Switch side of the butterfly in the friction saver

diramazioni

New Member
Dear all tree freaks out there, this is my first post I've just started climbing trees for recreational purpose and I want an advice from you more experienced climber whether this idea I've got it's insane or it's a good practice.

The typical setup I usually end up for canopy tie with the friction saver made of a sling (is this bad?) and a carabiner on one side and a small ring on the other side on a cow hitch. Alternatively to the carabiner I use the classical bigger ring (also on a cow hitch).
_00001.png

When I reach this tie-in point (in SRT) and want to advance to another point without removing this first point I've only available the length needed to reach the first point.
So I have two options: either unset the butterfly knot and pass enough rope without knowing in advance how much I might need and redo the butterfly knot on the right, OR
Unset the butterfly knot on the right and set it to the left (the bigger ring side)
_00003.png
This way I advance srt on the smaller ring side and I have the full length of the rope available without having to make any rope movement. The only concern is the side loading of the carabiner but it should not be affected because the knot still press on the ring if it goes inside the carabiner.
The downside is that is not remotely retrievable anymore.
_00002.png

Another option would be to install the rope the opposite side... but it's complicated with the throw-line...
How do you do?
 

diramazioni

New Member
I see nobody replied maybe because it's a stupid idea and a better approach is actually to install the rope the opposite way, so instead of passing the weight and the trow line in the big ring before throwing the weight-bag you don't and just make the throw, detach the weight and cow hitch midline on the other side like in the above picture.
20200120_080914.jpg

when you pass the limb with the friction-saver you end up like in the next picture
20200120_083514.jpg
as you can see there is an extra loop now on top of the limb but we don't care we'll get rid of it at the end.
The rope is installed like in the white line using the end part of the throw line as normal 20200120_084257.jpg
20200120_084830.jpg
Now the major part of the rope it's available without having unset any knots and move any rope.
What do you think?
 
Last edited:

kludge

Member
Hi @diramazioni, Welcome. I am wondering why you are choosing to use a friction saver with SRT? What problem are you trying to solve? Why not install your rope without the saver? Friction savers find their cheif use in DDRT systems to protect the tree and lower friction for the system when the rope moves while weighted. Unless I don't what you are trying to accomplish, you may be making things more complicated than they need to be.
 
Last edited:

diramazioni

New Member
I am wondering why you are choosing to use a friction saver with SRT?
I think the friction saver it's useful in both techniques especially if you have multiple redirect and/or you are willing to retrieve it remotely.
I don't always use it especially when I can't isolate the limb, in that case I use a base anchor that sucks imho (like today 15 throws no luck)

What problem are you trying to solve?
Smart rope management in short. Even if you tie directly on the canopy if you don't plan in advance how much rope you'll need on the srt side you end up adjusting or removing the first tie-in point in order to advance since the majority of the rope will rest on the ground unused otherwise
 

DSMc

Well-Known Member
Sorry I can't add anything useful, but even with your nice picture sequence, I'm not really sure what you are doing. But I can say that, even though I will use a base tie 99.9% of the time, if I will obviously need to advance my rope once in the tree, I will do a simple top-choke. When going higher, rarely do I find it beneficial to leave the initial TIP. It is easy to advance the rope when you have just an end.
 

RyTheTreeGuy

Well-Known Member
Since I spliced up a mid line attatchable canopy anchor it has been my go to for canopy anchors. I have tried very hard to find the amount of redirects I can take and not be able to take it out. I have done 7 with it and it still pulled out very easily. Works awesome...for tough trees to isolate I will set up a base tie access line then install the canopy anchor on a second line. For easy isolations or light rec climbs I will do a simple cinch then add in the mid line anchor
 

RyTheTreeGuy

Well-Known Member
Since I spliced up a mid line attatchable canopy anchor it has been my go to for canopy anchors. I have tried very hard to find the amount of redirects I can take and not be able to take it out. I have done 7 with it and it still pulled out very easily. Works awesome...for tough trees to isolate I will set up a base tie access line then install the canopy anchor on a second line. For easy isolations or light rec climbs I will do a simple cinch then add in the mid line anchor
20200120_153955.jpg
 

Tom Lynch

Active Member
I'm struggling to follow exactly what your goals are and how this approach is ideal. I may suggest looking at a different solution? I find this TIP system is ideal for the majority of climbs when a base anchor is not ideal. Even if I can't (don't want to spend the time) isolate a good TIP. It is relatively easy to advance or reposition and reduces the downsides of a base anchor while still being easy to install. Short intro video of the: Flint Locker / Soft 8 - Canopy anchor. By JB Holdway

I found a more in depth video: SRT/SRS Canopy Anchor: Flint Locker (Soft 8) set up - Lone Star Arborists
 
Last edited:

kludge

Member
@diramazioni , it looks like you solved your original post yourself. In considering what you said about smart rope management, I think I see what you are trying to accomplish. I can see why what you are doing would make it easier to re-crotch after ascent.

I don't know what your climbing context is, but I am learning climbing in the production context. The pressure is to get the rope in the tree and up as quickly as possible. Once a throw line is in the tree, setting a saver and then a rope would be more time on the ground than the guys would tolerate. So that colors my "more complicated" perspective.

I think if you are able to spend more time on the ground setting ropes, I can see what this gets you in terms of making things quicker in the tree.

Some thoughts about various set ups. Girthing webbing on to the rings is probably fine. It does weaken the webbing a bit, but you probably have margin enough in the webbing strength to do that. (You should make your own judgment since you know your webbing. Basket is stronger than girthing).

I think either the carabiner or rings are fine. The rings look like a bit more bend radius, so it's up to you.

Personally I like the simplicity of the two rings both girthed on to the webbing. But once again, you should be sure your webbing has the rating to take that, although webbing is strong stuff so it probably does. I just don't want to make that call for you.

Yoyoman has an interesting set up that does some of the same thing you seem to be working to accomplish without the friction saver. Here is one of his videos demonstrating it.

 
Last edited:

Tony

Well-Known Member
Your first idea to switch sides of the knot is a very bad idea. During tests with a standard ring and ring friction saver misconfigured, that is the knot against the larger ring, the knot pulled through at very low load.

Your second configuration seems overly complex and more likely to spin a web than set a tie in point. I hope that the configuration you are using with the rings and screw links is just for demo as well. Chaining hardware together like that, particularly hardware remot from the climber is a bad idea as well.

I really don’t think Two ring friction savers are very useful in SRS work positioning for all the reasons pointed out above and many more. Can they be configured safety? Yes, Can they be configured terribly wrong? Yes. That alone rules them out for me.

There are many other better solutions to your concerns. One of which may very well be using a MRS system when needed.

Tony
 

RyTheTreeGuy

Well-Known Member
I am not following you...it is a spliced 16 strand friction saver that I use for a canopy anchor. The alpine butterfly is used as a knot block and the biner is there as an extra safety. I climb on the tri link side and the knot blocks on the small mallion. Retrieval is very easy even with multiple re-directs because there is limited friction at the anchor as opposed to the cinching of a limb or union. Am I missing something? I am genuinely serious and respect your opinions so if you feel it is unsafe please explain. Thank you
 

Bob Bob

Well-Known Member
I see nobody replied maybe because it's a stupid idea and a better approach is actually to install the rope the opposite way, so instead of passing the weight and the trow line in the big ring before throwing the weight-bag you don't and just make the throw, detach the weight and cow hitch midline on the other side like in the above picture.
View attachment 64874

when you pass the limb with the friction-saver you end up like in the next picture
View attachment 64875
as you can see there is an extra loop now on top of the limb but we don't care we'll get rid of it at the end.
The rope is installed like in the white line using the end part of the throw line as normal View attachment 64876
View attachment 64877
Now the major part of the rope it's available without having unset any knots and move any rope.
What do you think?
Welcome to Treebuzz diramazioni!
I would recommend eliminating the friction saver and just doing a canopy cinch anchor. It's so much easier to deploy as a recreational climber, plus when you get to the canopy anchor you have access to your entire rope.
 

Tony

Well-Known Member
I am not following you...it is a spliced 16 strand friction saver that I use for a canopy anchor. The alpine butterfly is used as a knot block and the biner is there as an extra safety. I climb on the tri link side and the knot blocks on the small mallion. Retrieval is very easy even with multiple re-directs because there is limited friction at the anchor as opposed to the cinching of a limb or union. Am I missing something? I am genuinely serious and respect your opinions so if you feel it is unsafe please explain. Thank you
Ry,

When systems with a stopper knot are loaded the knot will compress and get a lot smaller. In our tests the alpine butterfly compressed enough to pass through the large ring of a friction saver. The carabiner jammed, but the loop parted well below 5000lb due to the bend radius on the carabiner.

Now keep in mind, this was a ring with a constant radius. In your set up the screw link is not a constant radius. It is an oval, therefor the knot would have to compress even less, in one direction, to pass through. I am guessing at an even lower load than our ring test.

The oposite is also true. There smallest diameter of the link is probably smaller than and, hence, stronger. It would depend on knot to link configuration when loaded, if the rope twisted as loaded, how the knot was tied, how it was.... Too many variables to predict.

When it comes to an anchor, it’s stability or ultimate strength, I never want to hear the term, “it depends.” There is simply too much riding on it, as in everything is bad if your anchor fails.

If your back up plan is the carabiner, my next question would be why are you using an anchor system that needs a back up? Then there is the fact of ultimate load bering ability, if the knot were to pass through And the backup was needed.

I hope I am explaining it clearly. The components of your anchor system are all fine as individual units. Depending on configuration the system may well be strong enough and stable to meet all requirements. However, the configuration you are describing may put the individual pieces in a less than strong enough/ stable enough position.

Do I think you are going to fall to your death or serious injury while using this system? No. I have never tested it.

Do I think the chance of misconfiguration is high? Yes.


Do I think the knot slipping through will cause you to plummet to earth? No.


Do I think an over load of the anchor at the wrong time could have dire health consequences for you if the knot passes through the link and your system gets unintended slack? Yes.

We work in a hazardous field with many unpredictable aspects. We need to have anchors that are as solid and reliable and as resilient as we can make them. In my judgement, your system does not meet those requirements as you have it configured for SRS.

If you were on my job, I would kindly ask you to use another anchor system. One we could both agree on.

Respectfuly,

Tony
 

Arob28

New Member
Ry,

When systems with a stopper knot are loaded the knot will compress and get a lot smaller. In our tests the alpine butterfly compressed enough to pass through the large ring of a friction saver. The carabiner jammed, but the loop parted well below 5000lb due to the bend radius on the carabiner.

Now keep in mind, this was a ring with a constant radius. In your set up the screw link is not a constant radius. It is an oval, therefor the knot would have to compress even less, in one direction, to pass through. I am guessing at an even lower load than our ring test.

The oposite is also true. There smallest diameter of the link is probably smaller than and, hence, stronger. It would depend on knot to link configuration when loaded, if the rope twisted as loaded, how the knot was tied, how it was.... Too many variables to predict.

When it comes to an anchor, it’s stability or ultimate strength, I never want to hear the term, “it depends.” There is simply too much riding on it, as in everything is bad if your anchor fails.

If your back up plan is the carabiner, my next question would be why are you using an anchor system that needs a back up? Then there is the fact of ultimate load bering ability, if the knot were to pass through And the backup was needed.

I hope I am explaining it clearly. The components of your anchor system are all fine as individual units. Depending on configuration the system may well be strong enough and stable to meet all requirements. However, the configuration you are describing may put the individual pieces in a less than strong enough/ stable enough position.

Do I think you are going to fall to your death or serious injury while using this system? No. I have never tested it.

Do I think the chance of misconfiguration is high? Yes.


Do I think the knot slipping through will cause you to plummet to earth? No.


Do I think an over load of the anchor at the wrong time could have dire health consequences for you if the knot passes through the link and your system gets unintended slack? Yes.

We work in a hazardous field with many unpredictable aspects. We need to have anchors that are as solid and reliable and as resilient as we can make them. In my judgement, your system does not meet those requirements as you have it configured for SRS.

If you were on my job, I would kindly ask you to use another anchor system. One we could both agree on.

Respectfuly,

Tony
Tony, I always enjoy reading your posts and more so listening to your explanations in person. I’ve been leaning towards the ring and ring anchor for SRS canopy tie in. Since You seem to be out on the idea, could you suggest an alternative? Need something that supports more than 1 natural redirect. (And can be retrieved). Texas tug or other cinch methods are just a pain to retrieve.
 

RyTheTreeGuy

Well-Known Member
Ry,

When systems with a stopper knot are loaded the knot will compress and get a lot smaller. In our tests the alpine butterfly compressed enough to pass through the large ring of a friction saver. The carabiner jammed, but the loop parted well below 5000lb due to the bend radius on the carabiner.

Now keep in mind, this was a ring with a constant radius. In your set up the screw link is not a constant radius. It is an oval, therefor the knot would have to compress even less, in one direction, to pass through. I am guessing at an even lower load than our ring test.

The oposite is also true. There smallest diameter of the link is probably smaller than and, hence, stronger. It would depend on knot to link configuration when loaded, if the rope twisted as loaded, how the knot was tied, how it was.... Too many variables to predict.

When it comes to an anchor, it’s stability or ultimate strength, I never want to hear the term, “it depends.” There is simply too much riding on it, as in everything is bad if your anchor fails.

If your back up plan is the carabiner, my next question would be why are you using an anchor system that needs a back up? Then there is the fact of ultimate load bering ability, if the knot were to pass through And the backup was needed.

I hope I am explaining it clearly. The components of your anchor system are all fine as individual units. Depending on configuration the system may well be strong enough and stable to meet all requirements. However, the configuration you are describing may put the individual pieces in a less than strong enough/ stable enough position.

Do I think you are going to fall to your death or serious injury while using this system? No. I have never tested it.

Do I think the chance of misconfiguration is high? Yes.


Do I think the knot slipping through will cause you to plummet to earth? No.


Do I think an over load of the anchor at the wrong time could have dire health consequences for you if the knot passes through the link and your system gets unintended slack? Yes.

We work in a hazardous field with many unpredictable aspects. We need to have anchors that are as solid and reliable and as resilient as we can make them. In my judgement, your system does not meet those requirements as you have it configured for SRS.

If you were on my job, I would kindly ask you to use another anchor system. One we could both agree on.

Respectfuly,

Tony
Thank you for your thorough response...

I must preface all of this by saying thisbis not always my anchor system of choice. However, in certain circumstances It has been a nice addition to the tool box.

If you are having concerns about this system it has definitely given me cause for reflection and potential modifications to make it safer.

My initial thought is that the alpine butterfly may not be the best stopper knot for this applocation. Possibly a figure 8 (or 9) on a bight? Initial thought is that it is a larger stopper???

You mentioned back ups should not be needed in a great system...this I must admit I don't fully agree with. I believe redundancy in a system is always welcomed. Which brings me to my next thought. Possibly adding a second stopper knot after the first would be a good alternative back up?

The reason this system had worked well for me is it allows me to work 99% of the trees in my area with 100 ft of rope or less which keeps the weight down...especially for rec climbs. I have a 80 ft piece of 5 mm accesory cord that I use for retrieval.

The system is always set up a loft. I access the tree via a base anchor or simple cinching anchor. I will then lanyard in, set up the system and then review each component (safety check) of the system. Once satisfied I will verify by weighting the line with my lanyard on. Once my weight is fully into the system I will re check all components and then and only then will I disconnect my lanyard.

I understand this is a more complex system, but dis-regarding a tool because of a more involved system, which has many valuable attributes can be counter productive.

I agree that I need to do more testing of the system. The fact that it has raised alarms for you means that verification of the safety of this system is warranted.

I will do my best to do some in field load testing to the best of my ability without having the most scientific or quantifiable data.

I appreciate your time and insight.

Thank you
 

JeffGu

Well-Known Member
SRTanchor.jpg

Requirements are a rope with a spliced eye on one end, and preferably a small loop at the other end to make attaching a throwline to it easier/quicker. A throwline the same length as the rope, preferably with a small clip on one end to make it easier/quicker to attach and detach to the tail end of the rope. A retrieval line the same length as the rope, can be anything... heavy throwline, 550 paracord, whatever. I prefer 1/4" polyester rope. $12 for 100' at any farm store. Need a small 'biner or something to attach it to the canopy anchor.

You can now install the rope from the ground, retrieve it from the ground, and pull out as many natural redirects as you want. Once you have a throwline in the tree, and your TIP isolated, it takes a couple of minutes to install.

This is one I just made earlier tonight out of stuff I had laying around. The split ring is just one off of some worn out lower straps from an old set of climbers. 3/8" pear QuickLink was one that came with a rec harness that I no longer have. 3' long, 7000 lb. loop runner. 3' piece of chafe guard. 5/16" bow shackle. Some shrink tubing. The split ring is the retrieval line attachment point. You use a 5/16" QuickLink to attach the rope to the anchor.
 

Tony

Well-Known Member
Tony, I always enjoy reading your posts and more so listening to your explanations in person. I’ve been leaning towards the ring and ring anchor for SRS canopy tie in. Since You seem to be out on the idea, could you suggest an alternative? Need something that supports more than 1 natural redirect. (And can be retrieved). Texas tug or other cinch methods are just a pain to retrieve.
Arob28,
I apologize for the delay in responding. You are reading me correct, I don’t like the 2 ring friction saver as an option for SRS work positioning. As for alternatives, I am checking on some stuff, but should be able to provide some details on an anchor system I really like soon.

Tony
 

Tony

Well-Known Member
You mentioned back ups should not be needed in a great system...this I must admit I don't fully agree with. I believe redundancy in a system is always welcomed. Which brings me to my next thought. Possibly adding a second stopper knot after the first would be a good alternative back up?
Ry,

I am chipping what you are cutting. I also appreciate your willingness to listen and mostly to use caution and good sense when making decisions on the tools and techniques that keep you alive and well.

For clarification I quoted the above passage I also realize we are just talking semantics here to an extent, but it is vital as we talk about, decide, discuss these issues we have a common, understood vocabulary.

In my mind "redundancy" and "back-ups" are two totally different things. A backup is a tool, technique, knot... that in the event of a main system failure will replace the original. Classic example is two ascenders in series on a single line. Both attached appropriately for life support to the climber. If the top one fails, the bottom "backs-up" the main.

Redundancy is a condition in a system, tool or technique... That while not needed can add security, strength, application... to the system. The classic example here is a basal anchored climbing line. It is through a suitable suspension point above, but also through a few subsidiary unions as well, spreading load, changing angles, adding... redundancy.

Another example is a double bridge set up on a climbing harness. Not needed, but redundant and adding security as well as opportunity for alternate applications

Now, some might consider the second bridge a "backup" If you are following my line of thought, and you use a second bridge because you think there is the opportunity for your first to fail, I would seriously question your climbing, your cutting and your inspection procedures!

Back up , by my definition may be appropriate. It may also add unneeded clutter and make something unsafe through confusion and complexity. Some systems, techniques, tools, situations may require a backup of some sort. For example, when teaching new climbers SRS ascent, I often make the system "lowerable" through a base anchor. For an accomplished climber, proficient in the technique this seems an unnecessary complication.

Another example, when setting a anchor remotely for ascent I will often work back ups on my ascent system. Once I get to the top and set a work positioning system, because I set the anchor and can inspect it closely, I feel no back up is needed on my work positioning system.

There, are some systems where a back up,( by my definition) shows an inherent weakness or a flaw and therefore should never be used. An anchor system is one. The system should be strong enough, stable enough, on its own. Period. If you look at some systems, like anchors, and think they need back-up, I question the anchor and I strongly encourage you to do the same. If your cutting techniques and saw use is such that you run the risk of cutting your bridge, then there is no amount of backup that will save you from poor technique or unsafe acts and attitudes. You can't out perform poor practice with good equipment.

Redundancy is always welcome in any system and ultimately adds to a systems resiliency....which is another discussion.

Tony
 
Last edited:

SomethingWitty

Arkansawyer
While tony added some great stuff, I missed this thread and I am going to throw out there that it is in NO WAY okay to knot block a carabinier like the images in the beginning of the thread. It's not only a large hole that is flimsy, but the carabinier in the butterfly could fit through the carabinier that is serving as a large ring.
 

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Kask Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger Tracked Lifts Climbing Innovations
Top Bottom