SRT DRT DmRT vs. MRS SRS What do we call it?

yoyoman said:
Too many doubles sounds like troubles.

How about 2 single ropes or 10 or how ever many the climber wants to hang on.
Click to expand...
I like your video and your reasoning. I have seen *DRT* on a CEU quiz and was unsure if they meant 'Doubled Rope Technique' (DdRT) or Two separate systems as with Double Rope Technique. The way the question was asked, my answer depended on which technique they meant. If we are going to use acronyms then we need to have a clear understanding of them.

I like distinguishing between the entities (SRT, DmRT) and then multiplying them if you are using it more than once. I don't think we need to have an acronym for 10 ropes etc. or even 2...like you said above.

Twin Rope Technique would then be describing the entity involving two ropes through one device and so TRT could be used twice in a tree.

If we get too technical about acronaming every variation we will start to see monstrous runs like SSRwSARALT (Single Stationary Rope with Secondary Aerial Rescue Access Leg Technique) or something that denoted the variation where you make the "retrieval side" of a canopy anchor fixed as to allow for a rescue access side.

It's all very confusing and we all need to settle on something and stick with it.
 
I like to clime with a double doubled rope technique or even a triple doubled for those awkward cuts. I think the acronyms are kind of silly as long as everyone on the same crew is reading the same page of the same book. I was once in a situation where we all had the same page but in different books. Very dangerous. It is important to be clear and specific when communicating.

I think it is worth quoting one of the best movies of all time. "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

About 90% of the problems I have faced in life, that are between people, are due to a failure of communication. Usually we assume other people define the words we use with the same definitions and they in fact have a different definition. Then we are really trying to accomplish the same thing while arguing over a definition.
 
evo said:
We ought to meet some time, south Whidbey here..
Click to expand...
Sure. I live on the North end of Lopez, right by the ferry landing. When the weather improves, I would enjoy climbing with someone else. I need to build up my confidence with these taller trees we have here.
 
Tom Dunlap said:
Socrates said:

Define your terms and we'll have a short discussion

Alex Shigo was fond of using the quote too
Click to expand...

I would add, UNDERSTAND and..., to the define your terms... When critical elements are left out, it makes it much more difficult. In this particular case, the entire issue of what we are doing with the ends of our climbing lines and how they are attached.
 
Sorry, Richard, I watched the ending segment twice and haven't a clue on what you were trying to explain. The cardboard box was a head scratcher and how can you say that the bungee has nothing to do with how the SAKA works? It is what pulls it up the rope right? No bungee, no up.
 
DSMc said:
Sorry, Richard, I watched the ending segment twice and haven't a clue on what you were trying to explain. The cardboard box was a head scratcher and how can you say that the bungee has nothing to do with how the SAKA works? It is what pulls it up the rope right? No bungee, no up.
Click to expand...

I am getting the feeling that there is a lot more context that is missing from this presentation. I understand it to be an explanation of how the SAKA is fundamentally different from the Haas and therefore not an infringement. I'm guessing if we knew the whole story it would be much more obvious. I had trouble following the box demonstration until the SAKA came in. I was trying to wrap my head around how I could attach a climbing system inside of me and what the benefit would be :LOL:.... but the box is a nice example of the SAKA's construction or how it is not constructed. I think what he explained was that the bungee has nothing to do with the load bearing element of the knee ascender. Whereas the Haas has the bungee in the core of the load bearing element and cannot be separated. The two attachment points makes it also differ from the velox which has a redirect at the foot loop and still a single attachment point. That's what I got from it anyway.


Thanks (@yoyoman) Richard for all your thoughts and innovations that you share with the climbing world.
 
John_KAYS said:
.... I think what he explained was that the bungee has nothing to do with the load bearing element of the knee ascender......
Click to expand...

This is part of what I don't get. The bungee on any and all knee ascenders I have seen, NEVER bear the load. It is just there for advancing the ascender. Both the SAKA and the HAAS have bungee encased in tubes and secured by stopper knots. Again, not part of the load-bearing design and one as easily removed as the other.
 
Richard also makes a great point about the difference between system and technique. I agree that it is important to identify the technique being used. Once you know the technique that was used, you can figure out how the system is configured. Very important in rescue situations.
 
DSMc said:
This is part of what I don't get. The bungee on any and all knee ascenders I have seen, NEVER bear the load. It is just there for advancing the ascender. Both the SAKA and the HAAS have bungee encased in tubes and secured by stopper knots. Again, not part of the load-bearing design and one as easily removed as the other.
Click to expand...

I totally understand your point. And I agree with you.

DSMc said:
how can you say that the bungee has nothing to do with how the SAKA works? It is what pulls it up the rope right? No bungee, no up.
Click to expand...

I just was clarifying what I thought I heard in the video when he mentioned "the bungee having nothing to do with...." [The load bearing member.] not [how the SAKA works.]

I agree I believe the bungee never bears the load in any of the knee ascenders, so... I don't know why I even thought I would make that clarification as I am sure you understood that from the beginning and all I added to the conversation you have a better understanding of than I do, so I guess I was just thinking out loud and not so much explaining anything further...you know what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom