U-SAVER ready for prime time?

I've no "online reference" for that, sorry!
I just know it for some time know, and other climbers as well.
No idea who came up with it for the first time, which is the hardest part imo. I think its mostly like that in Tree Climbing, unfortunately.

An as you say, its pretty obvious with an adjustable FS, especially when you have something life support rated for retrieval.

Nice new tag line!
But may be leading in the reckless direction you mentioned above... :)
 
Thanks, Max. I’m actually relieved to hear that.

Creativity, especially in this business, almost never jumps up out of a black hole … it “stands on the shoulders” of work that comes before. I try to be conscientious about crediting earlier work.

So maybe all we have here is coining a new word and a new classification system. But it’s more than just seeing a life-rated element at the retrieval end. For example, the uSAVER in the “equalizing” configuration would NOT qualify as “double safe”. It is redundant with respect to the tree but if you nick the mainline with your chainsaw, the anchor is gone.

Max, I have very serious misgivings about the “reckless direction” issue you mention. In 2011, I did a video (“U-SAVER in multi-anchor configurations”). This configuration was “double safe” and, in addition, it could adjust total length so you could control the direction of the resultant force vectors on each tie-in point. Not only could you share the climbing load, but you could transform bending force into axial force down along the branch. It was startling to me how powerful this idea was. The tree just seems to “stiffen up” and I was climbing on tiny little stuff with no problem. BUT I was doing this low and slow in an “academic” environment, not a “working” environment.

My take-away is that these multi-anchor configurations can be very, very powerful but in a working environment, I would only setup to two (2) fully qualified tie-ins.


OF
 
I use a long adj. FS with a floating ring a lot, I love how you can change the direction of the load on the anchor. Sometimes I do use anchors I wouldnt use alone, especially because of the direction of the loading (on crotches).

More often I even use the 2 anchor system without the floating ring though, knowing of the increased force on the anchors. Always looking for the force Vectors.

I do so because the floating ring quite often limits retrieval. I am still looking for a simple solution to eliminate that problem. Most simple yet is to just skip the floating ring, as I said ;)

I cant imagine going back to a short FS in the moment btw, the long one gives me so much more options for anchoring, but thats another topic maybe.

If you cut your mainline its of no relevance how the FS (or U-Saver ;) is set up, or if you even use one...
 
Love all your work with the U-saver. I have searched youtube for retrieval videos and cannot find one that shows an efficient controlled retrieval method that does not include a preinstalled line. Can you advise me? Thanks.
 
Oops. Sorry Max, I misspoke. By “mainline”, I meant the body of the uSAVER, not the climbing line. If you cut that mainline when the uS is rigged “double safe”, you get a do-over.

And boy do I agree with your comments about vectors. Sounds pretty esoteric but you really feel it in the tree. I was so impressed after I first tried the multi-anchor stuff, I chased my calculator around the desk and figured that, under some circumstances, you could reduce the BENDING forces on a branch by 80% compared to the same climber hanging normally on one tie-in. That turns a two hundred pound climber into a forty pound feather weight.
 
Thanks for that video Mark, I know it well. In my first video on uSAVER multi-anchors (also May 2012 but after Taylor) (see <u>U-SAVER in multi-anchor configurations</u>) I specifically thank Taylor and Teuf for leading me to the design. They get the innovation credit. I was just claiming the uSAVER could do it all for less cost (~$150) than all the Teuf pieces (~$600).

You guys could do so much with this idea. Have DMM make a hollow aluminum thimble big enough to pass the Pinto. But only size it to carry 1200 pounds and 13mm line. Cheaper, smaller, lighter, much easier to work with. Then certify the whole <u>system</u> to 22kN by the strength of the cordage around with a Slaice. It would be a gang buster product and Teuf is the only outfit in the world that could get it all done.
 
Thanks, Tom, but these seem to be install videos. I am wondering about controlled retrieval, that is, not just free falling the USaver out of the tree. With normal ring style FS's, or using the US in a basket config, I just tie a throwline into the splice of my climbing line and after the climbing line pulls the FS out of the tree, the throwline goes over the tie in point, and controlled retrieval is accomplished - even though this requires three parts of throw line from ground to tie in point.
When using the US in the choked config, running just on the pulley (IMO the only reason to use one of these types of FS's) I end up with SEVEN parts of throwline when I try to retrieve it this way, and there is just way too much friction and it ends up a stuck mess, not to mention I would need 280 feet of throwline for just a 40 feet TIP height.
Is there a way to do a controlled retrieval of the US when used in its choked config WITHOUT having to pre-install another line for retrieval?
Thanks again.
 
Ho. I got that wrong.

Firstly, I'd say just bomb it. I only do that with the Pinto because of the fully rated becket. Damage the pulley somehow and the becket will hold you. I've been doing this for years, no problem, BUT always over soft ground. For hard surfaces, I think the pulley would take the abuse but I couldn't take the sound.

In that case, toss another throwline somewhere near the uS, above, below, any branch, doesn't matter. Butterfly a carabiner onto the line and clip it over on your climbing line above the prusik. Pull the biner up near the uS and retrieve. The biner will catch and hold the uSAVER. Lower.
 
Thanks again Tom. I knew you'd have an efficient solution.
If you'd indulge me a bit longer... If I'm correct, Treestuff's Usaver and the pulleysaver both use ocean to prusik the pinto onto the friction saver. Does the information that indicates that the kinds of fibers in the core of this cord may not stand up well to repeated bending concern you at all? I wonder about that when the pulley is hanging over the big ring with such a tight bend in that cord.
 
Isn't Ocean just polyester? Are you thinking of some High Mod fibers? I haven't seen or read anything to indicate that OP core fibers are self-abrading or otherwise unsuitable for this application.
I could definitely be wrong though
 
I agree with JontreeHI, there's nothing exotic in the fiber. Additionally, the path of the cordage out of the prusik thru the big ring is 135 degrees (ie only 45 degrees of bend), even under full load. It's not any particularly tough duty.
 
I thought the cord used was the Ocean Vectran - the Treestuff website doesn't say. But John is right that the 8mm is just poly. The new pulleysaver has replaced ocean with sirius which apparently is also just poly. Thanks guys!
 
The application of using the 2nd anchor as an unloaded back up is not showing in Taylors video and in know other one I've seen yet. Thats why I have no reference but I do know it and I know other climbers who do so as well.

Maybe that can be part of the classificaion, one loaded anchor, two (or more) loaded anchors, self-equalizing, load sharing, redundant etc. ...
 
Mark B,

Your comment got me to re-watching that video. It was tough .. I had to concentrate past Taylor’s rugged good looks, his winning smile and that really, really good posture.

In the redundant configuration, he sets the MultiAnchor with four (4) life support elements. It struck me that the primary advantage is that the 4-ring setup can support two (2) redundant climbing lines. I understand that’s a must for some workers but for me, I let my lanyard to do that, particularly when the saw is running.

I don’t own a MultiAnchor and I haven’t tried this but here’s how I would set up:

1) Pull off one of the ringloop-34 and discard
2) Push the floating ring out of the way completely to one end
3) Re-tie the other ringloop-34 to be a 4-wrap, 8-coil and reposition as the center LSE

This way you get the DoubleSafe configuration of a uSAVER but cheaper, simplier, faster.

I’m guessing it would retrieve normally. You see any problem with this notion? If you send me one, I’ll do a video but I’ll need a seriously good looking woman with me to compete with Taylor.


OF
 
I have thought of an install method for u-savers/pulley savers, not sure if it has been promoted before?

No extra gadgets needed - just a throwline and bag.

Pass your throwbag through the big eye or ring(on your rightside), throw over branch, then detach bag, pass end of throwline through the ring of the bag, then through the pulley, then tie off the throwline to the bag, the weight of the throwbag pulls it through the ring or large eye, and drops to ground, ready for your rope.

This method does not engage the recovery clip, but that can done on your ascent.

Plus this method does not need any more throwline than usual.
 
Pensafe has discontinued manufacturing the 2.5" ring used at the head of the uSAVER. TreeStuff has come up with the answer.



Here's the short version:
slightly smaller
smoother
certified
don't use the Pinto Rig anymore
stay with the West Marine .5"x2.5" for rigging apps


OF
 
Here's another configuration for the uSAVER.

You're kidding me, right?

Nope. Two pulleys.
And a quick fix for when you forget to pre-thread the throwline through the large ring.





OF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom