Updated Sequoia

[moss]

I'm prolly gonna just scaffold tie a piece of htp in it's place. It doesn't make me feel secure at heights.

View attachment 56696

For some reason which Petzl has never publicly addressed, they use totally wonky stitching on their bridge eyes. Be curious to know what the break strength is and what their thinking is on this critical life support component and the apparently inferior stitching quality. If it breaks well, awesome. Not inspiring otherwise.
-AJ

 

[moss]

I think my brain must be messed up, hand-stitching looks so much better to me then machine stitching ;-)

 

[evo]

Maybe we can get Richard to break a few

 

[Jimmycrackcorn]

but I'm right now most intrigued as to why they didn't take their existing bridge design, with sewn eyes, and use the eyes themselves looped over the bar instead of using the eyes as stopper knots. Wondering if there's a benefit to one over the other in Petzl's view. To us, the idea of a simple stopper knot solution would be great so we could stop worrying about their shoddy stitching, but why would they do it, if they're still on their horse about only approved replacements? It looks like it'd be perfectly doable to tie a pair of bridges in the way the new TM is set up, and there's nothing stopping a Roll 'n Lock's use except politics now.

The only reasoning i can think of as to why they did it this way instead of looped around the D like you mentioned.. is.. they were probably were just trying to address complaints or give more room for whatever attachment method is floating on the bridge... For those that have only known Petzl's sewn rope bridges & not ridden on something like a TM or MB with rigging plates or lower D's & stoppers on the back side of those; when put side by side the sewn ends looped around the ring will limit the range of whatever smaller attachment device is floating on the bridge. The floating device will be continually bumping into that tail..

Also, if you have that stitched eye orientated wrong, meaning the cut tail on the inside closest to you, not only will it continually bump & limit motion, but sometimes the floating ring will ride up over the stitch & when you sit back into the saddle it will make butt puckering "POP!", followed by a very small unatural movement, which if your not used to can be rather unerving if you don't know where it's coming from.. It's not really that big of a deal, but it's not very refined either when comparing to alternative solutions.. Lastly, if you trying to use something like a Rook or a California Swivel, regardless if the eyes are facing the correct way, that limited range of motion may be even more evident as i don't believe those devices will ride over the stitched ends all the way to the ring.. So your losing about an inch or so on each side. The stitch may also try to wedge itself inside of whatever floating device your using..

Yes, the loss of range is very minimal when comparing two stationary bridge designs, it's probably equivelant to crying over spilt milk.. but if you could remove those cons from the design, it's obvious most manufacturers would.. & this is all just what I've noticed in the very short amount of time I've been messing around with their Adjustable Bridge on my MB saddle.

I will say, the ADJ Bridge from them does seem rather... Idk... Anemic.. compared to 16 strand options. The adjuster is kind of a neat concept though..

 

[Jehinten]

The only reasoning i can think of as to why they did it this way instead of looped around the D like you mentioned.. is.. they were probably were just trying to address complaints or give more room for whatever attachment method is floating on the bridge... For those that have only known Petzl's sewn rope bridges & not ridden on something like a TM or MB with rigging plates or lower D's & stoppers on the back side of those; when put side by side the sewn ends looped around the ring will limit the range of whatever smaller attachment device is floating on the bridge. The floating device will be continually bumping into that tail..

Also, if you have that stitched eye orientated wrong, meaning the cut tail on the inside closest to you, not only will it continually bump & limit motion, but sometimes the floating ring will ride up over the stitch & when you sit back into the saddle it will make butt puckering "POP!", followed by a very small unatural movement, which if your not used to can be rather unerving if you don't know where it's coming from.. It's not really that big of a deal, but it's not very refined either when comparing to alternative solutions.. Lastly, if you trying to use something like a Rook or a California Swivel, regardless if the eyes are facing the correct way, that limited range of motion may be even more evident as i don't believe those devices will ride over the stitched ends all the way to the ring.. So your losing about an inch or so on each side. The stitch may also try to wedge itself inside of whatever floating device your using..

Yes, the loss of range is very minimal when comparing two stationary bridge designs, it's probably equivelant to crying over spilt milk.. but if you could remove those cons from the design, it's obvious most manufacturers would.. & this is all just what I've noticed in the very short amount of time I've been messing around with their Adjustable Bridge on my MB saddle.

I will say, the ADJ Bridge from them does seem rather... Idk... Anemic.. compared to 16 strand options. The adjuster is kind of a neat concept though..

I get what your saying here, but range of motion is no different going through the plate than attached to the eye, especially if they use the same length bridge as the previous model. You in fact even lose more length due to the width of the rigging plate. The plates thickness isn't much, but as long as were crying over spilt milk.

 

[Jimmycrackcorn]

I get what your saying here, but range of motion is no different going through the plate than attached to the eye, especially if they use the same length bridge as the previous model. You in fact even lose more length due to the width of the rigging plate. The plates thickness isn't much, but as long as were crying over spilt milk.

Dang.. i think ya lost me there..
Idk how else to explain it.. it's definatley different though.. especially if using a floating small ring like a red/grey smc ring or if you have the stitch oriented backwards..

In one situation, there's a doubled over stitch that a pulley or small ring isn't going to go pass, whereas with a stopper knot & plate, you'll have that floating ring or pulley continue all the way to the plate itself..

When i say range of motion I'm only referencing the distance the floating object can travel before becoming obstructed & why petzl may have gone with passing eyes beyond the D's vs connected to them.. You add a second bridge like they did & there is allot more to contend with..

See pictures below.. & then imagine twice of everything trying to float over to the stitched eyes all in the same spot... It probably doesn't work out too smooth if both lines are tensioned in same direction.

Vs something like this.. goes all the way to the plate.

 

[Mowerr]

The only reasoning i can think of as to why they did it this way instead of looped around the D like you mentioned.. is.. they were probably were just trying to address complaints or give more room for whatever attachment method is floating on the bridge... For those that have only known Petzl's sewn rope bridges & not ridden on something like a TM or MB with rigging plates or lower D's & stoppers on the back side of those; when put side by side the sewn ends looped around the ring will limit the range of whatever smaller attachment device is floating on the bridge. The floating device will be continually bumping into that tail..

Also, if you have that stitched eye orientated wrong, meaning the cut tail on the inside closest to you, not only will it continually bump & limit motion, but sometimes the floating ring will ride up over the stitch & when you sit back into the saddle it will make butt puckering "POP!", followed by a very small unatural movement, which if your not used to can be rather unerving if you don't know where it's coming from.. It's not really that big of a deal, but it's not very refined either when comparing to alternative solutions.. Lastly, if you trying to use something like a Rook or a California Swivel, regardless if the eyes are facing the correct way, that limited range of motion may be even more evident as i don't believe those devices will ride over the stitched ends all the way to the ring.. So your losing about an inch or so on each side. The stitch may also try to wedge itself inside of whatever floating device your using..

Yes, the loss of range is very minimal when comparing two stationary bridge designs, it's probably equivelant to crying over spilt milk.. but if you could remove those cons from the design, it's obvious most manufacturers would.. & this is all just what I've noticed in the very short amount of time I've been messing around with their Adjustable Bridge on my MB saddle.

I will say, the ADJ Bridge from them does seem rather... Idk... Anemic.. compared to 16 strand options. The adjuster is kind of a neat concept though..

I been using their bridge adjuster for a while and always liked it....don't like how its not stamped but never heard of one breaking

 

[Jehinten]

Dang.. i think ya lost me there..
Idk how else to explain it.. it's definatley different though.. especially if using a floating small ring like a red/grey smc ring or if you have the stitch oriented backwards..

In one situation, there's a doubled over stitch that a pulley or small ring isn't going to go pass, whereas with a stopper knot & plate, you'll have that floating ring or pulley continue all the way to the plate itself..

When i say range of motion I'm only referencing the distance the floating object can travel before becoming obstructed & why petzl may have gone with passing eyes beyond the D's vs connected to them.. You add a second bridge like they did & there is allot more to contend with..

See pictures below.. & then imagine twice of everything trying to float over to the stitched eyes all in the same spot... It probably doesn't work out too smooth if both lines are tensioned in same direction.

Vs something like this.. goes all the way to the plate.

I was referring to the last model sequoia and the new model. If the bridge is 25cm eye to eye the older model let you use 21cm (just an example, I haven't measured it) of cordage in between the two sewn eyes. With the new model you now have a 25cm bridge (21 cm between the eyes) with a 2cm plate on each side making it only 17 cm of useful bridge.


Now a treemotion or any other saddle with rigging plates and stopper knots you can make your bridge as long as you want and use the full length between the rigging plates. But petzl only endorses their rope bridges.


For what it's worth I run a sequoia with a rock exotica rook and I have noticed no limitation in how far it will let me twist. Sure the pulley will make contact with the tail of the sewn eye but it mixed with the fact that I like to wear my waist strap loose allows me to twist as far as I need to.

 

[Greg_L]

Found this little gem with English Subtitles that explains some of the updates that aren't in the limelight...the new buckles, and some webbing clips that won't let the straps creep, etc. This actually has me more optimistic that I would otherwise have been.

 

[Greg_L]

Another thing I'm not seeing much of, the back...it's pretty much completely reconfigured. Most of the gear loops are vertical now, which I prefer, from the sides all the way across the back, minus three near the bottom that hang horizontally.

We also have three webing options for attaching a chainsaw lanyard, one on each side and one at center:



The tool slots look MUCH tighter than they used to be, so they took a hint there. Only thing I'm noticing that strikes me as odd is the side D's...they look in the video like they're moving around pretty easily, almost MCRS0-like, instead of staying straight forward like in the last model. Might be a lack of dialing in, or might be intentional...dunno.