static line

Be VERY careful about considering the use of a static line like HTP for anything except access.

Using static/low-stretch ropes for working in the tree is not a good decision. In the case of a fall having some shock dampening in your rope is desirable. Otherwise the impact goes to the TIP or worse...the climbers body. This can cause injury.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Be VERY careful about considering the use of a static line like HTP for anything except access.

Using static/low-stretch ropes for working in the tree is not a good decision. In the case of a fall having some shock dampening in your rope is desirable. Otherwise the impact goes to the TIP or worse...the climbers body. This can cause injury.

[/ QUOTE ]


Tom what then would be a good choice for a RW? I have heard of people using static lines for this. Is that ok as long as there is some stretch? Does HTP apparently not have enough stretch for use other than access?
 
HTP and similar ropes are considered static. Made to be used under a constant load either ascending or descending. Arbos load and unload their ropes and develop slack in their system. Not a good combo for the climber if they fall.

My preference is TAchyon followed by KMIII. Any of the 11mm arbo climbing ropes will be a good choice. Each is a little different and each has a fan base. The differences in performance aren't huge.

Take some time and look in the archives. SRT rope selection isn't an uncommon thread.
 
I like to use the htp for for my lanyards because I like how its a little stiffer than a dynamic rope. I work in line clearance & cannot use a wire core lanyard around power lines. Is this a bad idea?
 
I've used static lines for years now with no problem at all. If you have a base tie off you already have a lot of rope in the system giving more energy absorption. Also I've found that the tree itself absorbs a lot of energy especially if you have any number of redirects.
 
Derrick,

I'm not saying that I distrust Sterling's quality, I don't like the idea of using low-stretch rope as a climbing rope. This is different than ascent/descent.

Having just a bit more stretch from semi-static lines reduces fall arrest impact. To me, that's enough of a reason to use them.

In my years of climbing SRT I haven't found that rope stretch is that much of an issue. Sure...semi's do stretch a little more...but...I have to wonder how much 'wasted' energy the climber uses. Sving a few calories at the expense of some risk doesn't balance out. For me anyway.

This discussion gets long and complicated. I don't have the energy to dissect the decision to not advise using static lines for climbing.

I wish I had the CE standards ascent/descent and arbo climbing/work positioning ropes. At one time I read the specifications that each rope needed to meet. The CE standard is a much better concept than what American climbers use for determining a good climbing or ascent/descent rope.
 
Just thinkin outside the Knot/box.

If you were to daisy chain a few feet of the static line at the anchor or before the anchor depending on your practice I am sure there could be some measurable impact dampening.

What do you think. I haven't tried on my srt but have done with my Friction saver ring to ring.

Built in shock absorber.
While we are at it, the same thing could be done with a rigging rope that may not have enough elasticity but need to shock load a few pcs.

What do you think?
Daisy chain never seems to bind up so tight it can't be undone. I'll be sure to test it out when the opps comes about.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just thinkin outside the Knot/box.

If you were to daisy chain a few feet of the static line at the anchor or before the anchor depending on your practice I am sure there could be some measurable impact dampening.

What do you think. I haven't tried on my srt but have done with my Friction saver ring to ring.

Built in shock absorber.
While we are at it, the same thing could be done with a rigging rope that may not have enough elasticity but need to shock load a few pcs.

What do you think?
Daisy chain never seems to bind up so tight it can't be undone. I'll be sure to test it out when the opps comes about.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would the point of that be? Even if it acted as a shock absorber wouldn't it make the rope mushier and more like a stretchier climbing system. It seems that if you are using a static rope why try to make it have more stretch. If you want to feel safe why not use a less stretch climbing line.
 
David if you just want to use the line for access I'm thinking you will want something with the least amount of stretch, since the rope will not be used in conjunction with a fall. Even though you are climbing on it using the secret weapon your ddrt system and rope should take most of the shock should you fall.
 
