Need help deciding on a heavy-duty rigging setup..

*useless info*

Well-Known Member
Per same DYNAMIC (not static) load;
the stronger wired connection routing thru stronger line
that load impedes less on rope's MBS,
yields LESS elastic/dampening response.
Thus, delivering more raw/less softened hit to all connecting points thru the rope pipeline tool chain set.
.
So 3/4" gives more strength on hold; but less forgiveness on hit than 1/2".
Proper tool for proper job.
Slamming stiffest /strongest rope to a dynamic load blindly might sound like answer to use all the time; might say similar to CYA no one using less than needed @POS, but not actually being a scientific wrestler!
.
So SWL may be 5x or even 10x depending on source/shituation
>>But 50x can be overkill, and not in the blindly expected good way IF dynamic forces(about always at least to plan for).
.
i always kept some high elastic 3/8" or 7/16" around for rigging lighter off of softer support to take out as much hit as possible, removing the stiffer 1/2" line where not needed when could give problems to connected support by the wiring of the rope pipeline of force.
 
Last edited:

KevinS

Well-Known Member
Per same DYNAMIC (not static) load;
the stronger wired connection routing thru stronger line
that load impedes less on rope's MBS,
yields LESS elastic/dampening response.
Thus, delivering more raw/less softened hit to all connecting points thru the rope pipeline tool chain set.
.
So 3/4" gives more strength on hold; but less forgiveness on hit than 1/2".
Proper tool for proper job.
Slamming stiffest /strongest rope to a dynamic load blindly might sound like answer to use all the time; might say similar to CYA no one using less than needed @POS, but not actually being a scientific wrestler!
.
So SWL may be 5x or even 10x depending on source/shituation
>>But 50x can be overkill, and not in the blindly expected good way IF dynamic forces(about always at least to plan for).
.
i always kept some high elastic 3/8" or 7/16" around for rigging lighter off of softer support to take out as much hit as possible, removing the stiffer 1/2" line where not needed when could give problems to connected support by the wiring of the rope pipeline of force.
I tend to stick with 1/2”
A) I don’t carry 5 different diameter ropes on each truck
B) I like a rope I can grip in my hands to give a good pull and hand fatigue with thinner lines makes it not worth it to me
C) Every different rope has its own size, stretch, swl, how a knot looks and loads, etc. With more employees than just me I like consistency and to take some of the guess work out of any situation before I ever send anyone out
 

*useless info*

Well-Known Member
To be clear, generally not so much grabbing the smaller accessory line to stop load, kinda a mix of friction and run some on light stuff rigged off of baby support.
>>going for the relief of force totally with elasticity, fiction support that reduces forces on control leg and some run cuz support only incurs what stop, not run force.
.
The smaller accessory line(s) stash easier etc.
Used like an elastic mountain/rescue line, much more dampening response than garbo lines;
and they look cooler too!
 

eyehearttrees

Active Member
In-reply to multiple people: Apologies for being wordy am working on it very seriously!!
Chances are your kits will always be changing and evolving as you do so don't obsess on it too much.
Good luck cheers stay safe
While I agree they'll always change, the changes over time will be minor compared to going from "I've got an anchor-sling and a 1/2 rope to re-purpose as bull-rope" to owning a full 'heavy duty' kit, what may've looked 'obsessive' was just me "taking a class" to learn what I had to -- the principles behind safe dismantling-/limbing-riggings are FAR more complex than climbing (I did a similar 'class' when learning to climb, google/articles & youtube & forums, only way I know to 'take a class' on such topics!)

Thankfully I'm done, was comfortable w/ my elementary understanding of dynamic forces/kinetics, chose Polydyne for bull ropes (didn't know/trust Sterling enough to go w/ Atlas, the #1 for energy-absorption, p.dyne is #2 and nystron at #3), and began acquiring slings and accessories, had it 'basically finished' til I realized all I had to do to go knotless was omit the two stupid Lrg-x-rings that couldn't take a 5/8 splice, splice my bull rope and voila! Speedline kit (2'-->4.5' loops and 5/8 TEC slings for connections, including 5/8 spliced thimbles if I need it to slide), good/new 3/4 3-strand for natural-crotching if/when needed, think I can now cover any realistic rigging scenario I'd need to in 2020 :D

Thanks Re safety, I can't stress enough that I'm not thinking "this kit lets me take heavier weight let me snub 800lbs logs like on teh youtubez!1!" lol I think over-doing it is good-practice for rigging and am happy to - like w/ my climbing system - know that it's capable of anything I'm trying to do with it! (that's not to say I'd blindly cut things w/o properly analyzing my system both for potentially unexpected forces say side-loading a spar as well as simple&basic guesstimations of peak-dynamic-forces for each cut, that's - obviously - not because I think I'll hurt my rigging gear but simply to ensure the load will be kept under-control!)
 

eyehearttrees

Active Member
I am only using the 3/4" at the moment is that it's short 110' and was a hell of a deal. 5/8" is my next purchase 120'.
1/2" FTW
I’m all about 150’ of 1/2” don’t have to add a second line, has enough for ma etc
How often is 110' proving short for you? My longest (a 1/2) is hardly longer than 120's and while I can just tie two together I've yet to do so :)

Re diameters, KevinS your post strikes at the heart of the point I was making in my SWL/WLL thread, that it's (*zero* personal offenses meant!!) inefficient and a bad choice to "double-duty" a rigging rope, a good bull rope for running/snubbing logs should exhibit high dynamic-capacity, this is a function of elasticity, but w/ mech.advantage (or lifting/hauling/etc) there's no need to account for shock-loading and static/tensile strength is the relevant factor and, here, elasticity isn't offering you any help / may induce noticeable losses of precision.
This ^^^ does not mean (IMO) that "the optimal rigging rope should be sufficient for both activities", it means you should deal-with using your more-elastic bull rope for lifting/mech.advtg or you should get a 2nd, static-line to use for that, but most-certainly not compromise your primary bull-rope! Primary bull-rope is for the majority of the rigging we do - which is inherently a "controlling&slowing dynamic downward forces" situation - which is why Atlas/Polydyne/Nystron are so superior, their capacities for, say, snubbing a log are massively above stuff like Stable Braid/Sirius/etc.

Ropes are cheap enough, heck retired climb-lines are often a suitable "stiff/static 1/2 line" so that's simple, it's not worthwhile to skimp on a true bull-rope's dynamic-capacity so it can double as a pulling line sometimes, 'right tools/right jobs' etc :)

~~~~~~~~~~

Has anybody noticed a significantly-improved response using 5/8 bull rope instead of 1/2 on ringed-rigging setups? Have found my 5/8 to perform so much better that I rarely use my 1/2 (only when I need its length), FWIW I err on the side of extra friction as much as able to (ie have had to feed rope to get a stuck-log to begin descent more than once before :p )
 

eyehearttrees

Active Member
@Birdyman88 Thank you for all the math! It’s been a long time since I’ve done those types of calculations, and I’ve forgotten too many of them... I shall have to do some refreshing now.

On the note of gear purchasing without the Big 3, check out Gap Arborist Supply. Also, consider using Sirius bull rope, it’s less expensive than some and has held up really well for us. We use it all the time, and sometimes on some rather heavy pieces without any problems, and it seems to be reasonably forgiving of new groundies. It’s also very knottable and generally unties fairly easily even when it’s been heavily loaded.
Gap is awesome!! I like to support Wesspur when I can but my last like 5 orders were TEC and Ice Tail from Gap, it's so cool to have free s&h, I get an idea for something I wanna make and just order how much TEC I need :D

+1 in the Sirius..
I think i can get the yellow 16mm for like.. under a buck a foot last time i looked.. & 20mm for $1.39?
Whatever it was, it was $60-$70 less per hank than the "big 3".. as Reach would say..
Quoted you & @Reach in same post because of the promotion of Sirius... Are you guys familiar w/ just how much weaker a bull-rope it is than nystron, polydyne or atlas? I can't urge strongly-enough to read the short article (and/or watch the short accompanying video) by Yale at the top of my signature below, dynamic-capacity is the metric for rigging (okay for "routine dismantling", I know lifting/mech-advntg/other non-dynamic, lesser-utilized configurations don't benefit from extra dynamic-strength only tensile strength)

You cite $1.39 for the biggest Sirius diameter....3/4 Sirius is as-strong (*tensile*, not close on dynamic strength) as 5/8 polydyne, you can get 5/8 polydyne like a buck a foot from Wesspur's clearance page. In fact right now there's:
- $139: 130' of 5/8 Polydyne (19k, 3.5%) (they've got 116' of Sirius 16mm below it for $133, can't imagine how one could choose that when the polydyne $139 is right above it :p )
- $75: 103' of 1/2 Nystron
- $113: 92' of 3/4 Polydyne (26k, strongest tensile 3/4 available, and 2nd-strongest 3/4 dynamically 2nd to Atlas)
Heck even the $80, 100' Double Esterlon 9/16, all of those would totally smoke Sirius for anything where dynamic-strength is a factor which is the overwhelming majority of arb-rigging...

I'm all for having a stiff line for when it's needed (have a Blue Moon hank for when I need a stiff line), but want optimal bull ropes for running/snubbing when I'm dropping logs!!

There's some incredibly impressive double-braids out there but I just don't get how Sirius is popular, it's not especially cheap and it's got poor dynamic-strength, below-average static-strength (but that shouldn't matter much since the overwhelming majority of what we rig is inherently a dynamic-rigging, bothers me how the industry pushes the "% of static-strength" guideline for dynamic-rigging :/
 

flushcut

Well-Known Member
How often is 110' proving short for you? My longest (a 1/2) is hardly longer than 120's and while I can just tie two together I've yet to do so :)

Re diameters, KevinS your post strikes at the heart of the point I was making in my SWL/WLL thread, that it's (*zero* personal offenses meant!!) inefficient and a bad choice to "double-duty" a rigging rope, a good bull rope for running/snubbing logs should exhibit high dynamic-capacity, this is a function of elasticity, but w/ mech.advantage (or lifting/hauling/etc) there's no need to account for shock-loading and static/tensile strength is the relevant factor and, here, elasticity isn't offering you any help / may induce noticeable losses of precision.
This ^^^ does not mean (IMO) that "the optimal rigging rope should be sufficient for both activities", it means you should deal-with using your more-elastic bull rope for lifting/mech.advtg or you should get a 2nd, static-line to use for that, but most-certainly not compromise your primary bull-rope! Primary bull-rope is for the majority of the rigging we do - which is inherently a "controlling&slowing dynamic downward forces" situation - which is why Atlas/Polydyne/Nystron are so superior, their capacities for, say, snubbing a log are massively above stuff like Stable Braid/Sirius/etc.

Ropes are cheap enough, heck retired climb-lines are often a suitable "stiff/static 1/2 line" so that's simple, it's not worthwhile to skimp on a true bull-rope's dynamic-capacity so it can double as a pulling line sometimes, 'right tools/right jobs' etc :)

~~~~~~~~~~

Has anybody noticed a significantly-improved response using 5/8 bull rope instead of 1/2 on ringed-rigging setups? Have found my 5/8 to perform so much better that I rarely use my 1/2 (only when I need its length), FWIW I err on the side of extra friction as much as able to (ie have had to feed rope to get a stuck-log to begin descent more than once before :p )
The 3/4" 110' I use is for trunk wood and it has yet to be short on a job.
 

eyehearttrees

Active Member
One last thing and I’m just curious, that Safebloc you just got? I hear they’re pretty awesome. Is there a name on it from the manufacturer or distributer?
Yeah it is awesome and mine's an older Sherrill unit (no Notch stamping), why do you ask was there a bad batch or something? (I've heard no complaints on product-quality for any of these solid-state friction anchors, would be eager to hear if anyone's heard others' issues!)


It might’ve been here that I read someone comparing it to stopping your car at a stop sign. You don’t lock up your brakes from 50mph 20 feet before a stop sign, right? You slow down before stopping. I like that analogy, makes a lot of sense to me and wish I remember who wrote it.
I like that in a sense but generally dislike this type of analogy if it isn't spot-on and in this case it's comparing something stopping itself by "pushing" (brake system pinching the wheels) to something getting stopped by "pulling" (of the rope tethered to it) At any case its point is simple and, I hope, universally understood&un-disputed: you run logs as much as practical, you don't snub unless you have to, etc but I don't see it having implications to elasticity-percentage.

Your main point though is Re length-of-rope in the system, this is most certainly a factor in the system's dynamic capacity and the more rope you've got, the stiffer it could be while still retaining a given dynamic capacity, no doubt....but that's almost self-evident, when talking of these actions the integral factor is that split second where peak-force is hit, where the cordage goes from normal to under-increasing-load til the Peak Force of a given hit, during that moment the rope elongates ever so slightly - 0.5% increases on elasticity increase elongation about 2" on a 30' drop of 10%ABS - and its the gross/total elongation that's 'shock-absorbing' that force which, as you say, could be achieved comparably whether it's a 3% rope at 30' or a 1% rope at 90'.

That said I keep hearing a sentiment I can't understand and you echo it so I'm hoping you can explain:
Strength of all components is definitely important and so is elasticity in the line, I’m not saying it isn’t, but the difference between that 3% or 1% means fuckall if you’re being bodily flung around like a muppet at the top of a spruce spar.
The shock-absorbing characteristics of a line....how would that be causing more spar movement exactly? I feel like people almost picture an elastic band, as-if a 500lbs log would descent and, immediately after reaching peak-force, the elastic contracts and the 500lbs log rises. That is certainly not what happens. What happens is that when the groundie is trying to run that log, the line stretches a lil and 'equalizes' with the load/log until it has come to the ground; it does not 'recoil'/rebound/rise in fact I wish there were another term to use because "elasticity", when talking of <5% cordage, is almost an improper term ('yield' is probably a better way to put it) and going from a 1% to 3% will not change the fact that your groundie's running of the load determines swing-of-spar and, contrary to your general sentiment actually, more-dynamic cordage (nystron over stable braid, say) also inherently reduces peak-forces in the rigging system - including that spar that is anchoring your sling & part of the system - by virtue of absorbing force itself, this is true whether we're working that 500lbs log from 30' or 130', in both cases the higher dynamic-capacity wins at reducing the forces that hit your spar when your groundie's running/catching(even snubbing) that load.

I think most picture a rubber band when theorizing on this....when discussing 1%-->4% cordages' elongation, an elastic is wildly inappropriate these are stiff/static ropes, I feel like a better analogy would be something like foam/rubber grips say on a bicycle, you're riding up&down a bumpy road and the grips are there "soaking-up" just those highest peaks of force but otherwise quite stiff. At no point do the grips make your connection to the bike feel anything less than precise & absolute, they simply compress ever so slightly when hit w/ unusually high forces (and you don't "feel a spring" or 'push-back' from the grips if/when you've leaned into them)
 

eyehearttrees

Active Member
I had a 3/4" rope that was stolen a couple of years ago that I never bothered to replace. I can do all of my rigging with half inch and when bigger trunk pieces must be rigged I set up a double whip tackle to lower them, otherwise we just bomb trunk pieces or fell them.
A good 1/2, used properly, can certainly move some serious weight!! Random thought I had yesterday- what's stopping you from just grabbing the center of your 1/2 and "doubling up" when you need more strength? Since the rope's folded in half it's touching itself but should be close to zero rope-on-rope-friction since they'd move together..

Love the double whip configuration & can't see any reason it shouldn't be a default-technique when loads are getting heavier, even if you coulda just done more wraps at basal position the double-whip is reducing peak-forces throughout the system (instead of full-force through whole system until the bollard)

Are you doing ring/Safebloc whips using frictionless pulleys? All the reasons that make rings/Safeblocs great, and that make double-whips great, make double-safebloc-whipping a pretty impressive state-of-the-art rigging system (have seen @Pfanner man Lawrence Schultz's videos pushing such systems to the max and implore anybody rigging to go watch his channel LawrenceSchultz3000 he's the best example I know for general ingenuity w/ 'modern'/friction-based systems) In-anticipation of "there's too-little rope at that spot of the system to use friction there" concerns, here's double-safebloc'ing (video is set to the right moment)
, and here's L.Schultz double-system double-whipping (rings not Safeblocs) a very heavy snub-off:
Sorry to pre-emptively address a concern but it always comes up when talking double whips w/o using frictionless pulleys, so many think you need frictionless when you can very much "use brakes" even here in the anchoring of a double-whip setup! (very much love how you can view each friction anchor as 'brakes' in these systems, like not only does adding another rig&ring in the canopy spread-load/equalize but it adds more friction 'brakes', reducing the peak-forces a given log can generate to the system!) Such a cool time to be rigging, am convinced these changes are as big for rigging as SRT for climbing, just imaging max-capacity of a modern system compared to an old 3-strand natural crotching is insane I expect rigging will move away from blocks entirely within a decade!

[edited-in: upon seeing your username... was reading last night and saw a post by you for splicing the Bloc into a sling horizontally instead of vertically and couldn't help wonder Is that the whole reason Notch/Sherrill came out with that triangle-THT? Had initially thought the Safebloc far superior in fact wouldn't have bought the triangle triple-hole-thimble but now I wonder a bit...would like to see/hold the triangle or see side-by-side to a Safebloc, if it's large enough I'd want one and I'm wayyy into my Safebloc I think it's one of the best pieces of rigging hardware you can buy but it could be improved, it's a shame because it's been un-touched for over half a decade and Sherrill is still gouging on the price so it's not remotely as well-adopted as a device of its kind should be!]
 
Last edited:

Jehinten

Well-Known Member
edited-in: upon seeing your username... was reading last night and saw a post by you for splicing the Bloc into a sling horizontally instead of vertically and couldn't help wonder Is that the whole reason Notch/Sherrill came out with that triangle-THT?
I cannot speculate as to how they decided to redesign the safebloc for their product. it's quite possible that my thought process evolved into the THT or that someone from Notch had a similar idea.

As to your earlier question I mainly use rings, I have one omni that I rarely use anymore and one 3/4" block that typically gets used in pulling applications.

When I was double blocking I used true blue rope, all 3 thimbles of the THT tied on with 3/4" stable braid deadeye sling on the spar and a 3/4" tennex deadeye with two #2 notch/ABR rigging rings and a porta wrap at the base for additional friction.

As for why not always use double block on heavier pieces, it takes longer to set up and the pieces do not run away from the climber as fast meaning a little more potential for a climber being struck by the piece. The groundie has to to run the rope three times as fast in order to match the speed of traditional blocking down.
 

eyehearttrees

Active Member
First off, don't try to do too much at once. Learn one skill at a time. Master that skill. Then add on other skills.
Couldn't agree more! It's intimidating for sure, all that's involved w/ a strong-skill-level in dynamic-rigging (guys like Reg Coates, Lawrence Schultz are artists at it IMO) and w/ the magnitude of risk involved I see it as essentially akin to life support ie only given less-seriousness due to subconscious-biases that'd place my body over a free-falling log, but so far as I approach it I see it as black/white ie you don't, can't, mess-up w/ rigging (if you want a decent career, and one's career tends to be one's life....I'm approaching it very conservatively and w/ full appreciation of my goals of being allowed on the biggest jobs, rigging the biggest stuff, and know fully-well how disqualifying&ruinous a misstep can be!!)

Spider legging and balancing is totally different than negative blocking. Can you use some of the same equipment. Yes, totally. But it is different forces involved.
Well put! And by "and balancing"...do you mean load-spreading via extra anchors or misphrasing "balancing-with-spiderlegs"?

Re equipment, I agree & wish more took that point more seriously so far as static-versus-dynamic. I know I can use a lot of my anchors as dual-purpose gear, sure, but I like that I was lucky enough to have a super-static 1.4% 1/2" line (Blue Moon) to add to my rig-kit for mech.advantage, for lifting, for pull-overs or back-tying, etc etc....and have my proper, shock-absorbing bull-rope - Polydyne(3.5%) - for 'all routine/normal rigging' ie "controlling a log's downward descent after it's severed from the tree", more elasticity here (within reason obviously) means more shock-absorption IE not only does my 5/8 p.dyne take way higher dynamic-force hits than, say, Stable Braid or Sirius but, more importantly, that shock-absorption equates directly to less forces going-into the rest of the system....The rope 'takes some load', this isn't of much relevance moving 150lbs chunks but once weights go up it becomes of major consequence!

(And Re "Different forces involved", I think we can say that's true - like a snowflake - for every piece of wood ever felled from a tree, I like "force vectors can change dramatically based on systems" because you could be awesome at predicting/assessing systems for snubbing logs but suck at anticipating side-loading and think you're being 'conservative' while chucking a 50% load (dynamically/negative line-angle) into a speedline no let's say a controlled speedline w/ every anchor on that same spar you're on, a spar you could've dropped/snubbed all day on w/o issue, and you snap it in half from side-tension! I see it as "same types of forces, different angles/vectors" because at the end of the day it's always (for 'regular rigging') always a piece of wood allowed to briefly free-fall before being slowed to a controllable speed and/or to a full stop whether in the air or hitting ground @50% impact because it's just a "don't mash the sod too hard" type of rigging)

As far as negative blocking. Go to Wesspur.com. Look at rigging kits. Buy one with 5/8" stable braid, block, port-a-wrap and slings. This will allow you to rig nice size (100-200lb) pieces easily and safely. I have used on even larger pieces but I always check my physics first.
Sorry man but couldn't disagree more, using a static line(1.1% Stable Braid) on a frictionless block, and controlling the works via basal-bollard, is old-school (and heck 100-200lbs 'nice sized'? Any old climb-line w/ any anchor should be fine for 250lbs if you've got a strong groundie - for my setup, I can rig it so a 150lbs piece isn't heavy-enough to pull the rope through the system and that's w/o taking wraps anywhere unless you count the Safebloc!)

"State of the art" is ringed-/friction-based rigging now. Compare a Fiori's Ring (or a doublehead/boomersling with two XL rings) to a large DMM Impact Block, you've got comparable bend-radius for your bull-rope only difference is the Impact Block is poised to let that log fly down to earth un-hindered while Fiori's ring, just by itself, will slow-down that log. By using multiple ringed/friction devices (rings, porty's, Safeblocs especially) you can effectively "add brakes" inherent to the system so that, for all practical purposes, that 500lbs log you're about to cut will hit system, hit the spar and hit your groundie more like a 300lbs log. You can do WAY more weight w/ same groundie, or same weight w/ way more control/safety (or, as-is usually the optimum in such scenarios, a bit of both - I'd argue Lawrence Schultz is almost the epitome of doing more, much safer, than average/industry-best-practice/old-school rigging where you're intentionally setting a frictionless system with a bollard at the end to provide all the brakes. Setups like mine make it simple to quickly place 2, 3 or more anchors to add-brakes as well as to distribute/equalize forces- I like to think of it as "The weak-link in a rigging setup should be @the load; anchorage should be stronger than bull rope which is stronger than log-slings. Ergo, a 'good' or 'heavy duty, fully-capable' setup is one where, oftentimes, my weak-link is the tree itself" Such thinking has me even more in love w/ my new 10', 3/4 polydyne anchor with an XL on either end, makes is so damn simple to set a spread-anchor w/ 1 sling in so many common canopies, wish it were a bit longer but was working from a single-ringed-sling so.. :p

I have used on even larger pieces
See sub-200lbs is basically "sawyer can run the load from the canopy" in these friction setups :D

but I always check my physics first.
Need to learn my damn Log Impact Force calculator-wheel already :p (that nifty Samson tool)

Stay away from treestuff. Ever since Sherrell bought them out service and delivery has tanked. Shame because they are not far from me.
Stick with a kit to start as the pros put these together to work. Don't try to recreate the wheel.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Agreed I wouldn't buy anything from them except Safebloc/THT if(/when) getting a 2nd one (from sherrrill/treestuff/notch, any entity under their umbrella)
But...Re kits... most suck and are a terrible deal, building your own to your needs isn't analogous to rebuilding the wheel hell kits are almost always a crummy purchase IME! Also I think - and don't mean this as-insult - but think your conception of these kits is something you need to evaluate, they're most-certainly *not* put together by pros because it's what's best, they're put together by retailers for the purpose of selling more units, these approaches' goals are typically not one and the same :/
 
Last edited:

eyehearttrees

Active Member
Have done similar to shown with carabiners together in sling (tighter bend for smaller loads on softer ropes), even spread for softer arc for larger loads etc. Contact radius in round device gives friction not contact distance.
Just using friction as a variable, lower frictions used here to just take initial brunt , metal can be heat sink against heat buildup.
.
High friction at redirect point reduces control side/leg tensions to reduce loading on redirect.
.
Used to have huge shackle wet ground numbers off of , and had pin/cotter key (hence some of my pin/cotter key imagery in knotting) for heavier rigging with friction between pulley and limb ratings, and could act as heatsink; aluminum more jealous metal, grabbing heat more evenly across more quickly from neighboring position; thus preferred in cooking, like softer copper that also heats evenly, cast iron too but is more brittle etc. for this job.
.
Also as sling with carabiner at either end in Clove with the cross on TOP of the limb, not in normal side position, nor crossed under limb, but on top/opposite load pull ; long enough so that carabiners clear limb underneath but try to have some space apart for total spread distance. Not for heaviest loading but very workable to same theory in smaller, within power band for that bend/deformation.
.
Sometimes go thru eye/ring/shackle/krab device then some metered wood friction after, at same height/angle, for higher angle lifts off of device frictions, lower doesn't reduce loading to control leg. So look for same height or angled lower , dot or 2 of wood friction rub to take some more spikes out of force after device takes peaks. Not enough force nor distance nor turns to concentrate heat build up on wood insulator. Just a dab here and there, it all counts. Another reason for carrying sling/krab sets are just to bend lines slightly to and from 'friction trails' against wood. Have to watch this value more if looking to control fall load faster, just not letting speed build too fast so can snub out final force into ground etc. Preset sling/krab to line trail near climber gives climber ready handle to increase or decrease high frictions on the fly or um drop! Free fall part of force not pulling on frictions, only restricted part of force. careful with speed, in E=MCsquared; speed is the squared variable slight increases in acceleration give greater and greater EXPONENTIAL force increase, just like squared promises..
.
Rope choice is connection element, with elastic dampening per length of rope in system at peak hit. Rope choice, can make or change whole game just like load weight, frictions, run etc.
arbormaster.com/uploads/files/Samson Arborist Rope Technical Information.pdf

edit:some rope tests standards REQUIRE 5-6 pulls to prove strength, resilience, absorptions etc. on 5th round not 1st pull/drop to assign rating. At the high end of usage, can run past ceiling of power band and be with no headroom; even doing everything the same to the same, successive hits to same line handle differently, as the rope is changed some of which can be slowly recoverable, some perhaps not. Especially when support is pure down vertical trunk column of no give (vs. other angles and positions that framework of tree takes some of the beating for rope, that pure trunk column won't).
Wow what an outstanding post have read it multiple times now this is how I see it I like you mention friction as "dab here, dab there" as I think that's one of the cooler attributes in these systems IE not concentrating all stopping-power at end-of-line w/ the bollard, am sure this spreading-out of friction/brakes is what accounts-for the reports of increased smoothness&control with friction-rigging compared to old school: for the same peak-force on the groundie's position on the line, you'd need a bigger initial force in the system obviously since there's built-in-brakes to be overcome, however when the groundie is pulling that rope w/ spread-out "brakes" they're working a more-consistent piece of cordage than one that's essentially un-touched/full-load for its whole run right til the termination-at bollard, heck if you considered a super elastic 10% rope being used it's easier to see how the load would have wayyyy more rope to elongate unrestricted, basically all rope in-system until the bollard, whereas in a modern system the rope would only be able to stretch-out in-between anchor points which means that there's lower peak-elongation of said rope, I wish I could do the math on this to see how the #'s look in real-world scenarios but should be pretty self-evident/intuitive that if you're needing "20 units of friction" to manage a log on a very-elastic line, if you'd used (20) single-unit devices spread-out your elastic line wouldn't have anywhere to elongate remotely as much as if the rope were unimpeded for its entire run until it met 20 units of friction on the bollard. *Less relative-elongation mid-descent should have 'smoother', more consistent feel to it*


So great coming-at the problem of "controlled downward descent" from a multiple friction-points context I mean it's simple to setup systems where a heavy piece is moving-down slowly because of how much friction you've put on the line and, again wish I knew how to put #'s to it, but I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that more-elastic lines (Polydyne over Sirius for example) will perform better on friction stuff, wish I could do the #'s to see but while either Sirius or Polydyne benefit from such systems, the more-elastic line will have more 'give' to allow sliding or 'more precise' sliding, have zero doubt a 'blind Coke test' would see 99%+ of groundies preferring the feel of a line coming from spread-friction over one coming off a drum/bollard!

Thanks again that was a really good post! Would want to clarify that in the Samson url you listed, when they illustrate that pic of negative-rigging and have lines depicting where Poly, poly/nylon, and nylon would have the log land, that is bogus sadly. They do qualify it as-such (ie the fine print acknowledges those lines are just 'for illustration' ie not accurate in-relation to each other) but IMO it makes nylon out to be inferior (which is common sentiment sadly) Thankfully on the next page they have a chart on varying rope-fibres' attributes and you can see the elongation of nylon, relative to poly, is not the chasm implied by their 'illustration' on the prior page!)

(PS- also re elongation and getting it back/recoil, you say 'perhaps', sadly elongation due to higher %ABS hits is largely permanent :/ Each time you hit a rope w/ a higher %ABS, you're stretching it more / lowering its elongation so my 3.5% polydyne may only be 3% after a year, or someone's 1.1% Stable Braid may start stiffening to a dyneema-like 0.5%..no bueno if dynamic-loading is anywhere in sight! This is another reason I love 5/8 polydyne by default, not only does the thicker diameter & higher elasticity allow friction-anchors to work so much better, but if I'm doing a given job and hitting my rope w/ given weights, I'm damaging my 5/8 less than my 1/2 because I'm giving it a lower %ABS hit each time :) )
 

eyehearttrees

Active Member
To do the actual math on rigging for one set answer is pretty much an insane notion. Rope wet or dry, exact consistency in rigger, pendulum, drop, rope stretch, tree flex, wind, wood variations, foliage or bud or twig density or angle, was your anchor point tightened and stretched 1/4”, etc this list could be a mile long and to confine to a numerical value is insane. This is why we have an SWL or WLL it bundles the unknowns lowers the base load.
I don't disagree with you at all, wasn't my intent to imply a literal, accurate peak-force's value is supposed to be determined (and I fear my comment on "just going-on-gut instead of worrying about #'s" was worded poorly, of course you're going on your gut in-practice, not holding a calculator in-tree)
But.....while I'm not advocating anyone's aiming for precise #'s, it being nigh impossible anyways, I'm equally contemptuous of the false-security or peace-of-mind from the misguided "1:10 or 1:5 WLL" concept in and of itself (have a thread on this w/ "SWL WLL" in-title) because such an approach 100.0% allows someone to spend years negative-rigging, successfully, using Atlas(4.5%) and swaps over to Sirius (1.5%), if they were already working the Atlas to 75% capacity and go and use Sirius in the same manner they will destroy/rupture their Sirius despite using their 1:X SWL guideline. These SWL #'s are based on tensile/static strength which makes them an improper guideline for dynamic-strengths but dynamic-strengths are the metric when rigging.

Heck I've got Samson's log-impact calculator and haven't learned to use it yet, getting specific-values for a force would be silly and is overkill anyways as you're not needing anything specific, merely whether it's in an acceptable range (maybe up to 10%ABS, although it'd be dynamic-ABS when doing any real rigging so Sirius, while kinda close on static-ABS, is seriously behind in dynamic-ABS) I also think that in practice it's almost conceptualized backwards, IE it's not "calculate load, set appropriate system" it's "set system, know what your system's safe-tolerance is, and make your cuts calculated-upon[mentally] upon your safe-tolerance #", once I've setup and am in-tree I don't need a calculator, I simply have-in-mind what my system can take and, when choosing where my next cut is made, assess that said piece + its fall aren't going to take me outta my safe zone!

(all that said, Sirius is, like most reputable double-braids in existence today, a strong-AF rope and in normal-use - used at appropriate diameters - it'll most-certainly get the jobs done that's not my point my point is it's sub-optimal, you can work heavier pieces w/ Atlas than Sirius to be at identical dynamic-%-ABS since Atlas' is so much higher than Sirius)


I was always taught if your going to rig you have to own it whether you have to run it to miss a target or lock it off cause a kid just ran into the yard you have to handle the full range if locking it off can cause rigging failure you did it wrong.
That's awesome I love it, will never forget this one! Had heard it put as "it's always your operation/move" ie you can't put blame on a groundie (or shouldn't?), I agree in-general although obviously groundies can mess things up hell a groundie can intentionally snuff a load to buck you out of a tree if they were so inclined, but I get&agree w/ the sentiment that as rigger you're in charge of outcomes and I LOVE the concept of "kid ran into yard", hadn't really considered the concept of "appearing/moving targets" and love(knowing-about) it, thanks :)
 

eyehearttrees

Active Member
I cannot speculate as to how they decided to redesign the safebloc for their product. it's quite possible that my thought process evolved into the THT or that someone from Notch had a similar idea.
If I were you I'd be curious enough to check dates :p Not that you'd be able to do anything if it were yours but it'd be neat to know :)

Wish I could hold one of them to get a feel for size and how practical they'd be w/ 3/4 rope (not using 3/4, just that I know my Safebloc would just-barely get along w/ 3/4, and it works a dream w/ 5/8, so would only want the THT if its hole sizing&spacing were on-point w/ a Safebloc) Had initially dismissed it as inferior to Safeblocs but now I'm not so sure, Safebloc's biggest drawback is how it automatically creates like 10" of slack in-system because of distance from bottom-hole up to top-of-eye-splice is "wasted" on hardware-length, making it a triangle helps that but *only* if the ropes still move the same (my gut, after reviewing dimensions & trying to visualize IRL, tells me it's probably better to keep it w/ 1/2's than 5/8 and w/ how great 5/8 works/"fits" with XL/#3 rings and Safeblocs has me pretty set on that diameter!)


