Question MRS DdRT vs. SRS SRT

[SeanRuel]

Tending - MRS is “self tending” but SRS requires an extra harness and/or anchor point which must typically must be attached when ascending and detached otherwise.

Depends on the MRS system. Id say humping and bumping a tautline is not at all self tending

 

[SeanRuel]

In a more earnest answer, the earlier post about tip forces bark roughness tightens of crotch becomes an equalizer, not distinct to either system - in DRT it grinds your rope, impedes your ascent and determines how much load your hitch sees, in SRT it determines the basal rope leg loading - exact same math/physics.

My point there was specifically About fiction at the point of control/ movement of climber.

I think of it as "perceived friction" cause it's what I Actually notice with my hands

 

[Neill]

I suspect the first time someone invented a rope they tried to climb it. Maybe rope wasn't even invented yet and it was a vine.

Good point.
I often think about how early sailors must have been incredible climbers as they would scale the rigging to work the sails.

I should have been more specific in my first post

Something more like:
I think MRS was functionally developed and used before SRS in modern production tree climbing

 

[evo]

Let me throw this out there.
Base anchor forces are really a subset of SRT, correct? But because it is seldom if ever used in DdRT or MRS I think that would be a fair addition but can a crazy person actually base anchor a moving rope? I think so and perhaps there could be a reason for it. I know that is getting picky technical but that's what this is about, understanding exactly what they are.

I would say base anchoring is not exclusively used with SRT. There is the oldschool false crotch method. A true blend of SRT/DdRT. Basically base tie a static rope (static under the definition of non moving, this rope pulls up a set of opposite and opposed carabiners, rings, or whatever. And a DdRT system is hung from that.
Not unlike the secret weapon..
also to argue TIP forces are very different. There have been countless times I’ve been very very surprised that those little twigs and or nubbins held me on a base tied SRT system. There is no way those would have held in a DdRT system for a couple of reasons. One being slow and steady rope walking to mitigate Peak Forces the other is the being able to base tie on a remote tree, or having that leg being deflected over countless conifer limbs.
Sure a completely isolated, parallel base tie can compound the climbers forces on the TIP in a DIFFERENT way than on DdRT.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

A true blend of SRT/DdRT.

I'll split twigs here. I don't count a floating FC as an SRT component.

 

[evo]

I'll split twigs here. I don't count a floating FC as an SRT component.

I anticipated that, and that’s why included the secret weapon. It’s not unlike snapping the tail of your DdRT line to your main carabiner, running the hitch up to the desired point and foot locking upto your hitch and snapping in.
My point is that it’s a hybrid technique, not a hybrid system.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

In SRS you and the device move on the rope, whereas in MRS you and the device move with the rope.

SRS is much much more agreeable to multiple redirects, and not building of extra friction on the rope without extra gear (think twin shiv pulleys and slings, vs natural crotches)

SRS is easier to protect from rope damage due to sharp edges (think tying in over the ridge of a roof for storm damaged trees. A rope sleeve protector can be used on srs practically, but can't be used reliably on MRS)

SRS requires the same amount of cordage as MRS if retrieval is taken into account, however in SRS only ~half the length has to be rated for life support

MRS is the only rope system currently usable for rigging loads. There are ways of using SRS like rock climbers who rappel with a figure 8, however they require someone riding with the rigged piece to control it, or someone running the tail end in the drop zone.

SRS is the only rigging method usable for speedlines (though you can add a MRS control line).

MRS is mostly confined to use in the arborist industry, as most other industries, roofing, rope access, caving, rescue predominantly use SRS for life support and MRS for rescue

Most (if not all) SRS gear can be used both SRS and MRS, whereas MRS gear usually requires some device to add additional friction to the system (munter below the hitch, wrench above the hitch, or a purpose built device with increased friciton rope runner/petzl id/etc)

You can "easily" set 2 climbing sytems from the ground with 1 rope in SRS using less rope than you can with MRS. Shared anchor point only needs 1 retrieval line and 2 rated parts of rope for SRS vs 4 rated parts of rope for MRS. Though this may be more of a concern for the european folks and their 2 climbing system requirement. You can see an example of the 2 SRS systems in the video here

That's most of the ones I can think of there's some difference when it comes to rescue, but most of those are more setup dependent rather than climbing style differences and don't translate to text very well

So #17 is the ability to set twin lines. I think 17 was a special # so send me your address if you would like a free Footie.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

There is the oldschool false crotch method. A true blend of SRT/DdRT. Basically base tie a static rope (static under the definition of non moving, this rope pulls up a set of opposite and opposed carabiners, rings, or whatever. And a DdRT system is hung from that.
Not unlike the secret weapon...

My point is that it’s a hybrid technique, not a hybrid system.

My thoughts on what you said here. I have a single rope tied to a base that goes up and over a limb, comes back down 20' to a set of rings, in that set of rings I have a single rope, a tree climbing rope that is very static, that is doubled over into those rings going to the ground 20' below, both ends are touching the ground.
I start footlocking, (Ok, take the 'I' out of that, a young guys starts footlocking), The climber goes up both ropes for 10' and gets tired, (just because the climber is young doesn't mean in great shape) At that point, 10' into the air, decides to switch over to moving rope and get whatever mechanical advantage is possible. Climbs to those rings, gets a little rest and decide to go even higher and switches over to ascending on that single static non moving rope.
What do we call all of these?
It has been my pet peeve for a long time that climbers, who are many times arborists, great at identifying and classifying tree species and sub-species, can do no better that MRS/SRS for everything we do and talk about!

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

The most unique and important characteristic is being overlooked, anchorage.

 

[DSMc]

What you just described 'is' just using SRS with a change to MRS. Why make it more complicated than that?

How that is done, will inevitably vary as much as there are ways to do it. I think it is perfectly reasonable to describe what can not be addressed within an acronym.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

What you just described 'is' just using SRS with a change to MRS. Why make it more complicated than that?

How that is done, will inevitably vary as much as there are ways to do it. I think it is perfectly reasonable to describe what can not be addressed within an acronym.

I think, if constrained to these terms, I described SRS to MRS to SRS. So point being the definitions are not working for me.

 

[Njdelaney]

The most unique and important characteristic is being overlooked, anchorage.

Leave Alaska out of this

 

[theatertech87]

The most unique and important characteristic is being overlooked, anchorage.

If you're looking for terminology to define anchorage types... I'd propose these general classificiations
Canopy- An anchorage either SRS or MRS that supports the climber on an isolated branch union/crotch/spar
Basal- An anchorage for SRS that is attached at the ground level and uses a natural or false crotch in the canopy as a high working point
Floating- A Basal anchored rope used to suspend a MRS system or multiple SRS systems
Canobase- A Basal style anchor that is attached close to the high working point of the tree
MACA (midline attachable canopy anchor) or Redirect- A non primary anchorage used to easily advance a high point OR for moving the high point to a more advantageous location while still maintaing the original anchorage

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

If you're looking for terminology to define anchorage types... I'd propose these general classificiations
Canopy- An anchorage either SRS or MRS that supports the climber on an isolated branch union/crotch/spar
Basal- An anchorage for SRS that is attached at the ground level and uses a natural or false crotch in the canopy as a high working point
Floating- A Basal anchored rope used to suspend a MRS system or multiple SRS systems
Canobase- A Basal style anchor that is attached close to the high working point of the tree
MACA (midline attachable canopy anchor) or Redirect- A non primary anchorage used to easily advance a high point OR for moving the high point to a more advantageous location while still maintaing the original anchorage

Nope. Not looking, been there, done that, made a video, debated and discussed it, gave it acrcronyms.

 

[Stumpsprouts]

Nope. Not looking, been there, done that, made a video, debated and discussed it, gave it acrcronyms.

What are you looking for? I feel like this thread is all just a setup for some aha moment you have tucked in your pocket.

 

[evo]

I’d love a footie, but can you tell me how it compares to the oldschool petzl ones? I’m not a fan of the latches, I rather have a kick out every once in a while than loose the ability of stepping on and off the line without using my hands.

 

[DSMc]

I think, if constrained to these terms, I described SRS to MRS to SRS. So point being the definitions are not working for me.

Yes, right you are, I missed the last part. Your descriptive, simple acronyms made it perfectly clear to me and I'm betting everyone else that reads it will also understand how that climber ascended the rope.

You're not satisfied with those acronyms because they have limited scope? Well, I'm not enthralled with having an acronym in every other word of a sentence. We don't need more acronyms. If an action goes beyond normal, that is an excellent time to spell it out and avoid misunderstandings.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

What are you looking for? I feel like this thread is all just a setup for some aha moment you have tucked in your pocket.

No setup and no special moment. I pretty much said it in post #59. There may have been an incident where a climber did not get fully, IMO, trained on the differences between going from one system to another system and how things work. To me it is NOT about acronyms but understanding how things work. Having a clear understanding of how things work is facilitated by have a clear way of defining them and talking about them. I know I learn something every time we talk about it. I put most of what we said in that PDF (post #59) from everyone's feedback. I may have added or commented a little but I think it is all there and hope I didn't alter anyone's intent.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

I’d love a footie, but can you tell me how it compares to the oldschool petzl ones? I’m not a fan of the latches, I rather have a kick out every once in a while than loose the ability of stepping on and off the line without using my hands.

I understand not wanting the latch. I will say when a foot ascender is used with a knee ascender everything changes in that regard. There is no longer a great distance between the foot ascender and the next line controlling devise so it becomes very frustrating to keep it on the rope unless everything stays dead in line. I'm not seeing a lot of that.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

You're not satisfied with those acronyms because they have limited scope? Well, I'm not enthralled with having an acronym in every other word of a sentence. We don't need more acronyms. ...

Yes, I am not a fan of acronyms as well and I am not trying to change what we do. I just think there is more to it than trees that drop there leaves and trees that don't.