Keeping it simple is important. I climb on tachyon and imori, and I am confident those ropes would absorb any shock loading that hopefully never occurs.
I would also like to foot lock on the same line so I think I have it narrowed down to htc or kmIII
 
Tom,

Am I not right in believing that almost all arborist climb lines are as static if not more so than most so called static lines?. Most all, except NER's Safety Blue, stretch less than 2% under body weight loads.
 
Roger,

You're on the right track.

We need to have a standardized measure of what 'stretch' is.

Many years ago I went to Expo with a very specific goal. To find out what 'stretch' meant. After talking with a couple of rope vendors I got to the Yale booth and was introduced to Dick Hildebrand. He spent almost an hour with me explaining in simple terms how Yale came up with their rating. It involved a set of tensioning/measuring/untensioning in increments of breaking strength. He told me, at the time, there wasn't an industry standard for measuring 'stretch'. As any ropeologist knows a relaxed rope is more supple. Load it a few times and it gets stiffer.

Unless each rope is tested and rated to the same criteria we don't have a standard measure. I'm not saying that each rope company sets their own stretch rating. For me, the CE standards are a good source of standardized measures.

In a DdRT system the climber is supported by two legs of rope which gives twice the strength but half the stretch.

My position on having a semi-static climbing line is based on having arbo SRT look as much like rope access as possible. Multiple redirects and springy TIPs aside, the rope, which doesn't change, should be used in a fashion that is similar to rope access. Doing this legitimizes arbo SRT and sets a good foundation to build on.
 
Hey Derrick,

I’m in total agreement with you on this. Here are some other points that I’d like to make:

If I am correct, most if not all ascender manufacturers recommend that you use ascenders on a kernmantle style rope. Isn’t Tachyon a double braid construction? Look at the tests that were done on double braids and kern mantle ropes with drops on an ascender. Now these tests were conducted in a fashion that there was a huge amount of slack in the system (close to 3.5 feet before the ascender caught the fall), which shock loaded the ascenders. When an arborist “loads and unloads” their climbing line while aloft, I would hope that they are not developing that much slack in the system. That to me is a practice that should be taught early on in a climber’s career. We are not or should not be taking rock climbing “whippers”.

In regards to stress on the TIP, bounce testing your TIP/redirect prior to entering the canopy should be a common practice. If you are generating that much force that you may be afraid of failure, then maybe you need to reevaluate your position in the tree. I know that there may be situations out there that are unforeseen from the ground or internal issues within the tree, but still find it hard to believe that a rope like Tachyon will have that much absorption property to help reduce fatigue on your TIP/redirect. Like Derrick said, there is a fair amount of rope in the system when using a basal anchoring system, if you still want to reduce your load on the TIP/redirect, then tie off within the canopy (running bowline, alpine butterfly, midline running bowline…etc,.) I also agree that the tree does dissipate some of the shock if and when a climber takes a fall, and when we are talking “fall” within the realm of arborists, it is much different then what a fall would be considered in rock climbing. Google “fall factors and how to calculate”.

“This discussion gets long and complicated. I don't have the energy to dissect the decision to not advise using static lines for climbing.” I am a little confused. I would assume that if we recommend some type or brand of climbing line to a poster, then we should take the time to explain why we prefer the type or style or brand that we use.

Donny Coffey, CTSP
 
Hello all,

Here are some stats for Tachyon and HTP. I am not saying that one or the other is better. What I will say is that you need to know what the limitations of your gear and your climbing ability are and choose accordingly.

New England's Tachyon:
Elongation 2.2% (not sure if that is 10% of MBS or 300lbs.)

Sterling Rope's HTP 7/16":
Elongation at 10% MBS...2.9%
Elongation at 300lbs....1.7%

So we are look at a difference +/- .5% - .7% elongation? Is this something that is really measurable in the everyday riggors of tree climbing? I'm sure I could get that out of a TIP/redirect with the bounce factor or my anchoring method

I would have to say that my deciding factor would be the actual rope construction. If I was going to be accessing (using ascenders) and working the tree (rope wrench)...HTP!

Donny Coffey, CTSP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom