- Location
- Winston salem
What is the best way to setup redirect in tree while climbing?
Tie ins
- Thread starter Crocodile
- Start date
Crimsonking
Been here a while
2016 srtwp redirects
lets see what you got buzzards. i saw a post on "i love srt" that a guy had on loop a ring and something else and said that is all he ever needed for redirects. I got a couple simple ones i have been playing with. I will post pics soon
www.treebuzz.com
Reach
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Atglen, PA
That all depends on your climbing methods, style, and the tree itself. I would recommend buying and reading “The Tree Climber’s Companion” for a decent place to start. There’s not any one method that is always best or easier to use.
One of the flavour variations of a redirect is low or high friction. Sling and biner is low friction unless you wrap the rope a few turns around the spine of the biner like someone posted recently. Sling and biner can also work as a temporary higher stem tip (say, where there's no crotches) while leaving your rope through its original crotch. You'll be a chef extraordinaire if you can absorb all the different redirect types from all the earlier forum posts.
Using friction/low friction depends on how you want to load the tree taking into account angles, side loads (branch/stem bending), axial loads (like tent center pole - good load) and how many tree members you are distributing your weight into (rope contact points). I once sprung two codoms together pretty good before I was more enlightened.
Natural crotch requires fiddling your rope as you do it, but pays off when you just pull your rope at the end of the climb. I'd call it 50% friction (halfway from low to high) unless its a tight crotch angle rough bark tree.
Many eons ago, in lands and tribes long lost, people used twin pulleys on a sling to redirect DdRT. These were not a happy people. (Anyone notice I finally put the small d in DRT? Us dinosaurs can learn too.)
Using friction/low friction depends on how you want to load the tree taking into account angles, side loads (branch/stem bending), axial loads (like tent center pole - good load) and how many tree members you are distributing your weight into (rope contact points). I once sprung two codoms together pretty good before I was more enlightened.
Natural crotch requires fiddling your rope as you do it, but pays off when you just pull your rope at the end of the climb. I'd call it 50% friction (halfway from low to high) unless its a tight crotch angle rough bark tree.
Many eons ago, in lands and tribes long lost, people used twin pulleys on a sling to redirect DdRT. These were not a happy people. (Anyone notice I finally put the small d in DRT? Us dinosaurs can learn too.)
Yah, I've got one of those pulleys in the bottom of my gadget bag somewhere. And I think the kids are calling it MRS these days, so even DdRT is out
Last edited:
agent_smith
New member
- Location
- Townsville
The comment from 27RMTON is interesting and relevant when you consider the bigger picture of rope access techniques (tree climbing is a form of 'rope access').
What I am saying is that all roping technicians (regardless of what your work context is) will either be using a single rope system or a dual (twin) rope system.
ISO22846 specifies a dual (twin) rope suspension system at all times.
I am not saying that tree canopy work must adhere to ISO22846 (and I am not attempting to get into a debate about single versus dual rope systems).
I am simply pointing out that phrases such as DdRT (choose your favorite acronym) lose their meaning in the broader context of technical rope work.
At the end of the day - as a tree climbing technician - ultimately, you are either supported by a single rope system or a dual (twin) rope system.
I can understand the resistance to ISO22846 - as it means changing the paradigm and, (for some) it adds too much perceived rigging complexity.
Whether you have a 'moving' or 'stationary' system would therefore have to be placed into the broader context of a single rope suspension system or; a dual (twin) rope suspension system.
My personal viewpoint is that adherence to ISO22846 could give an operator a marketting edge against his opposition - and in some larger contract work worth big $$ - the client may find comfort knowing that the operator is adhering to ISO22846. The precise detail of maintaining 2 independent fall protection points is up to the tree climbing technician - and I would point out that most already do so while performing any cut using powered tools (reducing back to only one fall protection point when mobile).
...
With specific regard to the OP's re-directs, it lends itself nicely toward ISO22846 - with 2 independent systems pointing along different trajectories - which provides stability and enhances balance. Again, I have no doubt that some tree climbing technicians have used 2 fall protection systems pointing in 2 different directions to aid in mobility and precise positioning within the tree canopy.
What I am saying is that all roping technicians (regardless of what your work context is) will either be using a single rope system or a dual (twin) rope system.
ISO22846 specifies a dual (twin) rope suspension system at all times.
I am not saying that tree canopy work must adhere to ISO22846 (and I am not attempting to get into a debate about single versus dual rope systems).
I am simply pointing out that phrases such as DdRT (choose your favorite acronym) lose their meaning in the broader context of technical rope work.
At the end of the day - as a tree climbing technician - ultimately, you are either supported by a single rope system or a dual (twin) rope system.
I can understand the resistance to ISO22846 - as it means changing the paradigm and, (for some) it adds too much perceived rigging complexity.
Whether you have a 'moving' or 'stationary' system would therefore have to be placed into the broader context of a single rope suspension system or; a dual (twin) rope suspension system.
My personal viewpoint is that adherence to ISO22846 could give an operator a marketting edge against his opposition - and in some larger contract work worth big $$ - the client may find comfort knowing that the operator is adhering to ISO22846. The precise detail of maintaining 2 independent fall protection points is up to the tree climbing technician - and I would point out that most already do so while performing any cut using powered tools (reducing back to only one fall protection point when mobile).
...
With specific regard to the OP's re-directs, it lends itself nicely toward ISO22846 - with 2 independent systems pointing along different trajectories - which provides stability and enhances balance. Again, I have no doubt that some tree climbing technicians have used 2 fall protection systems pointing in 2 different directions to aid in mobility and precise positioning within the tree canopy.
LOL! Yet here you are, and with a sales pitch too.
agent_smith
New member
- Location
- Townsville
?
LOL - some very large contracts (eg Government contracts with high $ value) typically insist on an ISO 9000 accreditation or evidence that the tendering operator adheres to some recognized standard. And this is where I pointed to ISO22846 as one possible example (of a standard). Other than that, everything you stated is manifestly wrong.
Back on topic: As stated, all fall protection systems will either be single rope or dual (twin) rope - with individual variations existing within each category.
Using an ISO22846 type system may provide enhanced stability and balance in the tree canopy - particularly if dual ropes are tracking in different trajectories. This is simply a statement of fact and isn't a 'sales pitch'.
Re-directs get into the realm of diminishing returns if there is no useful overhead limb or the operator attempts to move further along a branch which proportionally loses integrity the further along the branch the operator moves.
Crimsonking
Been here a while
Lots of book theorizing here. Everything has its place, except overreaching policies that over-complicate work practices, or derails that are a platform to pontificate on said polices.
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
-
Fruit tree holding on by a thread, client wants to get another year out of it. Thoughts?- Started by climbingmonkey24
- Replies: 30
-
-
-
