The Hitch Hiker

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, question here. The stopper knots you tie on this HH, don't they jam up?or is there something about the design that keeps them from doing so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Knot doesn't jam. Does the job and unties easily when you take the HH off the rope.
-AJ
 
I saw a video somewhere in here of a HH rope walker set up. The climber was using a hand ascender above the HH for his foot loop. Is there any safety related reason as to why this ascender is needed? I tried using the HH on the foot loop side with just a long bridge tether to allow for the longer movement and it works fine; get to the top, step up and clip in (can be done a couple ways safely without unclipping, and I'm ready to go. Is this already being done and I'm not seeing it?
 
Using the HH as the upper ascender in a rope walker setup works really well. Most rope walker systems incorporate 3 ascenders. The middle position is there not only to capture progress but to take the strain off of your arms in maintaining an upright body position.
This is not so important if you can be close to the trunk as then your feet will keep you upright with just a light touch on the trunk. However, if you need to ascend mid-air for more than just a little way, you will feel the tension in your arms without a middle ascender.
Using a top ascender for the foot loop and the Hitch Hiker as the middle ascender gives you an efficient walker setup while not having a toothed ascender attached to your harness.

David
 
[ QUOTE ]

Using the HH as the upper ascender in a rope walker setup works really well. Most rope walker systems incorporate 3 ascenders. The middle position is there not only to capture progress but to take the strain off of your arms in maintaining an upright body position.
This is not so important if you can be close to the trunk as then your feet will keep you upright with just a light touch on the trunk. However, if you need to ascend mid-air for more than just a little way, you will feel the tension in your arms without a middle ascender.
Using a top ascender for the foot loop and the Hitch Hiker as the middle ascender gives you an efficient walker setup while not having a toothed ascender attached to your harness.

David

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this the set up you've always used or are you now using a hand loop? I may have read your quote wrong and am just being daft.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...are you now using a hand loop?...

[/ QUOTE ]

No hand loop in my system, though it looks like a nice idea. The way I have my Futura hand ascender modified, it will pop off if not handled just right.

Dave
 
Dave,

Not trying to pick a fight, nor ctitize your HH system, just want the input of your valuable experience.

By using a non-life support ascender (your kong) to a foot loop not attached into the system (meaning the harness or climber) are you not foregoing an opportunity to double up a system with a secure back up for a few seconds (less than a minute anyway) of "efficiency?"

I have seen and constantly get questions/comments where climbers rate the "efficiency" of a system or "how good" it is by change over time from ascent to descent. The system is often not evaluated by the redundancy in case of component failure, operator error or sudden system overload.

In short, my observations show a tendency to construct systems that are "quick" but not redundant. This sacrifice for time I feel in some cases makes a system less safe.

What are your thoughts,

Tony
 
My personal feeling is that is dangerous and unnecessary to ever clip into a one way ascender. One more thing to create a tangle which can be very dangerous especially when panicked. Also there is the issue of severing ropes with an ascender. We feel so comfortable with just a hitch in ddrt as well as in secured footlocking. I Don't believe I know of a reason to ever secure oneself to an ascender. They scare me.
 
Good question, Tony! I like hearing how others view or interpret my choices in systems.

My choice in not having the ascender attached to my harness is not to save time but to increase safety. Because I much prefer semi-static arb ropes for all my climbing, even canopy entry, and because toothed ascenders were designed to be used with kernmantle type rope, I feel safer not having the toothed ascender tethered to my harness.

Because the primary component of my systems are the Hitch Hiker or Unicender and both have been designed to be used on a single line without a backup, I don't want to compromise my rope's integrity by adding something that could damage it as toothed ascenders can.

David
 
I ripped the sheath of an arb rope to shreds with my Petzl hand ascender and a 1ton come-a-long...

The core held, luckily since I tied a knot in it (the exposed core threads) and clipped it to the come-a-long to finsih pulling the tree over!
 
i just bought a cmi twin hand ascender. my first hand ascender ever. ive been using it two days and its been furring up my tachyon pretty bad. should i discontinue using it or is that amount of wear common. if its not a good combo what ascender do you guys recommend
 
I have no experience with the CMI hand ascender(s), but their foot ascenders are pretty "rope-friendly". My Kong dual hand ascender has been pretty rope-friendly so far too...

How new is your tachyon? If it didn't already have a fair amount of natural wear it certainly would look worse than it might really be vs. on a well broken in line.
 
fairly new i assumed it was just normal wear as its only furring of the outer jacket. but the above thread made me wanna double check. i also have the cmi foot ascender its more rope friendly for sure
 
[ QUOTE ]
... should i discontinue using it or is that amount of wear common...

[/ QUOTE ]

The wear to ropes from normal ascender use is normally not a concern. It is more important to understand how they were designed to respond to different conditions.

Toothed ascenders are favored for their ability to grip dependably in adverse weather and site conditions as well as their ability to dissipate energy during a shock-loading when used with kernmantle ropes. The shredding of the sheath that occurs from a shock-loading is a safety feature by design. The movement that occurs during this process goes a long way in preventing total rope failure, while only damaging the protective mantel so it still has most of its strength left. This works well and is good.

This is not good on arb ropes where the sheath is a major part of its load rating.

Dave
 
Dave,

Thanks for the well reasoned reply. My question then is are most users of these devises aware of the limitations of the construction of the line they use? In my experience most are not. This then brings us to the question of how do we educate. I realize this is another discussion all together!

However, back to topic,, should/can we differentiate between ascent, descent and work positioning? I think we can and should. The forces on the rope are different. Inspection of T.I.P's is different, the end goal is different, the activities performed are different as well as what equipment may or may not be appropriate.

Just as Kevin mistrusts attaching to a toothed, one way ascender (I respect Kevin's opinion on that, I just do not share it). I have similar misgivings in ascending with only one attachment point to the tree/line.

This is why I feel it important to differentiate between the tasks we do to get aloft in trees and work.

In speaking to ascent, where the line has been set from the ground and the climber's goal is to go up. In these cases, redundancy can have many benefits. The tenants of any ascent system should include. The inability of the climber to capsize, the ability to proceed up or down should any equipment failure happen, the inability to fall should one piece of equipment fail. (Naturally if your rope fails you lose, so lets leave that out of the discussion for now as catastrophic, spontaneous line failures are rare) these seem simple and necessary precautions in my mind.

On the flip side once the climber has ascended, secured in the canopy and closely inspected the T.I.P. and is preparing to descend and work. The systems must change and hence the equipment, techniques and most importantly the mindset.

Do you see what I am getting at? To lump one system into the "climb" category is oversimplified and fallacious. For years we have used but one method to ascend, work, descend. It worked but with flaws.

Now we have much more knowledge, techniques and "thinking" at our disposal, yet I feel some still "lump" too much into one basket looking for the holy grail. In the process, clear thinking, open minds and in the end safety may be compromised.

Again I will look forward to hearing everyone's response.

Tony
 
It's hard in an industry such as ours where the standard is set by such practices such as footlocking. In all my years a loft, I have never been attached twice to a line except when experimenting with various ascender techniques. In this cases I always felt very uncomfortable. I just can't imagine dealing with un clipping various elements while in the face of wasps or injury. To me, the use of one way ascenders to clip into is obsolete. It's not so much the teeth and the severing that bother me. It's the getting stuck and tangled that I don't like!
 
I personally do not like to operate any tool hitch, or mechanical in either ddrt or srt in extended mode. I find that my body's instincts make it possible to latch on to the hitch when my arms are extended. That's just me though but I believe it is why the say to never put your hand above the hitch in Footlocking
 
[ QUOTE ]
... I have similar misgivings in ascending with only one attachment point to the tree/line.

This is why I feel it important to differentiate between the tasks we do to get aloft in trees and work.

Do you see what I am getting at? To lump one system into the "climb" category is oversimplified and fallacious...

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony, this is an honest question not a challenge but do you use SRWP? Do you have experience in using the Hitch Hiker? The reason I ask is that I hear many similar questions and concerns from people prior to actually using it that change to understanding with its use.

I have used up-only SRT systems for years and agree with you that multiple points of attachment to the line is the right thing to do. As is an understanding of its limitations and differences to the working system. I think it might be time to set such systems aside because they were adapted from other rope disciplines whereas the new tools were specifically designed for our profession.

With the new tools now available, the entry and working system is one and the same so I think it is accurate to speak of it as such. In many ways it is the way it used to be, no change-over from one to the other. Couple that with its simplicity in setting up redirects so the climber is more likely to use them, and thus maintain better overhead points of suspension, and a good argument could be made for its increased potential for safety. If used with understanding.

David
 
[ QUOTE ]
... I find that my body's instincts make it possible to latch on to the hitch when my arms are extended. That's just me though but I believe it is why the say to never put your hand above the hitch in Footlocking

[/ QUOTE ]

Kevin, all the climbers from my generation used hitches at full arms extension. We all learned to not grip and pull the hitch in panic. The body has many instinctual responses that can be modified with training.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom