Munter hitch for lowering limbs

…needed to detach the rigged part from the line. I’d be set for another if necessary. I thoroughly enjoyed using the dwt and solo rigging for it made the job play time. I could create an lz by splitting the rigging points which would allow the load to be moved to a different location. Also, I could increase the weight because of my rigging system. I found that I could further reduce the loads on my rigging point by attaching the entire system to the load. The rigging point initially would be reduced to a factor of 1. It increased with movement. I was able to accomplish this by locking off the system which was mentioned earlier in this thread. When the load settled into the rigging, whoever was running the rigging would simply pull the running end of the line free and lower the load. I was very cautious when working this type of rig for I didn’t want my tie off at the friction device to come undone. It worked well. The munter was my initial go to friction device for day to day rigging. I’ve also used a port-a-wrap in the tree for the same purpose. The dwt was my go to rig and I loved setting it up and playing with it.

Joe
 
Last edited:
Personally I probably wouldn't use a F8 to rig because it puts twists in the rope (as Tom said it can hockle a rope) - in fact it's kinda fun on a long ice rappel to look down and see your rope twirl away in mid air, round and round and round. I tend to use the Munter as a backup for descent but can use it for rigging small tree stuff, kinda one off or so though. My favourites are Rock Exotica Pirates or Pirate Wire-Eyes which handle the rope smoothly and let the knot spread out a bit - an oval will tend to pile the rope together more - maybe more friction but I bet more rope wear too? Have also used other biners with a broad end like the ISC Mighty Mouse HMS biner (and Kong makes both a rescue biner and an XL steel biner with a wide end) but I'd probably not rig something on a Munter that would force me to use a steel biner. Stubs or baby Porta Wrap for me then. Some climbs we've done where we've used Munters on the down have really fuzzed up our rope more than we'd thought - to be fair though the ropes were probably full of rock dust/ glacial till from our traipsing so it mighta not just been the knot's fault. Never tried a Munter rigging in a tree with a wet or frozen rope. Anyone?
 
Neill said:
Has anyone any experience on using the Munter hitch for light rigging?
Click to expand...

Yes. "No holds barred."

Applies more friction than a figure 8. Good in a pinch. Especially in-tree rigging. Regarding rope-on-rope friction... use appropriate ropes. Ex: 3 strand, 12 strand, 16 strand.
 
Last edited:
Friedrich said:
why stay away from double braids? because you cant inspect the load bearing core? friedrich
Click to expand...
yes. the core and cover are free to move independently which adds excessive wear to the core. if it’s rope on rope or rope on tree friction then i stay away from double braids and stick to 16, 12 or 3 strand
 
Seth McPherson said:
yes. the core and cover are free to move independently which adds excessive wear to the core. if it’s rope on rope or rope on tree friction then i stay away from double braids and stick to 16, 12 or 3 strand
Click to expand...
why would the self abrasion happen when your are natural crotch rigging but not when you are running the rope trough blocks?
 
Friedrich said:
why would the self abrasion happen when your are natural crotch rigging but not when you are running the rope trough blocks?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that during natural crotch rigging, all the friction is being applied to the cover, allowing the core to move inside it as is stretches. Blocks remove that friction, allowing the core and cover to take the load equally.
 
Reach said:
My understanding is that during natural crotch rigging, all the friction is being applied to the cover, allowing the core to move inside it as is stretches. Blocks remove that friction, allowing the core and cover to take the load equally.
Click to expand...
ok, but that would also happen at the portawrap, or not?
do you only use blocks/pulleys for doublebraids and no rings?
 
Friedrich said:
why would the self abrasion happen when your are natural crotch rigging but not when you are running the rope trough blocks?
Click to expand...
i guess if the bark was smooth enough then you probably wouldn’t have to worry but most bark is rough and provides inconsistent friction which causes the outer jacket to rub rapidly on the inner core. the more often this happens, the less cycles to failure
 
Seth McPherson said:
i guess if the bark was smooth enough then you probably wouldn’t have to worry but most bark is rough and provides inconsistent friction which causes the outer jacket to rub rapidly on the inner core. the more often this happens, the less cycles to failure
Click to expand...
i dont want to be rude or anything, im just trying to learn/ hungry for knowledge.

i constantly dissect old (natural crotch) rigging rope of various constructions. the core was never the problem, usually the sheath(cover, jacket) is damaged severly and core is ok until there are holes in the cover. and the core itself sees direct friction.

cycles to failure, i am aware that i wont have many cycles with this style of rigging. shock loading a short amount of rope, heat damage.


what i find interesting is that people advise against using ascenders on 16 strand rope because all the strength is in the cover but and others advise to use it for natural crotch rigging as all the strength is in the cover.



what do you think about using kernmantel ropes for natural crotch rigging?

in the end its funny to talk about "natural crotch rigging best practises" as its the dark side anyway..

friedrich
 
Friedrich said:
i dont want to be rude or anything, im just trying to learn/ hungry for knowledge.

i constantly dissect old (natural crotch) rigging rope of various constructions. the core was never the problem, usually the sheath(cover, jacket) is damaged severly and core is ok until there are holes in the cover. and the core itself sees direct friction.

cycles to failure, i am aware that i wont have many cycles with this style of rigging. shock loading a short amount of rope, heat damage.


what i find interesting is that people advise against using ascenders on 16 strand rope because all the strength is in the cover but and others advise to use it for natural crotch rigging as all the strength is in the cover.



what do you think about using kernmantel ropes for natural crotch rigging?

in the end its funny to talk about "natural crotch rigging best practises" as its the dark side anyway..

friedrich
Click to expand...
never rude to question something or someone, it’s how our world became round. you make some interesting points. i’m sure double braids can handle their fair share of natural crotch rigging but i like the ability to inspect the load bearing portion of the rope. kernmantle is usually too hard to manipulate for me
 
Seth McPherson said:
never rude to question something or someone, it’s how our world became round. you make some interesting points. i’m sure double braids can handle their fair share of natural crotch rigging but i like the ability to inspect the load bearing portion of the rope. kernmantle is usually too hard to manipulate for me
Click to expand...
ok, good :)
what do you mean, too hard to manipulate?
 
Seth, you've piqued my curiosity.

"which causes the outer jacket to rub rapidly on the inner core."

Is the rubbing between the inner core and the outer sheath equally as, or more violent than the rubbing of the outer sheath on the bark? It would seem to be far less of a beating than the outer cover takes grinding on the stationary bark. (?) Wouldn't the outer cover fail, say, about 10x faster from the brutal grinding it takes? And be the limiting factor for rope lifespan?
 
Reach,

"My understanding is that during natural crotch rigging, all the friction is being applied to the cover, allowing the core to move inside it as is stretches."

Isn't the friction applied by any device always applied to the cover? Seems unavoidably true. How can you apply the friction to the inside of the rope, can't ever be done.

Not to be confused with internal rope bending stresses.
 
Bart_ said:
Reach,

"My understanding is that during natural crotch rigging, all the friction is being applied to the cover, allowing the core to move inside it as is stretches."

Isn't the friction applied by any device always applied to the cover? Seems unavoidably true. How can you apply the friction to the inside of the rope, can't ever be done.

Not to be confused with internal rope bending stresses.
Click to expand...
Friction applied to a rope is always applied to the core, however the increased friction of tree bark grabs the cover more than the core when the rope stretches, slowing it down more than the core and thus making the core slide more inside the cover. That causes rope-on-rope friction, which can wear the core more rapidly.

When using a mechanical redirect (rings or block/pulley) that cover friction does not exist, so the core does not move so much inside the jacket as the rope stretches.
 
Bart_ said:
Reach,

"My understanding is that during natural crotch rigging, all the friction is being applied to the cover, allowing the core to move inside it as is stretches."

Isn't the friction applied by any device always applied to the cover? Seems unavoidably true. How can you apply the friction to the inside of the rope, can't ever be done.

Not to be confused with internal rope bending stresses.
Click to expand...
Good point. On the surface, it does seem unavoidably true (pun intended.) Pondering it a little more, made me think different ways of generating friction with a rope may vary the tendency of the core to move relative to the cover. With natural crotch, the load pulls the core downward against the cover in contact with the bark. Not a terribly strong coupling force. Plus there's a high coefficient of friction on bark and a relatively small contact patch. In a situation with lots of bending like a munter hitch or wraps on a bollard, seems less likely the core can move relative to the cover. The devices that squeeze the rope from 2 sides (RR, HH, etc.) are another case, as are friction hitches that squeeze the whole circumference. Seems like the tendency for the cover to move relative to the core is likely influenced by several variables.

Edit: The coefficient of friction between the cover and the friction surface relative to the CoF between the cover and core is probably a big factor. When the friction surface is rough, the cover/surface CoF exceeds the cover/core CoF making the core move relative to the cover. On a smooth surface, the cover/core CoF is higher so they stay together.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom