Scandere vs yale 11.7

TallTreeClimber said:
Of course there are exceptions, but base tied doesn't even mean more percieved stretch when the friction of a natural crotch keeps the rope from imparting stretch from the base tied half of the rope to the climbing half. Now if you use a friction saver, you'll notice the other half of the rope, but not necessarily in a rope that's been passed through a crotch.
Click to expand...

Gonna respectfully disagree here. I'm in the plus-sized-princess club w/ @oldoakman, so that may account for the difference, but I find basal anchors to have a ton of bounce/stretch. I have only used them natural crotch, but I dislike them so much I'll only use them if I can't hit something I can canopy tie; then ascend and change to a canopy anchor.

I don't notice much bounce on a friction-saver-based anchor, but that's b/c I don't base-tie, I block one side w/ a knot, so it functions as a canopy anchor.

I am also very frustrated with the lack of standardization in measuring elongation between manufacturers. I will have to give Sampson static and x-static a try. So far, I have been satisfied with kernmaster and voyager, but there is room for improvement.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I weigh in around 180 lbs before layers of clothes, shoes/boots, and gear. With winter clothes, gear and a 201t, I'm at least 200. I notice the difference between a base anchor and canopy. I notice even more difference when my big shot puts my rope at the edge of what is safe as a life support and the rope and the branches are all flexing. The km3 max has little enough stretch to be irrelevant. It gets tight on the base tied side even when natural crotched, so a less static line would certainly have more total length of stretch on the base tie than canopy tie. The friction of most natural crotches is not enough to remove more than 10 lbs of pressure. I get the 10 lb number from 10's of thousands of observations of how much rope I need to leave hang so a lowering rope doesn't pull its self out of the tree, and how small of a branch can pull its self down while natural crotch rigging. Sometimes ya gotta rope some small ones too!
 
TallTreeClimber said:
Canopy anchored 70' is probably as real world as it gets for a lot of tree work and recreational climbing. 70' will cover the vast majority of trees in this country.
Click to expand...

I always leave a reteval tail from the same rope I am climbing on, so I would only be able to tie in at 35 foot with a 70 foot rope. I forget you can use a different rope for reteval.
 
TallTreeClimber said:
This is way way way off.

Let's just use the formula for force of static friction. You say the force generated by a crotch is 10lbs, I'm gonna use a weight of 250lb for the man in the tree, and we'll solve for the coefficient of static friction.

View attachment 57079


Now a value of 0.004 is nearly impossible. Waxed wood on wet snow has a coefficient of about 0.14. Glass on glass is more like 0.4.

I don't have a table of coefficients for rope on wood barks but I guarantee that if you find some, static or kinetic, they'll be a lot higher than 0.14, for the most part, and virtually none will be 0.004, unless it's covered in wet slimy algea.

I have passed my rope through lots of crotches where when I pulled down and bounced a few times to stretch the rope out, when I made my climb nearly my entire weight was supported by the friction of the rope on the crotch. No bounce or stretch in the rope was perceived from the side of the rope that went from my base tie up to the crotch.
Click to expand...
I have thousands of hours roping from natural crotches and climbing Ddrt off natural crotches. I might be a little off, and like I said tighter crotches make more friction, species and condition of tree can make a big difference too. Your math might be accurate, I honestly didn't even look at it. It doesn't matter too me because I know tree work on an intuitive level. But never once in 16 years of full time climbing have I had the friction from a good crotch hold almost all of my weight. Others experience may vary. Maybe if you jam your rope into a super tight crotch where it should never be. But it's all good dude. I don't mean to come off as a know it all, your experience just differs from mine.
 
RBJtree said:
I always leave a reteval tail from the same rope I am climbing on, so I would only be able to tie in at 35 foot with a 70 foot rope. I forget you can use a different rope for reteval.
Click to expand...

Oh man, whatcha gotta do is get yourself what some of my coworkers call a "Mickey Mouse rope", Stat. They call it that b/c it's comicly small, but it's one of the most useful pieces of gear I have. 90' of 8mm line. Mine is rock climbing accessory cord, and when I replace it, I'm going to get something static instead, like sta-set. It's a canopy anchor retrieval line, I always bring it in the bucket w/ me to pull up gear, I lower small ( it, it's a great tag line or butt line, etc.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You have me thinking now. Most of my climbing has been Ddrt from a natural crotch. I would footlock a doubled rope when I needed to make a long accent. 99% of the time I didn't bother with a friction saver. Then I swithed to srt and the friction saver became a moot point for the most part. The few times I did bother to set a friction saver, I would venture to guess, depending on the variable of what the original amount of friction was, the friction saver reduced the effort it took to hip thrust or straight pull myself up a tree by 25 - 50%, but not more unless I was trying to use an unsuitable crotch. Of course the friction goes up as the weight of the climber goes up. I added 15 lbs of mostly muscle in the last 5 years, previously I stayed around 165. A 250 lb climber is big to me, no offence to anyone I am sure you are great climbers and people. So they are dealing with much more friction than I do or did, but also much more downward force on the rope.
 
Anyone ever try yale tech-kern? Technora jacket and core, 48 strand 11.4 mm, 21,000 average breaking strength, about .5% or less stretch at 10% abs (2100 lbs) and basicly 0 stretch at any load a tree climber will show it. I haven't been able to find anyone that sells it. It's probably $4. A foot. I bet it has real good abration resistance!
http://www.yalecordage.com/featured-industries/mining/lifelines/tech-kern
 
TallTreeClimber said:
This is way way way off.

If I use a more reasonable value for the coefficient of friction, like 0.6, I get 150lbs of weight that is supported by the crotch. This would be oak or hickory, not a beech tree though. This is quite realistic with oak and Hickory bark.

I don't have a table of coefficients for rope on wood barks but I guarantee that if you find some, static or kinetic, they'll be a lot higher than 0.14, for the most part, and virtually none will be 0.04, unless it's covered in wet slimy algea.

I have passed my rope through lots of crotches where when I pulled down and bounced a few times to stretch the rope out, when I made my climb nearly my entire weight was supported by the friction of the rope on the crotch. No bounce or stretch in the rope was perceived from the side of the rope that went from my base tie up to the crotch.
Click to expand...

Whatever the calculated value is, I can tell you, empirically, that at a bodyweight of b/w 240 and 275, with may different ropes of different constructions, in many different species of tree, and many branch union structures, that after weighting a basal anchor, any time I unweight it, up to several feet of stretch feeds back through the TIP/PSP whatever you want to call it. When I reweight my system, I have to take that slack back up. Super annoying, and I have seen it do the same kind of cambium damage that natural crotch Ddrt climbing or natural crotch rigging can do, especially in thin-barked species, young limbs, or in seasons or species w/ heavy sap flow.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
evo said:
Both are bouncy ropes... this might be part of what is going on.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm pretty excited to try x-static, KM3 max, Sampson static, etc...

RBJtree said:
Then I swithed to srt and the friction saver became a moot point for the most part.
Click to expand...
Give the jamed friction saver canopy anchor a try, it pulls redirects better than anything else I've tried. It's not my go-to, but it's good to have in the tool box.

RBJtree said:
The few times I did bother to set a friction saver, I would venture to guess, depending on the variable of what the original amount of friction was, the friction saver reduced the effort it took to hip thrust or straight pull myself up a tree by 25 - 50%, but not more unless I was trying to use an unsuitable crotch. Of course the friction goes up as the weight of the climber goes up.
Click to expand...
I rarely set one from the ground, but if I'm Ddrt'in, I'm probably using a FS, the reduced effort is very important to a man of my girth. I also do more friction damage to the tree than a lighter climber would...first do no harm.

RBJtree said:
I added 15 lbs of mostly muscle in the last 5 years, previously I stayed around 165.
Click to expand...
Color me jealous.

RBJtree said:
. A 250 lb climber is big to me, no offence to anyone I am sure you are great climbers and people. So they are dealing with much more friction than I do or did, but also much more downward force on the rope.
Click to expand...
LOL no worries, I may be a ninja, but I'm a chubby ninja.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
CanadianStan said:
... once you learn to rope walk using the bounce, you can actually use it to your advantage
Click to expand...

Even better, stop being a bouncy climber. The big push to climb on super static ropes is symptomatic. Bounce is introduced by load and release. By switching to a super static rope a climber that has a bounce producing power-pulse will no longer feel a bounce, this is true. But remember, the force that produced it, is still there and because it is not being absorbed by the rope it will transfer a far greater amount to the tree and your suspension point.
 
Well, I got 200 ft of Scandere. It took a long time for Wesspur to stitch an eye in one end, but my rope finally arrived on Wednesday. Friday I got a chance to use it. The first tree was a quite tall oak where my tip was around 85-90 feet and very solid. With the rope base tied, totally fresh out of the box, as I put my weight onto the rope it definitely stretched out a bit more than I am used to the km3 max stretching, but after the initial stretch, I didn't really notice it much. What I did notice for the entire climb is that scandere is much easier to grip than km3 max. For that, I am really happy with this rope. It also runs flawlessly in the adjustable Bulldog Bone. With all the discussion about what works in the Akimbo, I am loving my bdb on Scandere.
 
I just switched to srs about 4 months ago and did all mrs before that. In 4 months climbing on the km3 max with the bdb, I saw almost no wear and tear on the rope. Especially compared to natural crotch mrs. A little bit of bark dirt packed into the jacket from pulling it out of wet trees. I washed it after a particularly muddy day on Tuesday and haven't used it since. I'm looking forward to seeing how it changed after washing, if any. It doesn't look or feel much different, maybe a little.
 
TallTreeClimber said:
Canopy anchored 70' is probably as real world as it gets for a lot of tree work and recreational climbing. 70' will cover the vast majority of trees in this country. Of course there are exceptions, but base tied doesn't even mean more percieved stretch when the friction of a natural crotch keeps the rope from imparting stretch from the base tied half of the rope to the climbing half. Now if you use a friction saver, you'll notice the other half of the rope, but not necessarily in a rope that's been passed through a crotch.
Click to expand...

True, 70ft is about as realistic in height as most people climb trees on the daily. So I totally agree that 70ft should be enough to notice. However, I completely disagree that basal anchored won't allow you to sense the stretch. Just sitting into your system you can feel it. Any time you take weight on and off the system you can feel it. I weight 165lbs no saddle etc... so I am by no means a heavyweight. However, it is quite obvious the elongation in the rope as well as bending moment(flexing) in the tree(dependent upon diameter of limbs the basal anchor is on.
 
TallTreeClimber said:
I didn't say "wont", i said, or meant, given the friction of the crotch you might not even notice.

"but base tied doesn't even mean more percieved stretch when the friction of a natural crotch keeps the rope from imparting stretch from the base tied half of the rope to the climbing half"

Of course the longer rope will stretch more if there is less friction in the crotch in many instances. I wasn't being absolute in that statement, if I came off that way I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

Makes more sense now. Absolutely agree with you!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom