Kong Dual Ascenders for sale

Also thinking if your ascender did fail and you had your foot in the footloop could it(ascender) slam into the croll and cause some problems-considering all your weight would now be loaded on the croll-at least until you stood on the pantin.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ranger meant the older version of the Dualcender

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good cuz I bought his Kong. Has anyone used it on a single rope?

[/ QUOTE ]

I use mine on single rope often. I back it up with this.

Microscender
 
What I'm saying is more conceptual Jimmy.

To me, a backup means that there MUST be two pieces used in conjunction with each other to have a complete setup. Two connections means redundancy and either connection works independently. Each piece's primary role is to be an attachment point. as a secondary role they 'backup' the other piece.

Does this make sense to anyone else besides me? Maybe not?!

Any chest ascender would have to meet the same criteria as any other piece in the system. I have three different chest ascenders but no preference between them. If I ever needed to rely on the chest ascender I am confident that it would hold me just fine. Since my chest ascender moves up the rope with me there is no slack above the chest ascender to be concerned about.
 
I agree totally with both your posts Tom.

The chest ascender is the key component. AS it does such a good job of tending slack. A Frog system without a chest ascender isn't a Frog system. I feel it is key to safety and efficiency too. Especially when climbing the branches - you can haul on the ascencion with one hand and put one hand and feet on the branches - the Croll self tails the slack. This is key to practicability.

It is a fully functional ascender, to the same standard as the ascension. Both can be clipped round the rope

It is not 'pull strength' rated to 5000# just like the ascension isn't, but then neither is the human frame.

They don't need to be either. The energy absorption in a single rope and very low fall factors mean that in proper use, fall factor II forces can't be achieved.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Kinda splitting words Mahk so please don't take this as being argumentative.


[/ QUOTE ]

No worries. Just discussion.

Some more:



[ QUOTE ]
To me, a backup means that there MUST be two pieces used in conjunction with each other to have a complete setup. Two connections means redundancy and either connection works independently. Each piece's primary role is to be an attachment point. as a secondary role they 'backup' the other piece.


[/ QUOTE ]


I agree with this:

"Two connections means redundancy and either connection works independently."



but I don't think that this is true:

"...a backup means that there MUST be two pieces used in conjunction with each other to have a complete setup."




which you echoed in this statement:

"Each piece's primary role is to be an attachment point. as a secondary role they 'backup' the other piece."



The latter two statements are true of the Frog system when used with a chest ascender, but the chest ascender isn't absolutely necessary for the ascent. You could toss out the chest ascender and still ascend in pretty much the same fashion, but you would need something else as a backup. Most of the time I don't use a chest ascender because I'm pretty comfortable without it, but I do have something else as a backup. On the other hand, if you toss out either the Pantin or the handled ascender, the whole system is different. You must, respectively, either footlock or grasp the rope with your hands. True, the chest ascender may have some other advantages (reduces sitback, tails very well, etc), but its one imperative function is to serve as a backup.

The latter two statements, however, are not true of some other systems. A climber could ascend using a pair of Kongs and a Dualcender, each with it's own tether. The Dualcender would back up the Kongs, but it's primary role would not be as an attachment point.

The first statement:

"Two connections means redundancy and either connection works independently."


is true of both systems, and (I think) a closer description of a backup.
 
When taking a systems approach to security, a true back-up is a completely seperate system:
- Separate anchor
- Separate line
- Separate attachment.

The limit, of course, is the one body and body holding device it is attached to - ourselves in our harness.

SRT by its very nature, sacrifices the back-up of a second line (DdRT is also SRT in this respect). One advantage of SRT is that it can capture more than one anchor.

This leaves the attachment. Quick release cams are very expedient in terms of practical viability. Having two on the same rope affords security should one fail to function.

The Chest ascenders primary role is not as back-up in a Frog Walker system. You have the option of Frog or walking and anything inbetween, that hinges on the Chest ascender. If there isn't a chest ascender, you have a rope walker (Frogging won't work well). Frogging is more efficient on longer climbs.

Rope walking systems without a Chest ascender aren't always very efficient. If we look at the frog walker vid Frank1 posted, you can see how the Croll takes the weight off the arms and front Delts, creates an upright position, allowing the legs to cycle up the rope efficiently. Without a chest ascender, the upright position places a lot of work to the front delts. A chest box is even better at support, but not very practicable for treework after ascent.

There are three reasons I use a Frog Walker:
1. Practical Versatility
2. Ergonomic efficiency
3. Safety

The chest ascender is key to all of these points.

I think it is great that climbers are turning to SRT. But not all systems are as safe or efficient as they could be. With the focus of the above three points, the Frog Walker is an ideal solution.

I don't think that backing up ascenders with friction hitches is a truly 'dependable' back-up to secure attachment - too many variables. They don't contribute to reducing slack in the system or offer support to the upper body. They function in a constantly open form during ascent and are easily de-activated by downward pressure. A tighter set to garauntee their grip, increases drag.

A well set chest ascender takes care of all of these points. Simply. Safely. Efficiently.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If we look at the frog walker vid Frank1 posted, you can see how the Croll takes the weight off the arms and front Delts, creates an upright position, allowing the legs to cycle up the rope efficiently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these definitions and details are important in understanding how these systems actually work. The above statement is why I like using the croll and am thinking it's more than a backup.
 
I guess my question was missed or maybe I missed the answer,I'll try again.What if the ascender fails at full extension and slides down and slams into the croll with all your weight in the footloop?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I guess my question was missed or maybe I missed the answer,I'll try again.What if the ascender fails at full extension and slides down and slams into the croll with all your weight in the footloop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Jimmy - I ran out of time.

If the top ascender failed, there should not be a shock load as it hits the Croll, because the climbers weight will be held at its centre of balance by the Croll. There should be a jerk and clash of ascenders with the weight of the leg/s.

This also helps explain why I don't see the Croll as a back-up piece. A croll is a primary fall 'prevention' device. A back-up is more of a 'cure' to the fall.

I believe prevention is better than cure.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have the option of Frog or walking and anything inbetween, that hinges on the Chest ascender.

[/ QUOTE ]


How do you define each of them--Frog and walking?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Frog uses both legs to stand at the same time. As soon as the legs relax slightly, the load is instantly on the (properly tensioned) Chest ascender.

A walker alternates load between foot ascender and hand ascender. This means a Croll (I'm tired of typing CA) can be ommitted, with drawbacks as stated. When stopping, a conscious action must be made to ensure the back-up is set to enable sitting back without losing balance.

I like to switch between the two as the ascent dictates, without having to think about additional motions important to safety.

More important is the easy transition climbing through branches.
 
Cool i have one I use some but it would not work with the(One of my climbers) Petzl Seq- so I had to buy the croll system that fits it.
 
Some excellent points Laz.

You said

[ QUOTE ]
Without a chest ascender, the upright position places a lot of work to the front delts. A chest box is even better at support, but not very practicable for treework after ascent.


[/ QUOTE ]

The chest boxes that I have seen, and most of the ones I've found on the web, have rollers. There is no cam to capture the progress so could you truly Frog with a chest box with no cam? Also, a chest box without a cam also means that there is no backup.

My comment:

[ QUOTE ]
...the chest ascender may have some other advantages (reduces sitback, tails very well, etc), but its one imperative function is to serve as a backup.


[/ QUOTE ]

was probably overstated. Tom's comment:

[ QUOTE ]
Each piece's primary role is to be an attachment point. as a secondary role they 'backup' the other piece.


[/ QUOTE ]


was probably better. Or maybe 'redundancy' (which Tom also used) is better. Each pieces primary role is how it functions as part of the system. But each piece also serves as a backup to, or is redundent to, the other. If it did not, something else would have to be added so that there would be a backup/redundancy.
 
Hi Mahk

Sorry for any confusion - my comment you quoted about the chest box was refering to ergonomics i.e. the Croll shoulder straps, or the chest box of a rope walker, can be set to take the load off of the Delts. Chest box winning here.

As you pointed out, you can't Frog with a chest box, although I suppose a chest box modified with a mini-traxion might work??? Issue with ascender clash me thinks???

The Frog Walker wins in versatiltiy - walk or frog or climb branches with no opportunity for a fall (thanks to the Croll),and good efficiency.

A true rope walker (with chest box)is a quick, efficient system, from what I 've seen (I haven't tried it). But Not very effective when following the line through many close branches (i.e. swithching between using the branches for foot and hand support, or the rope and cams as support.)

Re the back-up quantification, I think Tom's statement that you quoted sums it up very well.

The Chest Ascender is such a key item for safe, efficient and versatile tree ascent, we designed a harness around it.

Good discussion. Now there are two threads the same name, maybe one of the TB admin team could switch the relevant comments to a new thread in a more relevant section?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we look at the frog walker vid Frank1 posted, you can see how the Croll takes the weight off the arms and front Delts, creates an upright position, allowing the legs to cycle up the rope efficiently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these definitions and details are important in understanding how these systems actually work.......

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Chuck

We agree. The drive to work with more ergonomic efficiency, led to quite a bit of research into suitable systems. And then how they could be integrated into tree work with safety, efficiency and versatility. The frog walker came out on top overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom