OLDS-Overhead Lowering...

Anyone get one yet?? I can see it as a good way to speed up a 2 man crew, and keep forces low on the tree for overhead rigging scenarios.


If it is set with a floating anchor, then it will have about the same forces on the top of the tree as a block with LD at the base, neglecting the extra rope stretch in the system.
 
Yeah, Sean, I just got one. Haven't had a chance to work it yet - just test it - seems like it'll be good.
Got a job coming up that it's ideal for.
I'll try to post some pix, if I can.
 
you lose the rope out of the system. You basically create a factor two fall if it is snubbed off. Real bad. There is no rope to take the impact of dropping loads on this. I think for lighter overhead rigging this would be good but not for dropping blocks. This replacates the most dangerous type of lead fall in rock climbing.
 
I think that an ideal use for this is a two person crew, climber and groundie, conifer removal over landscaping where dropping limbs is not feasible. We have lots of people plant rhodies and japanese maples under their conifers.

Hang the device in the top of the tree. The branches will be largest/ heaviest down low in an open grown conifer, with the maximum rope in the system to take the larger loads. Knotless Boquet rigging will speed it up.

If it is a co-dominant stem, then the device can be used for lowering small sections of one trunk off of the other. The climber can cut and lower, or have the groundie catch the load, then switch the rope to the climber, while the groundie lands the piece.

I imagine that you can't remotely pretension the device for the trunk wood.

The device doesn't seem like it is made for negative blocking.

Often I find myself rigging down limbs that I can't/ choose not to throw, then can bomb wood into one little spot in the mulch bed, or build a limb crash pad and drop small logs off with a deeply sniped snap cut.


Seems like a good application with some polydyne rope.

Interested to hear the reviews. TomD seems to like it.
 
246798-BelaySpool.JPG
 

Attachments

  • 246798-BelaySpool.webp
    246798-BelaySpool.webp
    41 KB · Views: 129
I don't understand the reservations about snubbing off a slam dunk load.

Maybe this is because I learned tree rigging using three strand hemp, not good manila, half inch rope. The pieces were cut small enough to not bounce the climber out of the tree. Adjustments were made to keep things within proper load ranges. If there is zero friction at the redi/TIP then having lots of rope in the system will change the load. The more friction the less rope=less stretch of course.

Being concerned about the load is important, no doubt. But to dismiss using OLDS because of a concern for overloading the rigging point is putting the cart in front of the horse. Change to smaller pieces, let the load run a little or any number of solutions.

When I was doing removals we used the device for chunking out some darn big pieces. All of the up-stream rigging would change to accommodate the loads of course. The device and the OLDS worked beautifully!
 
[ QUOTE ]
One thing to consider is the rope bend radius. It will be sharper than on a tube.

What do you all think?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Tube"? Bollard? POW?

The BMS Belay Spool appears to have the same 'effective' diameter as a Large POW.
5060010660_7c98102ff5.jpg
 
Tom:

Could, would you remove the picture link from my post #242317, Please?

It makes reading the posts a PITA.
I can't edit it anymore.

My bad (appologies) for linking to such a large picture!

Thanks!
 
My reservations come from no real experience with this but from years of years of getting the dangers of a factor two fall getting pounded into me rock climbing. The moment between leaving the ledge to the first piece of protection is the most dangerous, even taking a three foot fall is worse than taking a 20 foot whipper later on on the climb because of the fall factor calculations. maybe there isn't much difference in this case because the ropes are not dynamic anyway. i dont know, It seems for chunking blocks there is no need for the tool anyway because at that point you dont usually need two men on the ground. The brush is usually where you need someone on the rope and someone else steering around wires and gutters etc. I like the concept tho.
 
A normal rigging scenario with portawrap is more like a standard lead fall in rock climbing, something that I am comfortable with and I have taken a couple of good whippers. I have never taken a factor two fall. but I hear it can be very bad. That is what gives me pause but maybe the two scenarios are unrelated.
 
The BMS Belay Spool appears to have the same 'effective' diameter as a Large POW.

In a way, but not quite. Since the BS has radiused corners and flats in between I think that there is more surface area. But, the place that the BS shines is when it comes time to yard the rope up to take slack. Then, the rope goes straight and barely touches the flats so there is almost no friction. That makes it easier on who ever is doing the yarding.

If you go to the BMS website and read his articles on friction you'll understand how this works.
 
Yeah, I understand ... just trying to address Sean's concern about "rope bend radius". The BS does not seem to be tighter than a Large POW ... may be better. It does make yarding rope better.


BTW, thanks for fixing that post, Tom.
 
It seems like the bend radius would be tight. Imagine this. If the flats are 1 or 100" long, the rope still turns the corner in the same radius, just that each corner is extended away from the next. The rope runs straight between each corner. It would seem that if you took the straight sections our all together, you would have the same rope bend radius as if they were 100" apart. It would change your friction generating surface area, but not the bends.

Am I thinking about this wrongly?

It looks like a good device, and they did a little drop testing, which sounded like it worked out well for 3 drops with not apparent rope damage. Wouldn't it have to be super severe to have visible rope damage in 3 drops?


I would hope that it can be effectively used for negative blocking, without snagging up the ropes. It looks like it could. I might still be hesitant to negative block a 300 pound piece of trunk wood if I didn't have much room to let it run, as there would be so little rope in the system. Step in polydyne for some of those, knowing that it stretches.

I'd love to see a video of it, or at least some other pictures. I think it could be a very, very useful tool, especially since it adjusts easily from a remote location while avoiding the doubling effect of a block and LD. Sounds like rapid slack removal for negative blocking is a possibility, too.
 
Since it works in both directions, it seems like it would be able to be used in the middle of the rope, with knotless rigging straps and an efficient mid-line knot.

While the ground crew is clearing the first piece, the climber can strap the next piece. As soon as the DZ is clear, the climber can cut and lower the next piece, rather than having to reset the rope.

This would spread the wear on the rope more evenly, too.
 
SST,

Using both ends and knotless rigging made this a super efficient system. It's hard to quantify the time savings but I can tell you that it saved a lot of time and smoothed out the stop/start delays in typical rigging.
 
Tom,

I look forward to getting one at some point, and making the most out of it. Just trying to understand its abilities and limitations.


Let me clarify what I meant about using the middle. If you start rigging on one end, you then lower 20' to the ground. You can then attach midline (without having to feed the whole rope through to the other end), and lower the next piece to reach the ground either in the same direction or in the reverse direction. Back and forth without having to get to the very end in the way that we frequently/ typically, but not always do. Even more efficient that using both ends if it is a long rigging rope in a much shorter that half rope length tree height.



Thanks again for bringing this product to our attention.
 
The Spool has been in my kit for years and has done everything that I've expected from it.

There's been talk of using bollards in overhead positions. I would not advise this because the rigging rope isn't captured. A bite could form and jump off the bollard. Since the Spool is closed there's no risk of loosing the rope.

I hadn't thought about working mid-line. It is soooo easy to yard up the end all of the time. The rope flows up almost as easily as when using a pulley false crotch. If the groundie puts a stopper in the end at the right distance the climber can go into auto-pilot and speed yard the rope.
 
Good points Tom.

Having a rope that is the right size for a particular tree would reduce the amount of yarding. Just thinking efficiency.


I stumbled upon working midline when I was natural crotch lowering maple limbs, then trunk wood from an overhead rigging crotch, while working solo on a removal with a bucket.

I started rigging out limbs low in the canopy, and was using maybe first 20', then 30', then, 35', then 40' of rope, I could lower four big limbs, guiding them from above, then bring the bucket down to the ground and process them. 4 lowered limbs on one 150' rope. Worked out well.

After topping it, I was NC lowering trunk wood off of another leader of the same tree. With one rope length, I was able to lower about 30-40' of trunk by clove hitching with a back-up double half hitch. Then lower the bucket detach (no processing of wood or brush required by customer), and resume aerial work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom