- Location
- Home of the New Jersey Devils
SRT is the best way for long climbs in my eyes. Heck, I doubt I could footlock 250' without a break, even if I crawl.
Puzzled about back ups
- Thread starter frans
- Start date
- Location
- Northern California
- Location
- Northern California
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
Why not clove hitch the cord to the biner to give you two attachments?
Or, tie a figure eight on a bite and clip it to the biner?
Or, tie a figure eight on a bite and clip it to the biner?
countryboypa31
New member
- Location
- PA
could either of these be used for a back? the tibloc or the ropeman?
tibloc
ropeman ascender
tibloc
ropeman ascender
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
I would never use either of them for backups.
The Tibloc has an appetite for ropes unless it is used very carefully. Too many qualifications for it to be used in general work.
The Ropeman was tested and could damage ropes.
There are many better tools and techniques for backups that work into our climbing systems.
The Tibloc has an appetite for ropes unless it is used very carefully. Too many qualifications for it to be used in general work.
The Ropeman was tested and could damage ropes.
There are many better tools and techniques for backups that work into our climbing systems.
- Location
- Northern California
Examples when you have some time.. no rush
Mangoes
Participating member
- Location
- Greater Toronto Area
Sohner, I like it. Creative and VERY simple. Tom's idea has merit, cloving the cord to the biner, as it would prevent side loading as well. But 'ubber' simple friend.
- Location
- Bloomington, Indiana
Ditto that. Quick, simple, secure. I agree about securing the cord to the carabiner with a suitable knot.
But it could not be used in competition. From the 2008 ITCC Rules:
[ QUOTE ]
2.2.12
No equipment used in a fall-protection/work-positioning system shall incorporate quick-release mechanisms. Where applicable, quick-release mechanisms must be replaced with a manufacturer-approved bolt and nut assembly. (2007)
[/ QUOTE ]
But it could not be used in competition. From the 2008 ITCC Rules:
[ QUOTE ]
2.2.12
No equipment used in a fall-protection/work-positioning system shall incorporate quick-release mechanisms. Where applicable, quick-release mechanisms must be replaced with a manufacturer-approved bolt and nut assembly. (2007)
[/ QUOTE ]
- Location
- Tha Dirty Bean
[ QUOTE ]
Ditto that. Quick, simple, secure. I agree about securing the cord to the carabiner with a suitable knot.
But it could not be used in competition. From the 2008 ITCC Rules:
[ QUOTE ]
2.2.12
No equipment used in a fall-protection/work-positioning system shall incorporate quick-release mechanisms. Where applicable, quick-release mechanisms must be replaced with a manufacturer-approved bolt and nut assembly. (2007)
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
answered my question faster than I could type it.....
I was talking to one of the Arbormaster guys at a trade show recently, he told me the dual ascender didn't need to be backed up at all........
Ditto that. Quick, simple, secure. I agree about securing the cord to the carabiner with a suitable knot.
But it could not be used in competition. From the 2008 ITCC Rules:
[ QUOTE ]
2.2.12
No equipment used in a fall-protection/work-positioning system shall incorporate quick-release mechanisms. Where applicable, quick-release mechanisms must be replaced with a manufacturer-approved bolt and nut assembly. (2007)
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
answered my question faster than I could type it.....
I was talking to one of the Arbormaster guys at a trade show recently, he told me the dual ascender didn't need to be backed up at all........
- Location
- Bloomington, Indiana
[ QUOTE ]
I was talking to one of the Arbormaster guys at a trade show recently, he told me the dual ascender didn't need to be backed up at all........
[/ QUOTE ]
What was the context of the question and answer?
The rule that I quoted above is from the ITCC 2008 Rules. No quick release mechanisms are allowed, all mechanical ascenders must be backed-up in some way.
The ANSI Z133.1-2006, however, requires only that all hardware have a minimum rating of 5,000 pounds. Quick-release mechanisms are not banned, and ascenders are not required to have any type of back-up system.
I was talking to one of the Arbormaster guys at a trade show recently, he told me the dual ascender didn't need to be backed up at all........
[/ QUOTE ]
What was the context of the question and answer?
The rule that I quoted above is from the ITCC 2008 Rules. No quick release mechanisms are allowed, all mechanical ascenders must be backed-up in some way.
The ANSI Z133.1-2006, however, requires only that all hardware have a minimum rating of 5,000 pounds. Quick-release mechanisms are not banned, and ascenders are not required to have any type of back-up system.
- Location
- healdsburg, CA
[ QUOTE ]
The rule that I quoted above is from the ITCC 2008 Rules. No quick release mechanisms are allowed, all mechanical ascenders must be backed-up in some way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I got alot of flack from climbers at our last aerial rescue training/climbers skills workshop. Lots of folks coming over with quick release pins on their flip line adjusters.
The question was asked me, "Why would the vendors sell a product which is not allowed at a comp? Is it unsafe, and if it is, how can they sell it like that?
Any ideas? 'Cause I sure don't know...
The rule that I quoted above is from the ITCC 2008 Rules. No quick release mechanisms are allowed, all mechanical ascenders must be backed-up in some way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I got alot of flack from climbers at our last aerial rescue training/climbers skills workshop. Lots of folks coming over with quick release pins on their flip line adjusters.
The question was asked me, "Why would the vendors sell a product which is not allowed at a comp? Is it unsafe, and if it is, how can they sell it like that?
Any ideas? 'Cause I sure don't know...
countryboypa31
New member
- Location
- PA
[ QUOTE ]
I would never use either of them for backups.
The Tibloc has an appetite for ropes unless it is used very carefully. Too many qualifications for it to be used in general work.
The Ropeman was tested and could damage ropes.
There are many better tools and techniques for backups that work into our climbing systems.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks tom, thats why i asked before purchasing either of them. But they are so inexpensive i had to ask, cause i don't have all the big bucks and using a friction knot as a backup often adds a lot of added friction in the ascent. Trying to find an inexpensive substitute.
I would never use either of them for backups.
The Tibloc has an appetite for ropes unless it is used very carefully. Too many qualifications for it to be used in general work.
The Ropeman was tested and could damage ropes.
There are many better tools and techniques for backups that work into our climbing systems.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks tom, thats why i asked before purchasing either of them. But they are so inexpensive i had to ask, cause i don't have all the big bucks and using a friction knot as a backup often adds a lot of added friction in the ascent. Trying to find an inexpensive substitute.
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
[ QUOTE ]
Trying to find an inexpensive substitute.
[/ QUOTE ]
This may not be politically correct in this thread...but...here goes...
SRT, either Frog Walker or RADS is much easier to assemble and the ascenders work as two attachments rather than as backups to each other.
Trying to find an inexpensive substitute.
[/ QUOTE ]
This may not be politically correct in this thread...but...here goes...
SRT, either Frog Walker or RADS is much easier to assemble and the ascenders work as two attachments rather than as backups to each other.
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
Good question Frans...
Since the Gibb's spring pin requires two motions plus a long pull to allow the cam to disengage and the CMI requires two motions also I wonder how they could ever come off the rope.
It would be nice to have at least one real documented incident to base this on. I can see how it might happen of course but has it ever really happened?
Since the Gibb's spring pin requires two motions plus a long pull to allow the cam to disengage and the CMI requires two motions also I wonder how they could ever come off the rope.
It would be nice to have at least one real documented incident to base this on. I can see how it might happen of course but has it ever really happened?
- Location
- healdsburg, CA
[ QUOTE ]
It would be nice to have at least one real documented incident to base this on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets hope your wish NEVER comes true!
It would be nice to have at least one real documented incident to base this on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets hope your wish NEVER comes true!
- Location
- Tha Dirty Bean
The context did not include any comp talk. I assumed that the Z and comp rules would be more similar. Thanks for clearing that up for me Mahk
- Location
- Northern California
knudeNoggin
New member
What's the hitch in the first set-up tying the green&white rope
to the blue 'biner?
And if the cord's only of use as a back-up for the device, option #3
would be to run it through the device's two rings (opposite the tape),
keeping clear of the 'biner. But now you're just backing up a slipping
device, not failing tape.
*kN*
to the blue 'biner?
And if the cord's only of use as a back-up for the device, option #3
would be to run it through the device's two rings (opposite the tape),
keeping clear of the 'biner. But now you're just backing up a slipping
device, not failing tape.
*kN*
- Location
- Upper Bucks ,PA
When was the last time you had to do ANY footlock over 100', much less 250' lol!!!We have bigguns here, but not THAT big!!!
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
-
KBNest -Midline Attachable SRS Canopy Anchor.
- Started by TreeSteward
- Replies: 6
-
-
-
