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

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

When you look at all four systems, SRT, DRT, DdRT and DmRT, the only two that are tree climbing industry specific, both from a standardized and commercial standpoint are SRT and DdRT and maybe a bit of DRT. I also agree SRS and MRS are simple, straight forward, easily adaptable replacement acronyms.

John, can you explain the 4 systems you are talking about?
And as I've mentioned before, putting two stationary ropes side by side doesn't make a new thing. It has to be mechanically different otherwise it's just more of the same.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

More is simply more, these are still cookies.

 

[John@TreeXP]

John, can you explain the 4 systems you are talking about?
And as I've mentioned before, putting two stationary ropes side by side doesn't make a new thing. It has to be mechanically different otherwise it's just more of the same.

DRT, DdRT and DmRT are all different. DmRT uses both legs of single climbing line that’s doubled over a limb, versus DRT where the climber is using two separately anchored lines and DdRT where the climber only advances on one side of the doubled line.

(SRT) Single Rope Technique has been associated with a stationary climbing line secured with a canopy or a basal (ground based) tie-in-point. The rope always remains fixed at the anchor point when the climber ascends or descends.

 

[DSMc]

SRT is not arbo specific at all Almost all the other rope climbing sports and professions use srt. Arbos are the last to adapt its use

But the way we use it is. I take great pride in knowing that the thought and innovation that has gone into producing muti-senders, has come from the inventive minds of arborists. They have made a significant contribution to the climbing world by overcoming the limitations of what is possible to do.

 

[John@TreeXP]

I'm starting to think I should just point and grunt like a pesky weekend caveman canopy tourist!

All joking aside, this debate is affecting how I attempt to communicate with fellow tourists and seasoned working climbers. I find myself second guessing the acronym that should be used to describe a very familiar technique. I originally learned using DdRT and SRT and knew what those meant, now I'm stumbling with acronyms and constantly wondering if I'm using the right one to communicate accurately and effectively.

For future communications I'll just use 1 grunt for SRT, 1.5 grunts for DdRT and 2 grunts for DRT!

Imagine if the term "doubled" or "Dd", were substituted with the term "folded" or "F", then we'd all be "FRT"ing around.

 

[John@TreeXP]

This is all hypothetical and efficiency is highly speculative and questionable, but if you think about it, a DmRT system can easily be transitioned into a SRT with a backup line system, DSRT, DRT or DdRT system, depending on the how the legs of the doubled line are managed. Using DmRT, a climber can also easily transition between a 2:1 MA and a 1:1 MA, based on whether the two legs are joined in a footlock, or kept separate with individual foot ascenders.

 

[John@TreeXP]

Perhaps we can agree that DRT represents the marriage of two legs, who gave off two non-stationary offspring, DdRT and DmRT. Using the generic "DRT" acronym, as a representative of the entire DRT family, may be permissible in certain contexts, but it is less descriptive. Depending on the context or audience, sometimes a less descriptive acronym is fine too.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

Perhaps we can agree that DRT represents the marriage of two legs, who gave off two non-stationary offspring, DdRT and DmRT. Using the generic "DRT" acronym, as a representative of the entire DRT family, may be permissible in certain contexts, but it is less descriptive. Depending on the context or audience, sometimes a less descriptive acronym is fine too.

Sorry but I don't think I'm going to agree with that as I feel that doubled over the branch rope technique is not a marriage as its only one rope and they're not securely anchored above, simply supported by the branch above. The anchors are at the climber and the rope is not moving. If one of those legs starts to move, providing a mechanical advantage, then it becomes a doubled over the branch moving rope technique.

 

[John@TreeXP]

OK, I agree with you. Still there are two ways to ascend and descend a doubled-moving rope, using one or both legs of the doubled line.

 

[evo]

DRT is the divorce of the two lines, my mistake, but there remains two legs of line involved, moving or not.

Sounds like you need to have this conversation with the industrial rope access folks.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

OK, I agree with you. Still there are two ways to ascend and descend a doubled-moving rope, using one or both legs of the doubled line.

As long as the rope is moving over the double branch it is a doubled over the branch moving rope technique. A mechanical advantage will be present but again, it is not mechanical advantage that is an identifying characteristic. So if a climber goes up that same rope with an ascender on each foot, using a sit stand method, and the rope never moves, it is simply a doubled over the branch technique. A common characteristic between these two techniques is that the anchors are both in the control of the climber and at any moment can be disconnected or adjusted while the system is in use.

 

[John@TreeXP]

As long as the rope is moving over the double branch it is a doubled over the branch moving rope technique. A mechanical advantage will be present but again, it is not mechanical advantage that is an identifying characteristic. So if a climber goes up that same rope with an ascender on each foot, using a sit stand method, and the rope never moves, it is simply a doubled over the branch technique. A common characteristic between these two techniques is that the anchors are both in the control of the climber and at any moment can be disconnected or adjusted while the system is in use.

On DmRT (which I'm calling it for the sake of convenience) I'd imagine a clmber using a rope walking method, using one foot, than the other. As such, the rope would move in either direction, with respect to which leg is being grabbed and the hitch would move up the line in an inch-worm like way, while the line moves back and forth over the limb. On DdRT, the one leg remains fixed to the climber saddle, while the other leg moves through the saddle mounted climbers hitch. I think we're on the same page, just describing the same thing in different ways.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

On DmRT (which I'm calling it for the sake of convenience) I'd imagine a clmber using a rope walking method, using one foot, than the other. As such, the rope would move in either direction, with respect to which leg is being grabbed and the hitch would move up the line in an inch-worm like way, while the line moves back and forth over the limb. On DdRT, the one leg remains fixed to the climber saddle, while the other leg moves through the saddle mounted climbers hitch. I think we're on the same page, just describing the same thing in different ways.

Okay don't kill me for this one.
Unless we're talking about a new method of cutting out dead wood with a rope saw, then it's not even a climbing system. SeeSaw

 

[John@TreeXP]

Okay don't kill me for this one.
Unless we're talking about a new method of cutting out dead wood with a rope saw, then it's not even a climbing system. SeeSaw

Yes, and the rope see-sawing, is doing the same thing a DdRT line does, when it comes to the same cumulative length of line being moved equal distances. Whether or not its moving back and forth or just forth is determined by either one of the two the unique climbing (doubled-moving-rope) methods being employed. In either case, when a climber advances, the same amount of line being moved is relative to the amount of progress captured, with respect to the 2:1MA.

 

[DSMc]

As long as the rope is moving over the double branch it is a doubled over the branch moving rope technique. A mechanical advantage will be present but again, it is not mechanical advantage that is an identifying characteristic. .

Wow, and the sky is not blue. The mechanical advantage created by the moving rope is, in fact, the essence of the tree climbers system. The reason it was used. It allowed a climber to safely enter and work a tree with nothing more than a simple rope. Throw a rope over a branch, grab the tail and tie a friction hitch with that tail creating a moving rope system. This simply-achieved mechanical advantage allowed the climber to ascend by the hip thrusting technique and work the tree, using just arm strength, no other tools.

The simplicity of that original setup has evolved to a much higher degree of efficiency with modern tools but the reason for its use has not changed.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

Wow, and the sky is not blue. The mechanical advantage created by the moving rope is, in fact, the essence of the tree climbers system. The reason it was used. It allowed a climber to safely enter and work a tree with nothing more than a simple rope. Throw a rope over a branch, grab the tail and tie a friction hitch with that tail creating a moving rope system. This simply-achieved mechanical advantage allowed the climber to ascend by the hip thrusting technique and work the tree, using just arm strength, no other tools.

The simplicity of that original setup has evolved to a much higher degree of efficiency with modern tools but the reason for its use has not changed.

True, it's cloudy and gray today and true.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

Wow, and the sky is not blue. The mechanical advantage created by the moving rope is, in fact, the essence of the tree climbers system. The reason it was used. It allowed a climber to safely enter and work a tree with nothing more than a simple rope. Throw a rope over a branch, grab the tail and tie a friction hitch with that tail creating a moving rope system. This simply-achieved mechanical advantage allowed the climber to ascend by the hip thrusting technique and work the tree, using just arm strength, no other tools.

The simplicity of that original setup has evolved to a much higher degree of efficiency with modern tools but the reason for its use has not changed.

I was just joking about that but if you put a foot ascender on each foot you basically don't go anywhere even though the rope is moving it's just a see-saw.

 

[John@TreeXP]

Don't kill me for this one, but failing to acknowledge the truth of these two DdRT methods is both arrogant and ignorant.

 

[John@TreeXP]

I was just joking about that but if you put a foot ascender on each foot you basically don't go anywhere even though the rope is moving it's just a see-saw.

That's incorrect, because progress is captured with the BI-directional movements, so the climber advances. You already proved that in your video, by demonstrating a simulation of two foot ascenders, one on each leg, when used with a Dualcender, on a doubled moving line.

 

[Burrapeg]

I was just joking about that but if you put a foot ascender on each foot you basically don't go anywhere even though the rope is moving it's just a see-saw.

But, Richard, no one climbs with only a foot ascender on the leg of the rope. There would be a hitch or multiscender on each leg, like those French climbers you mentioned. So one would indeed advance each step (not that this system makes much practical sense, really. It would certainly be gear intensive).