As to your earlier question I mainly use rings, I have one omni that I rarely use anymore and one 3/4" block that typically gets used in pulling applications.
With how often this ^ sentiment is expressed, I'm left dumbfounded at how blocks are still as popular as they are (hell I consider a theoretical block whose wheel has an infinitely adjustable "friction-range", from spinning friction-free[like regular blocks] to full lock-up[like an X-ring of similar diameter], now consider setting this block as your primary/terminal anchor before throwing wood into it:Who would intentionally turn that dial to friction-free? The choice between a Fiori & an Impact Block should be self-evident yet obviously it's not :p

Insane how often I hear that sentiment tho, "got good frictionless-hardware and now it's of lil use after I got friction-hardware", just people on forums is one thing but it's also pro's like Reg Coates who's as top-tier skill level as I've seen.

As for why not always use double block on heavier pieces, it takes longer to set up and the pieces do not run away from the climber as fast meaning a little more potential for a climber being struck by the piece. The groundie has to to run the rope three times as fast in order to match the speed of traditional blocking down.
I see a potential contradiction in your reasoning there-- if worrying about a piece coming-back, said piece wasn't large-enough to warrant double-whipping it....knowing what is/is not going to fly away - even with double-whip setup - is certainly critical, I guess I'm seeing it more as "when working >400lbs wood, especially if you can't run it too far, double-whipping becomes useful", certainly wouldn't want to waste time "specializing" setups for sub-250lbs riggings... For example's sake, in the context of dismantling a 40' Oak with soft-targets below(can land the wood but only gently/in full-control), I would see double-whip as a tool for maybe topping it, then perhaps on some limbs if taking real large ones, but mostly for trunk-wood once it's at "pole-in-ground" stage.

(I'd feel dishonest not to include that, as someone who solo-rigs quite often, to include my idea that I can use a Safebloc to feed a double-whip setup and control WAY more, solo, than I otherwise could've! Although in such situations the swing-back worry is even bigger, naturally, since you're not aiming to let it get a 'fast start' on its run after-cut!)
 

Jehinten

Well-Known Member
I see a potential contradiction in your reasoning there-- if worrying about a piece coming-back, said piece wasn't large-enough to warrant double-whipping it
Keep in mind, I didn't mention it in my post that your responding to, not only does the groundie need to let it run 3X as fast as normal but he also needs to do so while only controlling 1/3 of the weight of the piece. That's only 1/3 in a friction less setup, that fraction becomes smaller once you introduce a lot of friction up top.


As far as blocks go, it's far from useless and I do not regret buying it. Sure it does not come out as often as my rings but each tool has its place. Personally I'd rather buy a block vs a pulley for rigging with the exception of an omnibloc (not really a block) and a pinto rig, being used in a rig-n-wrench.

Occasionally there are force multipliers that are not accounted for and it's a nice piece of mind to know that you have a tool in place that can handle anything that you throw at it. As much as we try to forsee every possible scenario sometimes things happen.


As for the triple thimble and how it interfaces with 3/4 rope, are you looking at the host rope or the rigging rope? I have mine spliced on a 3/4 host rope and can run that sling through it for a pic, but I've never lowered with it and a 3/4 rope.
 

*useless info*

Well-Known Member
Probably best to piggy back a 'compression jig' 3:1 etc to mainline to sequentially pull into Porty etc.
Remove jig and then ground control doesn't have to worry about 3xFast etc. as just works the mainline.
.
Spread friction points lessens heat concentration buildup and glazing i think. Also gives variety of sweat/swig points between the frictional points.
.
Can control tightened static line to have enough slip to give smoother ushering to ground, more like elastic. System only incurs the force it resists, some measured freefall w/o acceleration with all metal redirect and braking to dissipate heat is doable in small/medium loads, harder target to hit w/o forgiveness of dynamic line to dampen and smooth. Elasticity to me is as electric capacitor, smooth many things, especially high end force spikes.
 

Jehinten

Well-Known Member
Probably best to piggy back a 'compression jig' 3:1 etc to mainline to sequentially pull into Porty etc.
Remove jig and then ground control doesn't have to worry about 3xFast etc. as just works the mainline.
If all your wanting is to tighten the line, then I agree with you. The 3X speed/ 1/3 weight is using double whip tackle to lower too heavy of loads for a rated rope. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you've written.
 

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Kask Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger Tracked Lifts Climbing Innovations
Top Bottom