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

DSMc said:
,...... Both the SAKA and the HAAS have bungee encased in tubes...... AND ONE AS EASILY REMOVED AS THE OTHER.
Click to expand...
Not the same "easily", HAAS has to be completely opened and disassembled to replace the bungee, (it's in the box and most can't open it), the SAKA on the otherhand has the bungee externally located.
Like the acronyms, some would say it's all the same, until you have to pay to get it fixed.
 
yoyoman said:
Why do I feel like I'm arguing the difference between a 3:1 and 2:1 MA and when some don't get it, they just say it's all the same, we'll just call everything..MA.
Click to expand...

How about just TT, or Tree Technique for everything :)

For the record, language is complex, and people who have to say the same phrase 20 times in a conversation are going to find a way to shortcut it to avoid the tongue gymnastics. This is why commonly understood acronyms are necessary, and this thread is a great way to start some kind of cohesion with all the letters flying around. This thread is good stuff Richard!

Interestingly enough, I just had a guy yesterday tell me my MA in a video was inaccurate because the rope angles were not exactly 180°, I wound up explaining why we state the "ideal" MA, instead of chasing variables like system friction, imperfect rope angles, and other lesser impacts like tension, gravity, earth rotation, etc. to give some kind of "actual" MA. But stating the ballpark ideal MA is still critical.
 
yoyoman said:
... HAAS has to be completely opened and disassembled to replace the bungee....
Click to expand...

And you see that as having some sort of relevance? It is not load-bearing! It is a maintenance issue.

The HAAS is unique in that it was the first knee ascender I had ever seen that had the ascender-advancing bungee stored and protected in a tube "under" the load-bearing ascender. That IS relevant
 
DSMc said:
And you see that as having some sort of relevance? It is not load-bearing! It is a maintenance issue.

The HAAS is unique in that it was the first knee ascender I had ever seen that had the ascender-advancing bungee stored and protected in a tube "under" the load-bearing ascender. That IS relevant
Click to expand...
What you speak of was the single addition to the Jerry Beranek rope walker and congratulations to that, as I have said before, "this is a valuable addition to rope climbing technology. However, as we are all aware, technology continues to advance."
How many buy Mikes Patented Pillow? please give that some thought

Now back to the real thread and get the train back on the track. I realize that UNDERSTANDING the systems we use has become personal and important to me and what we call them even more important.

So, "Define (and understand) your terms and we'll have a short discussion...(and avoid lots of conflict and hate while moving forward).
 
Acronyms work best among the initiated, where all parties understand what they mean and with whom they are in regular use. But as this gets steadily more complicated, it is extremely confusing for newcomers like me. I am no stranger to climbing and high work, but it was with basic industrial gear in years past and it was not in trees. With tree climbing, suddenly there is this amazing amount of innovative new gear and various new techniques which go with this. Hard to keep up with it! (hard on the wallet, too!) Anyway, it might be neat to work up a pictorial glossary of possible acronyms and have it right at the front level of the forum, something we can link to in these discussion, and also add to or modify as we see fit?
 
I think maybe we need to add to the confusion for the sake of clarity. I think a valuable subset of climbing system distinctions wold be rope on rope or rope on hardware. I tend to climb DdRT with rope on rope. I think this gives the rescuer an accurate picture of my technique and system.
 
Bob Bob said:
Who are the powers-that-be mentioned in this post? Is there really an organization that decides on tree climbing acronyms and nomenclature? I'm a self taught climber so I've never been subjected to a formalized training program or had to study standards so I'm completely in the dark.
Click to expand...
There might be professional organizations that govern the trade to some extent and set standards, but it occurs to me that forums like this, and the mutual widespread instant communication we all enjoy from them and the Internet in general, is as much of a power as anything else for the adoption of new things like acronyms and gear development. If many hundreds of us on these forums started using a particular acronym, and it was one that made sense, that is a force to be reckoned with.
 
This idea about clarifying acronyms is why I came up with DdRT a looooonnnng time ago on the ISA arbo
Discussion forum. At that time there were only SRT, DRT or twin rope. I wanted a more clear name for how arbos systems worked. DdRT is easier to type. And...now even my auto correct knows it!!!

In the ensuing years systems have sub-divided the original Big Three which leads to this current discussion
 
Tom Dunlap said:
This idea about clarifying acronyms is why I came up with DdRT a looooonnnng time ago on the ISA arbo
Discussion forum. At that time there were only SRT, DRT or twin rope. I wanted a more clear name for how arbos systems worked. DdRT is easier to type. And...now even my auto correct knows it!!!

In the ensuing years systems have sub-divided the original Big Three which leads to this current discussion
Click to expand...
Exactly Tom.
I've known and understood these since I started climbing. I think with only the minor modification of DmRT, they will continue to work perfectly. When I judge a comp or do the occasional comp, I need a fast and efficient way of conveying the system I will use. I'll never get that aerial rescue done in 5 minutes if I have to sit there and explain all of the details.
 
I can't leave well enough alone but when something just doesn't seem right it keeps coming back to me.
This whole thing about the acronyms we use is basically about the old Big Three or the new Two. Of course I'm in favor of a little tweak to the long used and traditional Big Three.
Everyone knows the analogy of building your house on a strong foundation or one of sand. SRT, DRT and DmRT make a great foundation from which it is easy to build a from. MRS and SRS is a foundation built on sand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom