Hitch Hiker in Comps

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It should be remembered that the itcc is an athletic event and not meant to represent innovation or different work practices. It is like bike racing which has very strict rules regarding bike construction. This helps decide who is the most fit, flexible, fastest climber.

[/ QUOTE ]

An excellent point, Kevin. One that is often forgotten or lost in the hullabaloo. Although my experience with ITCC has shown me not a "strictness" per say, but more of a tendency to be overly cautious because it is just an "athletic even" as you so aptly described.

Tony

[/ QUOTE ]

Kevin and Tony, I hear what you guys are saying on this one, but this was never the way that it was supposed to be.

The original ISA Jamboree, which Don Blair and others helped to get started decades ago, was supposed to represent a climber’s innovation and willingness to present new work practices.

Somewhere along the line, when the Jamboree morphed into the ITCC, the “spirit” of the events was lost.

Sad if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Chris is spot on here. It seems we are getting further and further away from TCC events mimicing work practices, and I think this is very sad. Look at the lumberjack games; for years they have been dominated by people who aren't lumberjacks. The events didn't change with the times and they became a museum piece.

Not changing the footlock event to represent the full range of arborist access methods is I think a huge symptom of the problem. If we can't modernize that event, then why modernize the others by allowing SLWP? For me it just means 3 events instead of 1 where I have to use gear and techniques that I never use in my job.

Ya know, my job as a tree climber. Ugh.

The TCCs started out (and on the local and regional level, mostly STILL ARE) about getting together to climb and learn how to do our job safer and better. This I think is the space we should create for our comps, not a stage where elite athletes can try to one up each other in stylized tests that sort of resemble tree climbing.
 
I agree that most regional TCC's still are in the spirit of the original intent. I for one would not trade the friends, experiences, success or failures in my years of competing.

I agree also that the ITCC has drifted a bit from what it used to be (but then so have I!). But this is due to a number of factors. One, the size/ number of competitors is a huge difference. Add in the melting pot of nations and cultures, rules and regs for the various areas represented and you get quite the hodgepodge. ITCC events have always been more cliquish that TCC's. sometimes intentional, sometimes just by the basis of numbers, languages, familiarity, and customs.

The ITCC has changed and evolved. Some of my first comps were without a Master's and the work climb started form the ground. The body thrust was what the speed climb evolved from.

The spirit of any enterprise comes not from the rules, regulations or minutiae of things, but the people involved, the commitment or lack thereof they bring, the consensus of working together disagreemtns and conflicting view points aside, not forgotten, but in perspective.

I admit the change is slow, the change is not always correct and things are not as they used to be; some for better and some for worse.

What remains true is that it is a volunteer run event. That people much like myself have enjoyed for years helping, learning, growing and giving back what has been taken.

The point of my soliloquy is that things like the ITCC are what we make them. (The same is true of life!) Change is inevitable, but not always the direction, nor pace some would like to see. And finally, any one can make comment, but to effect change necessities involvement.

I hope to see more of you on game day! And please do not forget the ITCC is just a game.

To move back to topic. I see no reason why a HH would not be allowed in comps if procedure were followed.

http://itcc-isa.com/rulesregulations/equipment/submissionforapproval.aspx
(I agree the process is convoluted and needs streamlining)

The rule in question in my mind is lateral movement when on single line. (Don't remember the specific paragraph. Look it up). There may also be some issues to be decided about anchoring. More from a logistics standpoint in some events such as the work climb.

The HH has been tested, it is rated and comes complete from the manufacturer with a thorough set of instructions and proper applications.

Tony
 
I zen kontatu gauza bat da, argibideak izan behar duela zazpi hizkuntzatan.

Una de las cosas que me dijeron es que las instrucciones deben estar en siete idiomas.

Una delle cose che mi hanno detto è che le istruzioni devono essere in sette lingue.

Eines der Dinge, dass mir gesagt wurde ist, dass die Anweisungen müssen in sieben Sprachen.

Une des choses que je dit, c'est que les instructions doivent être en sept langues.

Een van die dinge wat ek meegedeel is dat die instruksies moet in sewe tale.

En af de ting, jeg fik at vide, er, at vejledningen skal være på syv sprog.



7 minutes google translate. I am sure some of the native speakers here can help clean it up!

I really am not tying to be a smart
grin.gif
, but well maybe it's been a long week and I am feeling punchy
smirk.gif


Please Kevin take it the way I mean it. Tongue in cheek! The rest of you, overcome, adapt.

Tony
 
[ QUOTE ]
... It is my understanding that you can no longer certify any system that needs to be tied and untied such as CE climb. That doesn't mean that the CE climb is not CE, but there will be no more CE systems involving a hitch.
...

[/ QUOTE ]

I amnot totally sure, but I dont think thats correct Kevin.
There may be patent things goning on, but thats nothing to do with CE certification.

Btw, the Petzl ZZ has his own standard as well.

YOU (and others) could really benefit from companies beeing able to do their own standards nowadays, I think its a good thing as well!
It may be just really hard without the help of a "real" manufacturer though...
 
It makes no sense as far as the purpose of standards, in my opinion to create your own. Just doesn't make sense. How does that help anyone except prove who has more money?

Tony, google translate is cool as hell but try translating ascender, hitch cord, carabiner, Prussic, belay, and other Arboricultural terms. I used google translate into spanish ony instructions which k cam read fairly well and the results were hilarious. I believe mark bridge would know the difference as he speaks like 8 languages fluently google translate not going to get by him. As far as CE and hitches, I have been trying to reffimd the notice that was put out regarding it but with no luck. It makes sense to me that as soon as soon as you untie a hitch any certification it might have had would be nulified. I will continue to look for that notice.
 
Kevin,

I understand. I was really just poking fun. The fact remains that there are many resources for translation and many willing to help.

I disagree about making our own standards. If not us then who? "Them"? By no means will we get it right the first time, but I think it prudent for us, the people doing the work, using the equipment, to be the ones that start the dialog on standards of tools and techniques we develop.

I look forward to your research on the hitch rating stuff. I agree with the premise, but have no objective backing for it.

Tony
 
[ QUOTE ]
Has it come to trusting the foxes to guard the hen house, even when they profess to be vegetarians?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems a bit dramatic? We are talking about competition, a game, a chance to get together and trade stories, ideas and outright lies! Should we not err on the side of caution even more so than when at "real work"?

Tony
 
dynamic overhead belay ??????

So my daughter brought me a lovely virus home from school so I've had way too much time today to research this stuff. While looking for a suitable definition for the above term I found a surprise on a rock climbing forum, a link to a TREEBUZZ post from 2005!

"Friction hitch for SRT?"

If you can decode the Spydey-speak in the attachment you'll learn a little history of how our "dynamic" and "static" systems really work. Keep in mind I believe this was before the F8-revolver was even a glimmer in Kevin's(?) eye.

Turns out the term "dynamic overhead belay" would only apply to the speed climb event (old style), whereas the way we climb either DdRT or SRWP is really called a "self belay".
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has it come to trusting the foxes to guard the hen house, even when they profess to be vegetarians?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems a bit dramatic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when a manufacturer of a product makes a standard to fit their product.
 
[ QUOTE ]


I disagree about making our own standards. If not us then who? "Them"? By no means will we get it right the first time, but I think it prudent for us, the people doing the work, using the equipment, to be the ones that start the dialog on standards of tools and techniques we develop.
Tony

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have hundreds of thousands of dollars and really good connections in European testing houses it's a great idea!
 
[ QUOTE ]
dynamic overhead belay ??????

Turns out the term "dynamic overhead belay" would only apply to the speed climb event (old style), whereas the way we climb either DdRT or SRWP is really called a "self belay".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm sayin'!

Great find, Raven. I'll be catching up with some reading tomorrow.
laugh.gif
 
All this crap about RW or the HH in TCCs is crap! I use the RW 50% or more at work, and isnt that the point! i believe the genius behind the RWs idea was to create a tool all WORKING arborist could use everyday to make access and work a bit easier! Job accomplished! the working man can buy this at several vendors and WORK with it everyday. Thank you KB for inventing this product! I trust my life with it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom