M-Bight-Redirect

I'm thinking it might be better to call this an
On Bight Redirect
With the added configuration the M is not helping. I do want to avoid anything like a3:1 Mrig or Vrig to avoid confusion with climbing systems.

What do you guys think?
 
Jeff - dunno about your side of the pond, but over here calling someone a muppet is a bit of an insult.
Dicky I'm sure he didnt mean it.
 
Last edited:
Hello from Russia.=) I am a huge fan ofRichard's videos and treeclimbing in general.
One thing is terrifyng me after watching the video.

I have tried M-Bight on a well known tree nearby my country house. Seems perfect and very convenient!
But suddenly I recognize that it is very dangerous technique.

This is why:
Imagine someone is climbing a tree with a tie in on the top, then starting a limbwalking somewhere in the middle of a tree for several meters and then redirecting through M Bright from a crotch which looks good but will fall under load later. If you descend from the redirect point - you will leave 3 to 1 ammount of rope between you and a crotch. so the fall wil be a 3 to 1.

For example:
tie in height is about 20 meters. the limb is at 13 meters. the distance from the trunk to the redirect point is about 3 meters and a work zone is located under the redirect point about 3 meters.

So.. If a crotch will break - the depth of a fall will be16,6 meters (~7,6 meters (the length of a line from the tie point to a redirect) + 3*3 meters ot rope under redirect = 16,6 meters of a free fall wich is bad in any cause. In certain conditions the length of a free fall with addition of a climbers height might be even LONGER than a tree height to tie-in.

I agree that every climber is responsible for a redirect and tie in point but if shit happends(as it sometimes do) - the M-Bight redirect will be hazardous. Though if not a trees but some industrial climbing - when your redirect is buletproof - it seems wery comfy. Please tell me if i am wrong and sorry for my english. With kindest regards, Peter.
 
Welcome to the Buzz Extreme.pum - I agree that choosing a redirect is very important, and that you will have a lot of slack in your system if the redirect fails. I would like to point out that when choosing a redirect you are looking at that point close up, able to inspect it hands on. Think about accessing a tree - we throw in and choose our primary support from 40,50 sometimes 75 feet or more from the ground without the ability to inspect it hands on - and up we go.

Nothing is bulletproof in this profession - but choosing a redirect that you can inspect and touch should be pretty close. Hopefully you understand the point I am trying to make - thanks for thoughts and keep posting!
 
jmcscrap said:
Welcome to the Buzz Extreme.pum - I agree that choosing a redirect is very important, and that you will have a lot of slack in your system if the redirect fails. I would like to point out that when choosing a redirect you are looking at that point close up, able to inspect it hands on. Think about accessing a tree - we throw in and choose our primary support from 40,50 sometimes 75 feet or more from the ground without the ability to inspect it hands on - and up we go.

Nothing is bulletproof in this profession - but choosing a redirect that you can inspect and touch should be pretty close. Hopefully you understand the point I am trying to make - thanks for thoughts and keep posting!
Click to expand...

For sure! I understand that every climber is fully responsible for what happends to him/her and every one around the spot.
But speaking about the same crotch to make either a regular redirect or M-Bight we MUST think of it in a different manner because of FRICTION.

SRT + Redirect = Load
SRT + M-Bight redirect = Load + Friction

Just wanted to mention these aspects because I think that climbers can get in a dangerous situation choosing a redirect point keeping basic SRT Redirect "requirements" in mind. Think of it.

Thank you!
 
I agree the load or forces at work do need to be considered. You make an interesting point about friction playing a roll - something I can't answer to. Maybe someone else has that bit of information?
 
Doesn't the friction reduce the load? Like on a base tie, where friction keeps the total load slightly less than twice the climber's weight?
 
I'm loving it, used it today on a reduction, I had to get very far out on some limbs over the roof and the deck with a very narrow landing zone bordered by a fence.
Here is the deal, with a natual On Bight redirect the load remains partly shared from the static side, the dynamic side that forms the bite and three times the length is indeed potential slack if the anchor releases.
If a ring is used the the redirect becomes completely static and semi-independent of the original anchor. It does have the benefit if the anchor goes away the redirect remains intact. I have discovered other options with using cambium savers and pulleys for 3:1 return if needed.
I should have the next video out in a few days.
 
I am preferring the the name On Bight as whatever configuration is used the redirect is done on and with a bight of rope. Previous configurations seem to share a bight of rope (typical 3:1) or use the bight of rope for recovery. This is the difference.
The important distinction being that the bight is formed above your multisender and you are actually descending on the bight.
 
I did do a bunch of testing with the enforcer using just a carabiner, a pulley, and cambium savers.
Briefly, on a static redirect all three legs share 100% of the load. On the natural redirect, depending on the angle, the three legs can share 3/4 of the load. This can also vary depending on the friction used. It can be as much as 100% on the static side and 2 / 3 on the dynamic side or zero for example if you lock it off on the carabiner.
Lots of food for thought here and things to discover.

I certainly would not call it dangerous any more than I would consider climbing trees dangerous. Lots of risks to consider and it's great to corroborate with all of this input.
 
I tried this out today using several different SRT devices (Rope Runner, RIG, and GriGri). With all three devices the bight was running over a 3" diameter limb in an oak tree and I used a micro pulley to minimize friction at the point where the bight attaches to the saddle. I found it worked really well with the Runner, but did not work well with the RIG and GriGri. The latter two devices impart too much friction into the system so that it is really difficult to limb-walk unless you have all your weight on the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom