Petzl ZigZag Pro vs Plus

JeffGu said:
The RW rotates the ZZ housing so that the swivel attachment shaft is forced against the housing rivet. This is the issue that Petzl had with using the RW with the ZZ... in a fall situation, the impact forces can break the shaft (there goes your connection to the device) or wedge it into the housing, forcing it apart.

ZZ customers kept hounding them to produce a SRT brake for the thing that could be certified, and they did. Anyone else could have stepped up and produced a working device and put it on the market. Petzl preferred to keep it in house so that it could be certified with the ZZ and the liability issues were theirs, and they could control production quality and testing. There's nothing stopping anyone else from bringing a similar product to market. If the device uses existing techniques and methods, so what? So does everything else in this industry. Which rope company made the first double-braid... or kernmantle? Did all the others "steal" their shit and copy it? Or were the construction techniques too general and common to qualify for a patent? There is probably no company out there in the climbing industry who has had their products copied more than Petzl. Why on earth would anyone apply a different standard to them than they do for the rest of the companies making gear? Every pickup truck looks like every other pickup truck.. do you only buy trucks produced by whoever made the first one?

I'm all for crediting people for their ideas... but I also know that the corporate mentality is not, and never has been, real gung ho on that idea. They pay people in marketing departments that are cut-throat bullshit artists who have only one job... increase sales so they can buy a yacht. I don't like it, but if I want stuff, I have to deal with it. If you don't like their politics or their business model, then by all means don't buy their shit. But to bad mouth their products and call them complete shit is hardly the same thing. Sala, ISC, Petzl, Camp, CMC, SMC and a dozen other companies make rescue descenders that all work on the same principles and have relatively minor differences. One of them must have been on the market before the others. I don't see anyone screaming about how all the other ones are a piece of shit and "stole" all their ideas.

Really, this is like listening to people rant about chem trails and phony moon landings.
Click to expand...
I never said petzl was complete shit.
I only called the chicane a shitcan like many others have. But unlike the many others you speak of, I do like petzl. As i said before I own a zz and love it and I'm not arguing about stealing ideas or any of that stuff.
I think my main subject was that I felt the Rw paired with a zz is better and I don't have a chicane so I engaged with you about this really to learn why and what makes the chicane better.
I know you know these products very well and I know you know wtf ur talking about so don't feel like I'm trying to dig up those old points (others feel so strong about) to argue with u about.
 
JeffGu said:
The RW rotates the ZZ housing so that the swivel attachment shaft is forced against the housing rivet. This is the issue that Petzl had with using the RW with the ZZ... in a fall situation, the impact forces can break the shaft (there goes your connection to the device) or wedge it into the housing, forcing it apart.

ZZ customers kept hounding them to produce a SRT brake for the thing that could be certified, and they did. Anyone else could have stepped up and produced a working device and put it on the market. Petzl preferred to keep it in house so that it could be certified with the ZZ and the liability issues were theirs, and they could control production quality and testing. There's nothing stopping anyone else from bringing a similar product to market. If the device uses existing techniques and methods, so what? So does everything else in this industry. Which rope company made the first double-braid... or kernmantle? Did all the others "steal" their shit and copy it? Or were the construction techniques too general and common to qualify for a patent? There is probably no company out there in the climbing industry who has had their products copied more than Petzl. Why on earth would anyone apply a different standard to them than they do for the rest of the companies making gear? Every pickup truck looks like every other pickup truck.. do you only buy trucks produced by whoever made the first one?

I'm all for crediting people for their ideas... but I also know that the corporate mentality is not, and never has been, real gung ho on that idea. They pay people in marketing departments that are cut-throat bullshit artists who have only one job... increase sales so they can buy a yacht. I don't like it, but if I want stuff, I have to deal with it. If you don't like their politics or their business model, then by all means don't buy their shit. But to bad mouth their products and call them complete shit is hardly the same thing. Sala, ISC, Petzl, Camp, CMC, SMC and a dozen other companies make rescue descenders that all work on the same principles and have relatively minor differences. One of them must have been on the market before the others. I don't see anyone screaming about how all the other ones are a piece of shit and "stole" all their ideas.

Really, this is like listening to people rant about chem trails and phony moon landings.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't have used to word " stole " either my bad. I've actually made the arguments in petzls favor just like you did so we feel the same on that.
Your first paragraph was most helpful and I understand completely what your talking about and I like that.
I guess the way you spoke of it when I first read your post made me feel like you do felt it was superior so I am sorry if I came off argumentative.
So pls relax , I'm not like that.


So have you got the new zz without the swivel? Bc that's the one I really want, if so pls lmk how u feel about it and ty for ur time Jeff.

Nate
 
[QUOTE="Mowerr, post: 615923, member: 14202"
...sorry if I came off argumentative...
[/QUOTE]

No, I have the same problem... sometimes I re-read a post I made and think, "ok, that's going to be taken wrong"... that last one came off as more of a rant than I intended.

The new ZZ is really big, compared to the older versions and has a bigger pulley, too. The balance and everything feels good, just big. Took some getting used to. Definitely more tuned to SRS than the older one, and works like butter with the Chicane. It still has what I consider the big advantage the ZZ has over other devices... it works very well with any rope within the range, and acceptably on a few that are just outside the range. With a swivel on a canopy anchor, I can still keep the device oriented how I want it without having to compress the links and turn the device on the rope.

I've only used it for SRT so far, since I have other ZZs for DdRT, but I'm going to try it out on a doubled rope setup as soon as I get time. I'm sure it will work fine, just bigger. Still has that pain in the ass downside of not being midline attachable, but I rather like it. If I'm going to take the multicender on and off the rope, I just use the Akimbo. But it's still nice to have the ZZ smooth action and easy tending on an SRT setup.
 
JeffGu said:
[QUOTE="Mowerr, post: 615923, member: 14202"
...sorry if I came off argumentative...
Click to expand...

No, I have the same problem... sometimes I re-read a post I made and think, "ok, that's going to be taken wrong"... that last one came off as more of a rant than I intended.

The new ZZ is really big, compared to the older versions and has a bigger pulley, too. The balance and everything feels good, just big. Took some getting used to. Definitely more tuned to SRS than the older one, and works like butter with the Chicane. It still has what I consider the big advantage the ZZ has over other devices... it works very well with any rope within the range, and acceptably on a few that are just outside the range. With a swivel on a canopy anchor, I can still keep the device oriented how I want it without having to compress the links and turn the device on the rope.

I've only used it for SRT so far, since I have other ZZs for DdRT, but I'm going to try it out on a doubled rope setup as soon as I get time. I'm sure it will work fine, just bigger. Still has that pain in the ass downside of not being midline attachable, but I rather like it. If I'm going to take the multicender on and off the rope, I just use the Akimbo. But it's still nice to have the ZZ smooth action and easy tending on an SRT setup.
[/QUOTE]
I have a question about ZZ's in general. I don't have any experience with any ZZ except for about a minute on a new one with chicane on drenaline in a store. It was very smooth, but I couldn't really get it do descend very slowly, is there a technique to that or just practice? I'm used to a hitch where I can get it to creep just a little and then gradually speed up. When I tried the RR and the akimbo they were much more controllable than the ZZ.
 
JeffGu said:
The RW rotates the ZZ housing so that the swivel attachment shaft is forced against the housing rivet. This is the issue that Petzl had with using the RW with the ZZ... in a fall situation, the impact forces can break the shaft (there goes your connection to the device) or wedge it into the housing, forcing it apart. . .
Click to expand...
I have two ZZ's and use them both SRS with DIY RW's. I don't trust the narrow neck on the swivels, however, and use a long marine SS shackle thru the biner hole to hang from. The shackle pin also carries the lower end of the RW tether (twin aluminium flatbars). The pull is therefore not on the swivel at all. Been using these for over a year and a half now and love the smoothness. If I want midline attachability on a given climb, I have my adjustable BDB. My feeling about the Akimbo is, since I just rec climb, it seems kinda expensive and also overly complicated. I don't like complexity in a device if it can be avoided. The BDB, by comparison, seems to be thoroughly reduced to very basic components and still does the job very well.
 
Burrapeg said:
...shackle thru the biner hole...
Click to expand...

My V2 one and the V3 ones all have swivels... but I use a 5/16" SS "D" shackle through the top hole, then a quickdraw sling stiffened up with shrinkwrap, and then the carabiner for the rope eye. I like not having the 'biner against the device.

I can see where the non-swivel ones would eliminate the issue with the wrench.
 
BTW, the V2 is one that I bought back around 2013 that for whatever reason has never developed the fracturing issue. They probably won't repace it if it ever does, but at this point I don't really care. I've gotten a lot of use out of it. It's been mailed all over the country, as a loaner. Still in great shape.
 
I really like the look of the new zz without the swivel . But the new ones look huge. I def wanna try the new one without swivel
 
JeffGu said:
The RW rotates the ZZ housing so that the swivel attachment shaft is forced against the housing rivet. This is the issue that Petzl had with using the RW with the ZZ... in a fall situation, the impact forces can break the shaft (there goes your connection to the device) or wedge it into the housing, forcing it apart.

ZZ customers kept hounding them to produce a SRT brake for the thing that could be certified, and they did. Anyone else could have stepped up and produced a working device and put it on the market. Petzl preferred to keep it in house so that it could be certified with the ZZ and the liability issues were theirs, and they could control production quality and testing. There's nothing stopping anyone else from bringing a similar product to market. If the device uses existing techniques and methods, so what? So does everything else in this industry. Which rope company made the first double-braid... or kernmantle? Did all the others "steal" their shit and copy it? Or were the construction techniques too general and common to qualify for a patent? There is probably no company out there in the climbing industry who has had their products copied more than Petzl. Why on earth would anyone apply a different standard to them than they do for the rest of the companies making gear? Every pickup truck looks like every other pickup truck.. do you only buy trucks produced by whoever made the first one?

I'm all for crediting people for their ideas... but I also know that the corporate mentality is not, and never has been, real gung ho on that idea. They pay people in marketing departments that are cut-throat bullshit artists who have only one job... increase sales so they can buy a yacht. I don't like it, but if I want stuff, I have to deal with it. If you don't like their politics or their business model, then by all means don't buy their shit. But to bad mouth their products and call them complete shit is hardly the same thing. Sala, ISC, Petzl, Camp, CMC, SMC and a dozen other companies make rescue descenders that all work on the same principles and have relatively minor differences. One of them must have been on the market before the others. I don't see anyone screaming about how all the other ones are a piece of shit and "stole" all their ideas.

Really, this is like listening to people rant about chem trails and phony moon landings.
Click to expand...
I get your point, buttt petzl is and has been moving to lighter duty easily mass produced products. They have spread themselves thin catering to sports and hobbyist rather than professionals for the most part.
 
evo said:
I get your point, buttt petzl is and has been moving to lighter duty easily mass produced products. They have spread themselves thin catering to sports and hobbyist rather than professionals for the most part.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that, they are still THE brand for Rope Access.
 
Burrapeg said:
I have two ZZ's and use them both SRS with DIY RW's. I don't trust the narrow neck on the swivels, however, and use a long marine SS shackle thru the biner hole to hang from. The shackle pin also carries the lower end of the RW tether (twin aluminium flatbars). The pull is therefore not on the swivel at all. Been using these for over a year and a half now and love the smoothness. If I want midline attachability on a given climb, I have my adjustable BDB. My feeling about the Akimbo is, since I just rec climb, it seems kinda expensive and also overly complicated. I don't like complexity in a device if it can be avoided. The BDB, by comparison, seems to be thoroughly reduced to very basic components and still does the job very well.
Click to expand...

Do you have pic available of setup?
 
Yeah, the only thing tree-specific they have is the Sequoia, ZZ, shitcan, pantin and knee ascender (arguably not tree-specific) and the zillion.
That's actually more than I could think of when I started this post. Still not a lot.
 
climbstihl said:
Yeah, the only thing tree-specific they have is the Sequoia, ZZ, shitcan, pantin and knee ascender (arguably not tree-specific) and the zillion.
That's actually more than I could think of when I started this post. Still not a lot.
Click to expand...
Forgot all the throwweights, Airline, and eclipse.
The quality of their gear is up for debate of course, I've been fairly happy with most things I've had from petzl.
 
39Buick said:
I like that piece of mind shackle!! I have looked at that swivel a bunch of times and just wondered if it will last! I think I like the new one that is twice the size with no swivel better just from a confidence point of view! Both Climb well and are smooth. I play around with the tether that Patrick Brandt builds on occasion.
Click to expand...
.
..ditto, ZigZagPro, ETA Fri.16Aug19, the built-in swivel is no doubt safe, i'm just leery of the fatigue to the aluminum in that area, all the engineering thats gone into it doesn't trump my piece of mind, and the added connections and the overall clean system are a big plus in my book..
(may offer brand new rw w/2ea stiff tether for sale, with recouped funds, order Chicane..)
..thanks for the different perspectives..
.
IIIDaemon
 
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