the rope over the crossmember and then under the rope and thus locking it off. I forget the name of this procedure. Tieing it in this manner takes all of two seconds.
The four hooks do not increase the ability of the user to stand at right angles to the fixed bollard any more than the cross member does, the hooks reduce the surface area of the bollard, AND the hooks are sure to hook onto the rope at the exact moment that you want to whip off the rope to free the load line.
I think Greg Good's device has been downgraded with this stupid modification and if I bought one of the Euro versions I would talk down the GRCS fixed bollard as a result. My understanding is that there is someone else making the Euro version and that it may, or may not, be as strong and reliable as the U.S. version.
I DO KNOW however, that this modification is the work of someone who does not clearly understand rigging and roping and they should stop changing the device and stick with the original design.
Greg Good made a great tool that has really really helped the industry improve the safety and ability of rigging operations and this modification seems like it does the opposite. Funny thing is, I always had alot of respect for all the Euro climbers I have met but this lame effort makes me think someone over there is just not clued in to engineering at all.
I feel sorry for the person over there who belives in the GRCS from the reputation it has earned in the U.S. , gets the money together, and then gets shortchanged by some cost cutting, engineering failure of a manufacturer over there.
If you think my words are too strong, I invite you to use both bollards in real world conditions, and then ask you to respond to this post with your comments. I will listen respectfully to your response.
In the Euro version the fixed bollard has four (4) hooks welded on to the top of the bollard. Ostensibly to give the user additional points to bend the rope so it pays out at any angle. Or to give the user additonal options in tieing off the rope in order to suspend the load temporarily.
If you look at the side of the fixed bollard in the U.S. version, the space between the base plate and the top of the bollard is approx. 8". In the Euro version the four hooks bend toward the base plate thus reducing the amount of usable space on the surface of the fixed bollard.
Imagine taking wraps on the fixed bollard using the U.S. version. There is a cross member welded at 90 degrees at the top of the bollard. While taking wraps this cross member does not interfere with the actual surface area of the fixed bollard.
On the Euro version the four hooks do.
This may not seem like a big deal when simply looking at the device but when taking wraps the user is whipping on bights of rope around the bollard. beginning with the base plate end and finishing with the rope paying out at the top of the bollard.
Just from looking at the four hooks and imagining the process of taking wraps, I can see that these hooks would be a MAJOR inconvienence in smooth operation.
Why limit the amount of space on the bollard with those hooks? The entire purpose of the fixed bollard is to give the user a huge surface to take as many wraps as needed to quickly and continuously LOWER massive loads.
You dont need to own a GRCS in order to imagine the design flaw inherent in the Euro version of the fixed bollard.
Imagine further if you will: The load is down and you need to remove all tension off of the load line so you can untie, unsnap, etc the load line. You go to whip off the load line from the fixed bollard and the wraps become tangled in those stupid hooks.
In the U.S. version, the cross member at the top of the fixed bollard is out of the way, and, it does not reduce the working area of the fixed bollard.
I am thinking that the four hook modification was done in a poorly thought out attempt to increase the ability to tie off a load. The cross member on the U.S. version allows this because you can tie the rope off using the same technique as tieing off a boat using a CLEAT. Wrapping under the ends of the cross member then crossing the rope over the crossmember and then under the rope and thus locking it off. I forget the name of this procedure. Tieing it in this manner takes all of two seconds.
The four hooks do not increase the ability of the user to stand at right angles to the fixed bollard any more than the cross member does, the hooks reduce the surface area of the bollard, AND the hooks are sure to hook onto the rope at the exact moment that you want to whip off the rope to free the load line.
I think Greg Good's device has been downgraded with this stupid modification and if I bought one of the Euro versions I would talk down the GRCS fixed bollard as a result. My understanding is that there is someone else making the Euro version and that it may, or may not, be as strong and reliable as the U.S. version.
I DO KNOW however, that this modification is the work of someone who does not clearly understand rigging and roping and they should stop changing the device and stick with the original design.
Greg Good made a great tool that has really really helped the industry improve the safety and ability of rigging operations and this modification seems like it does the opposite. Funny thing is, I always had alot of respect for all the Euro climbers I have met but this lame effort makes me think someone over there is just not clued in to engineering at all.
I feel sorry for the person over there who belives in the GRCS from the reputation it has earned in the U.S. , gets the money together, and then gets shortchanged by some cost cutting, engineering failure of a manufacturer over there.
If you think my words are too strong, I invite you to use both bollards in real world conditions, and then ask you to respond to this post with your comments. I will listen respectfully to your response.
