Petzl ZigZag letter

i have had issues with the SJ. The fucking clutch handle got knock out after a goundy didn't let the rope run fast enough and the butt of a mid tied limb came and poked up through a crotch. i tried the zigzag and didn't like it as well as the SJ. The best part of the LJ in my opinion is the ease of on and off the rope. If i am working the tree from the bottom to the top i use the SJ. If i am working it from the top down i use a hitch. Multiple tools in the tool box just pick the right one for the right task and you will whoop the work. and i still use the SJ without fear by the way. I tried the zigzag with velocity and it still didn't tend a 1/4 as well as the SJ or LJ. Not a hater, but there are better tools than the ZZ imho.
 
Yes the handle on a SJ put me off, I use a positioner on short climbs and as my side lanyard. The LJ is my tool on bigger stuff.

I have had loads of SJ's and checked the pins on the handle, they could do with beefing up.
 
Not to derail this thread, just one question.
I somehow still see pictures flying around with Zigzags used in combo with the ropewrench.
Is the Ropewrench actually rated as PPE? Why would anyone risk his life by not using the ZZ as it should by incorporating something in a system that isn't PPE.

Wolter
 
Wolter-

What are you concerned about happening? The Zig Zag breaking and the user falling because the Rope Wrench can't hold them? Or the Wrench coming off the rope and then the entire load being on the Zig Zag and then having it break? What is the difference between that happening in DDRT or SRT? The Zig Zag clearly holds on a single rope but I'm more concerned about Zig Zag failure in any mode than I am about failure caused by SRT use.

I have climbed on a Zig Zag with a wrench and DDRT. Currently I don't own a Zig Zag nor do I intend to again until the breakage debacle comes to a close and performance matches A.R.T. products proven over time.
 
I am concerned about the use of products that can't safely be used as a combo. I'm also concerned about use of materials that are not intended to be used in that specific configuration.

Im not bashing on a product!

Wolter
 
I used the combo with no concerns. I believe and yoyo had also posted an estimation the the rw actually takes more of the load of the ZZ during srt than it has on it during ddrt. Now if the rw failed then I'd be concerned but the likelihood of the rw failing is the same as any other piece of gear. I just don't think petzl endorsed srt because they didn't have a tool to add in that application. Plus I imajine on a liability standpoint that when you say you can use this only when you also use this it probably muddies the waters a little. Again I used it srt till I got the bone and never thought twice about it.
 
macswan said:
I think you may be TOO trusting bonner
Click to expand...

What reason would you ever have not to believe them?

Is it the best product? No.
Could it have been done better? Yes
Has Petzl ever lied to the public? No.
Would they recall it if it wasn't safe? Absolutely.
Do they have any reason to lie to us? No.
Are they trying to kill arborists? No.
 
In order to give the ZZ a go-ahead for SRT use in conjunction with other products (not made by themselves) they would have to test it extensively with all of those products. The number of such friction multiplier devices is growing, so that would probably be expensive to do. It is risky to even imply, let alone endorse, that their product is safe for use in an SRT system without knowing how much additional friction is required to keep the ZZ within its engineering limits, and if the other devices provided the correct amount of additional friction. With all of the different combinations and setups it would pretty difficult, I imagine, to stay on top of all that. I'm guessing the NO SRT in the product description is the safe road to take, for now. I suspect their legal department had more to do with this than their engineering department, but who knows?

I do think it would be nice if they'd pick one such product... say, the Rope Wrench, and do their own in house testing with that combination and give an opinion on whether they think it's a safe combo.
 
Hopefully some petzl staff will read this thread and make some changes.
I think if they are listening, adding a little weight to their tree products, with regards to strength, would be a good idea, as all of petzl gear is designed for Everest climbs.
 
Problem with the ropewrench and zigzag combo is significant.
Going up the rope and sitting back after that 100% of the load is on the Zigzag! The Zigzag 'catches' or grabs the rope way faster than the ropewrench does. 100% of the load is double the workload on that zigzag chain.

Wolter
 
I wonder if each link was tested under load, to see if the load equalizes on each link, or if there is over bearing on one or another, my guess from the pictures I have seen, there is more stress on the top 2 links
 
Treespotter said:
Going up the rope and sitting back after that 100% of the load is on the Zigzag!
Click to expand...

You are right but this is obvious no problem for the ZZ because:
  1. in the manual they describe excatly this to test rope compatibility with 100% load on the chain.
  2. in the "Product Experience" (online) they describe under the topic "Second belay point on the trunk, without false crotch, evacuation system with the ZIGZAG in single mode with added friction" also the usage with 100% load at least temporary possible (link)
The only requirement they make is that as soon as you open the device additional friction is required. And the Wrench does this job much better than a munter.

The only concern I have is that the swivel of the ZigZag is way side-loaded before the RW starts to pull on it and brings the ZZ in balance. BUT in the Petzl scenario with the munter hitch this side-load will be more or less present all the time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom