TreeCo
Carpal tunnel level member
Innovative thinking, Reg!
New Lowering device!
- Thread starter Reg
- Start date
TC
Participating member
[ QUOTE ]
Video please!
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for those lacking in experience or imagination perhaps, I’ll put a video together!
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey! I just thought a video would be a nice appendage to the pics!
Video please!
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for those lacking in experience or imagination perhaps, I’ll put a video together!
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey! I just thought a video would be a nice appendage to the pics!
- Location
- healdsburg, CA
[ QUOTE ]
So far in this thread I have made a conscious effort not to submit any negative comments or comparisons at/with past or present Lowering devices that made it to the market….I can only hope that other contributing members will respectfully do the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey I meant no disrespect. The TreeBuzz is a place to talk about gear, and have conversations about it.
I agree, and respect you, for presenting your device in such a fair and non-biased way. As I mentioned in some of my first posts I think you have done a great innovative job in 'pushing the boundries' and thinking outside the box.
I meant what I said. Truly if we all did not do this our industry would be stagnant with no innovations.
[ QUOTE ]
What’s more, it’s a sad day when one party begrudges and tries to undermine another’s attempt in making its product available. I say let the workers decide which best suits their needs!
[/ QUOTE ]
By all means, let the user decide!
The RH attachment on the lever ought to lift 500lb easy enough Frans, if you had reason to do so that is?[/b]
Yea, for me lifting loads and pre-tensioning lines is essential. Not optional.
[ QUOTE ]
Does a superb job, or so I’m told.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or, for slightly more money Slightly??? you could buy one of two devices (GRCS or HOBBS) which provide you with so much more in terms of durability, ease of use, longevity, based on what evidence? and lifting (I’ll agree with that) and lowering capabilities. Wrong!
[/ QUOTE ]
'Slightly' more money. Yes, to me it is not alot more money considering that I do jobs everyday 2500 dollars as a business expense is small change considering that these lowering devices save me so much time and effort on the job.
But then again, I value tools which make my life easier so I don't hesitate to make those purchases. But there are those who just cannot or will not spend money on these types of tools.
I have met folks who have new trucks with a 1000 dollars worth of signage on the truck but still take wraps on the tree because they say these lowering devices are 'too expensive'.
I guess it depends on how you want to spend your money.
Or how much you can afford to spend and whether or not it can be justified against other essentials
[ QUOTE ]
Frans, on several occasion’s you have publicly referred to the portowrap as the portocrap. And the Hobbs = boat anchor…. Why the sudden change of heart?
[/ QUOTE ]
Getting older and wiser maybe? I still hold my opinions, but I expect that most folks come here for constructive information, and not rank opinions.
[ QUOTE ]
And of course they are most welcome Frans….I was expecting them. In fact, I have looked through some of the L.D archives on various forums and where ever a device is mentioned, you are there e.g http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=51998&an=0&page=12#51998 ….why such an interest? My incentive is quite obvious!
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Those opinions were stated in 2002. It is now 2009, 7 years later.
Times change, and so do I.
I really do think that ANY lowering device is essential to do proper tree work.
so keep up the good work! And thank you for respecting me enough to respond to my post.
Frans
So far in this thread I have made a conscious effort not to submit any negative comments or comparisons at/with past or present Lowering devices that made it to the market….I can only hope that other contributing members will respectfully do the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey I meant no disrespect. The TreeBuzz is a place to talk about gear, and have conversations about it.
I agree, and respect you, for presenting your device in such a fair and non-biased way. As I mentioned in some of my first posts I think you have done a great innovative job in 'pushing the boundries' and thinking outside the box.
I meant what I said. Truly if we all did not do this our industry would be stagnant with no innovations.
[ QUOTE ]
What’s more, it’s a sad day when one party begrudges and tries to undermine another’s attempt in making its product available. I say let the workers decide which best suits their needs!
[/ QUOTE ]
By all means, let the user decide!
The RH attachment on the lever ought to lift 500lb easy enough Frans, if you had reason to do so that is?[/b]
Yea, for me lifting loads and pre-tensioning lines is essential. Not optional.
[ QUOTE ]
Does a superb job, or so I’m told.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or, for slightly more money Slightly??? you could buy one of two devices (GRCS or HOBBS) which provide you with so much more in terms of durability, ease of use, longevity, based on what evidence? and lifting (I’ll agree with that) and lowering capabilities. Wrong!
[/ QUOTE ]
'Slightly' more money. Yes, to me it is not alot more money considering that I do jobs everyday 2500 dollars as a business expense is small change considering that these lowering devices save me so much time and effort on the job.
But then again, I value tools which make my life easier so I don't hesitate to make those purchases. But there are those who just cannot or will not spend money on these types of tools.
I have met folks who have new trucks with a 1000 dollars worth of signage on the truck but still take wraps on the tree because they say these lowering devices are 'too expensive'.
I guess it depends on how you want to spend your money.
Or how much you can afford to spend and whether or not it can be justified against other essentials
[ QUOTE ]
Frans, on several occasion’s you have publicly referred to the portowrap as the portocrap. And the Hobbs = boat anchor…. Why the sudden change of heart?
[/ QUOTE ]
Getting older and wiser maybe? I still hold my opinions, but I expect that most folks come here for constructive information, and not rank opinions.
[ QUOTE ]
And of course they are most welcome Frans….I was expecting them. In fact, I have looked through some of the L.D archives on various forums and where ever a device is mentioned, you are there e.g http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=51998&an=0&page=12#51998 ….why such an interest? My incentive is quite obvious!
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Those opinions were stated in 2002. It is now 2009, 7 years later.
Times change, and so do I.
I really do think that ANY lowering device is essential to do proper tree work.
so keep up the good work! And thank you for respecting me enough to respond to my post.
Frans
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
[ QUOTE ]
Reg, you said you were asked to design the device, did you do the fabricating too?
[/ QUOTE ]
I have some basic tools and skills so can fabricate simple prototypes like this one. Today the device went over to a Design Engineer where it’ll be refined into a more cost effective product to manufacture. It’s great when you don’t have to pick up all the bills.
Yesterday we were able to isolate 35 ft horizontals in a crown, draw them through and out the other side in a straight line....no folding or bending, nor need to start down at the bottom and work up. There's not another LD that can do that on its own. The video, when it comes, will hopefully switch a few lights on!
I am delighted with the feedback from the various operators so far.
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, is that a heavy bag in your shop? Do you use it/like it much?
[/ QUOTE ]
I used to use one when I was much younger. A friend of mine was throwing that one out a couple of years ago so I said I’d have it….seemed like a good idea at the time, never gets used, story of my life
Reg, you said you were asked to design the device, did you do the fabricating too?
[/ QUOTE ]
I have some basic tools and skills so can fabricate simple prototypes like this one. Today the device went over to a Design Engineer where it’ll be refined into a more cost effective product to manufacture. It’s great when you don’t have to pick up all the bills.
Yesterday we were able to isolate 35 ft horizontals in a crown, draw them through and out the other side in a straight line....no folding or bending, nor need to start down at the bottom and work up. There's not another LD that can do that on its own. The video, when it comes, will hopefully switch a few lights on!
I am delighted with the feedback from the various operators so far.
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, is that a heavy bag in your shop? Do you use it/like it much?
[/ QUOTE ]
I used to use one when I was much younger. A friend of mine was throwing that one out a couple of years ago so I said I’d have it….seemed like a good idea at the time, never gets used, story of my life
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
It seems like there would always be enough MA, using just the lever, to take all or most of the stretch out of a rigging line. Not having to account for the variable of rope stretch makes rigging a lot easier. How many times has a piece been rigged, accounting for rope stretch [which turns out wrong] and the piece takes a swing/fall and gets snarled? Having a rigging line pre-tensioned makes things flow so much smoother.
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
[ QUOTE ]
Got it Reg.
Reg, what makes your device so much more inexpensive than a Hobbs? With the extra bollard and the lever, they seem like the prices would be similar.
[/ QUOTE ]
The come-a-long/capstan on the Hobbs is why all the corresponding heavy-duty material has to accommodate in keeping the stresses uniformed and the whole device stable under loading. Even with the rope running through the first entry hook, without a cut-in that initial wrap is about 7 in from the trunk, so the rope-leverage that pulls the device upwards needs to be and is evidently well counterbalanced.
My device is much closer to the tree so doesn’t need to be cut in, although this can alleviate the stresses on the strap also where big wood is being lowered. A rope has 4 options in entering the device with pins strategically positioned and bored through each barrel to prevent the ropes over lapping. The mounting at the back is simple, no frills but works just fine….yet to give any cause for concern…..and don’t forget the strap is backed up by the choker, which even if the strap came loose (for whatever reason) would keep the device correctly aligned while the load is brought to the ground. The tensioning bar is nothing much of a job either. The device as a whole uses only as much material as is needed to do the job, hence the price….oh, and we’re not greedy or assuming!
Got it Reg.
Reg, what makes your device so much more inexpensive than a Hobbs? With the extra bollard and the lever, they seem like the prices would be similar.
[/ QUOTE ]
The come-a-long/capstan on the Hobbs is why all the corresponding heavy-duty material has to accommodate in keeping the stresses uniformed and the whole device stable under loading. Even with the rope running through the first entry hook, without a cut-in that initial wrap is about 7 in from the trunk, so the rope-leverage that pulls the device upwards needs to be and is evidently well counterbalanced.
My device is much closer to the tree so doesn’t need to be cut in, although this can alleviate the stresses on the strap also where big wood is being lowered. A rope has 4 options in entering the device with pins strategically positioned and bored through each barrel to prevent the ropes over lapping. The mounting at the back is simple, no frills but works just fine….yet to give any cause for concern…..and don’t forget the strap is backed up by the choker, which even if the strap came loose (for whatever reason) would keep the device correctly aligned while the load is brought to the ground. The tensioning bar is nothing much of a job either. The device as a whole uses only as much material as is needed to do the job, hence the price….oh, and we’re not greedy or assuming!
Makes sense, Reg. Sounds like a great design. Best of Luck with it!
When you need 2 bollards, like at the base of a speed line tree, it seems ideal. But in the interest of further cost and weight savings, what are your thoughts re a model with just one bollard plus the lever? Sometimes you need 2 bollards or lowering devices but need them on 2 different trees. Seems like you could use a single bollard for many applications, then add a porty when you need a second belay device.
When you need 2 bollards, like at the base of a speed line tree, it seems ideal. But in the interest of further cost and weight savings, what are your thoughts re a model with just one bollard plus the lever? Sometimes you need 2 bollards or lowering devices but need them on 2 different trees. Seems like you could use a single bollard for many applications, then add a porty when you need a second belay device.
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
[ QUOTE ]
Makes sense, Reg. Sounds like a great design. Best of Luck with it!
When you need 2 bollards, like at the base of a speed line tree, it seems ideal. But in the interest of further cost and weight savings, what are your thoughts re a model with just one bollard plus the lever? Sometimes you need 2 bollards or lowering devices but need them on 2 different trees. Seems like you could use a single bollard for many applications, then add a porty when you need a second belay device.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cory
I’ve tried setting a porty next to the hobbs a few times, and while its workable its also slow and sometimes awkward for one person working the two ropes at the same time….and even more so if he then has to apply lift to the porty…..much better to have 2 static barrels than 1+another flopping around.
Consider also that the device, even with just one barrel would have to be of similar dimensions to set the lever to the RH top-corner anyway….so better to utilise that extra space underneath with another barrel rather than just leave it as nothing!
Further still, a single rope can be routed around or through both barrels at once, in any number of combinations to achieve better fluency when using say a 20mm rope….better heat dissipation also!
Makes sense, Reg. Sounds like a great design. Best of Luck with it!
When you need 2 bollards, like at the base of a speed line tree, it seems ideal. But in the interest of further cost and weight savings, what are your thoughts re a model with just one bollard plus the lever? Sometimes you need 2 bollards or lowering devices but need them on 2 different trees. Seems like you could use a single bollard for many applications, then add a porty when you need a second belay device.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cory
I’ve tried setting a porty next to the hobbs a few times, and while its workable its also slow and sometimes awkward for one person working the two ropes at the same time….and even more so if he then has to apply lift to the porty…..much better to have 2 static barrels than 1+another flopping around.
Consider also that the device, even with just one barrel would have to be of similar dimensions to set the lever to the RH top-corner anyway….so better to utilise that extra space underneath with another barrel rather than just leave it as nothing!
Further still, a single rope can be routed around or through both barrels at once, in any number of combinations to achieve better fluency when using say a 20mm rope….better heat dissipation also!
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Reg
Branched out member
- Location
- Victoria, BC
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
KBNest -Midline Attachable SRS Canopy Anchor.
- Started by TreeSteward
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
