using a 24 strand for both single and double technique

[Tony]

To answer your question, I first heard this from folks on this forum. The way it was explained to me is that ropes with a parallel core don't work well for MRS because the fibers on the outside of the bend as they go around a sometimes tight radius are stretched more than the fibers on the inside of the bend. Braided cores aren't subject to the same thing because every strand/fiber is on both the inside and the outside of a bend many times over, better sharing the stretch throughout the whole core. I have no idea how much of a difference this makes in the context of the weight of a single climber under normal working conditions. This issue came to my attention when I mentioned that I was replacing a used stock bridge on a Buckingham Buckcat saddle with a piece of 1/2" KMIII. More than one person said it wasn't a good idea and I took for granted that they were right because I was still quite new to climbing. Maybe I'm using the term static in a way that is different than your understanding, which is greater than mine, but I meant to clarify by adding parallel core to that description. I have noticed that rigging ropes seem to be double braid rather than parallel core, so as the amount of weight on a rope going around a tight bend increases, it must be of some importance. I am not sure if the less knot friendliness is the reason for these ropes being less suitable for MRS, or if that is a symptom of the construction being less suited for going around tight bends in general, with a knot being an extreme example of how a rope handles bends. Make sense?

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

There was a time when rope selection for tree climbing was easy. Easy because we has so few options! If you wanted something other than arbrplex or 16 strand you had to go find it.

Today we have me thinks almost too many options, but they are all designed with our work in mind. However, many of the same misconceptions still exist and are sometime unknowingly perpetuated in marketing and online.

The one caveat to this is mechanical ascender use on a 16 strand line. This is always a bad idea as it interfaces tools and cordage designed for very different worlds and purposes.

I applaud you for thinking through the process of choosing a new line. Purpose, use, climbing style and of course personal preference come into play. If you stick with ropes made specifically for tree climbing (as stated by the manufacturer) you will choose something safe and well designed, if used appropriately (even great gear can be used poorly)

The lack of true kernmantles in tree work is more a function of the characteristics you and I both listed earlier and no so much limitations of construction or safety issues. This of course is a generalization, as any clever person can find exceptions. Today as tree climbers we want ropes that are multifunctional, long lasting and easy to work with within the myriad of systems we have available. Looking for the holy grail of ropes is also folly. Unicorns no matter how much we want them do not exist.

Double braids abound in our work. Why? They tend to have many if not all of the traits we require, are light for their strength, work well in many systems and configurations. This is not to say they are perfect for all climbers in all situations. But there is a reason they proliferate in the market.

When choosing a new rope do as arborists often recommend when asked "what tree should I plant?" Look to climbers who use similar systems to you, climb similar types of tree, do similar work. See what they are using and how.

In short "when asked what tree should I plant?" I tell people to look around make a list of what is growing well in the neighborhood. Do some research and find out if its growth characteristics suit the needs and space, look for disease resistance and maintenance issues, then pick one from this list you like. Choosing rope should not be much different.

Good luck and thanks for the conversation.

Tony

 

[Tony]

Oh man, you absolutely nailed one of the most important and commonly ignored truths in SRT climbing. Not only is it better and safer for the climber, tie-in-point failure is drastically reduced.

DSMc,

Do you mean actual TIP failures are reduced in the field or the system is less likely to cause TIP failure do to loading?

Tony

 

[DSMc]

Tony, other than mathematical force modifiers, I have no statistical data, other than my own, to support my statement. I do, however, have a lot of experience in the actual use of SRT systems. I have never used a safer or more tree-friendly climbing method than the one quoted from @Bart post.

That said, regarding your question: How can you have one without the other?

 

[Tony]

Tony, other than mathematical force modifiers, I have no statistical data, other than my own, to support my statement. I do, however, have a lot of experience in the actual use of SRT systems. I have never used a safer or more tree-friendly climbing method than the one quoted from @Bart post.

That said, regarding your question: How can you have one without the other?

DSMc,
I agree that SRS systems offer a lot in terms of friendly anchor loading, more rope in the system and better loading of said rope. You won't get any argument from me around these advantages over MRS.

I do not have any statistical data either. I do have anecdotal information in an increase in TIP/SP (Suspension point) failures with SRS. Very few of these result in severe injury, none in fatality, but as I travel, work and train I repeatedly hear stories of failed unions, sheared branches, etc. All of these, in my experience have been using SRS systems, the great majority during ascent, although a few have been during large swings or lateral movement.

I am not faulting the system. I am faulting the use of the system. When tracking the details of these incidents I hear about down there is a preponderance of like circumstances.

• Very high TIP
• Set remotely
• None or inadequate load/pull test
• low experience with the system
• Little to no knowledge of tree structure as it pertains to stability and strength

One advantage of MRS over SRS systems is the ease and ready availability to advance the TIP once in the tree. (I know there are ways with SRS, but I also know that many SRS climbers are not versed in them, more on this in a bit). Therefore, climbers are setting high TIP/SP from the ground. These are obviously not adequate, but the TIP/SP faults remain hidden due to poor pre-climb testing and the inability to thoroughly inspect due to height and distance.

My theory is that for many factors SRS climbers, spicily inexperienced one or poorly trained ones choose a TIP/SP based mainly on height and not the many other factors that must be included.

Having a 'safer' system is but one piece of the puzzle. Using it correctly is another. This, I believe answers you final question to me of how you can have one and not the other.

I know SRS systems to be useful, efficient, productive and game-changing for many arborists. However, I also see them employed and used poorly. The same can be said for MRS, but the MRS system is more forgiving of error at it most basic level because even with out a high TIP a novice climber can advance the TIP easier.

I believe the challenge is to rethink our anchor and anchor selection process. Make sure rope advance techniques in SRS are taught and as sought ofter as is the newest, shiniest tree gear is. And to make sure new climbers have a full grasp of the fundamentals of tree climbing regardless of system. We climb trees to work on them, we don't work on them because we are up there. Our systems SRS/MRS should reflect that.

I certainly do not expect you to answer for all the tree climbing communities woes. Nor could you or I ever fault the validity of a system on its misuse. (Although I do consider ease of imp limitation a factor in choosing climbing systems and anchor.) I do look forward to your and others thoughts as we hijack Treejnin's post!

Tony

 

[DSMc]

...I agree that SRS systems offer a lot in terms of friendly anchor loading, more rope in the system and better loading of said rope. You won't get any argument from me around these advantages over MRS...

I am not faulting the system. I am faulting the use of the system...

Having a 'safer' system is but one piece of the puzzle. Using it correctly is another...

I know SRS systems to be useful, efficient, productive and game-changing for many arborists. However, I also see them employed and used poorly...

Sorry for the chop-job on your post,Tony, but I wanted to highlight something we both agree with: the problem is not the system. You will notice that my praise was for "the method" which includes 'technique' and application of a system.

The list of things we use and do day-in day out that depend on proper implementation, is long indeed. So long, in fact, that I personally don't think that comprehensive tree work can be learned, let alone mastered, quickly, and still expect complete safety.

In my experience, it takes a new climber 5 years of day-in day out climbing with on site supervision to reduce the rate of accidents.

Not a fan of increasing change overs in an effort to combat inexperience.

...I certainly do not expect you to answer for all the tree climbing communities woes...

Thanks for that

 

[Matias]

So, for better or for worse, I am largely self taught. I was very honest about this with my current employer, and after a month of starting with him, he stopped asking anyone else to climb without spurs but me. I did all of the non removal trees for 5 months, until a non job related injury benched me for a while.

I trust that the various rope manufacturers know what they're selling well enough that if they say that a rope is good for both SRS and MRS, then you can trust those ropes for both systems safely, assuming you're following all other applicable safety protocols. I have been climbing mixed systems for two years now, but was using sterling workpro for MRS for a year while I was learning to climb. I have never had a knot slip or perform in any strange way at all, but I am slow and deliberate with everything I do, to the frustration of everyone I've ever worked with, and I set and dress my knots meticulously.

I would definitely say that the relatively thin covers on kernmantle ropes is inappropriate for MRS over natural crotches. I have limited personal experience with any other brands, but have experience with a few different ropes of each type/strand count from a few manufacturers, and it seems obvious to me that if you don't use friction savers, you should probably use a 16 strand. I am not liking how beat up my Vortex (cool) is getting since I stopped taking the time to set up my friction saver. I also prefer the reduced, though not entirely absent, friction from rings; pulleys feel weird.

I have not had trouble from any particular ascender, though I much prefer the dual ribbed cams of the Harken Ninja/Notch Jet Step.

Anyway, I would agree with those saying that any rope sold for dual use is safe to use for both systems, though I have climbed my 16 strand ArborMaster SRS with a system I devised with only hitch cords, and I thought it was pretty decent. Certainly usable if it's all you've got.

 

[LBF]

So I’m a pretty new and mostly self taught climber, but I’ve tried to do a lot of research. At first I was looking toward minimizing cost and in the end, I didn’t. Petzl Sequoia SRT saddle with the Petzl chest harness for it, Akimbo, Jet Step and after agonizing over rope choices and trying a couple short lengths of rope I got in a grab bag, I went with Sterling Scion. I’ve used it SRT and DRT with both the Akimbo and a Prussic cord and have been very happy with how it’s all performed. Originally I was after a 16 strand but there are very few that are rated for the Akimbo. Now, thanks to Treestuff, I also have a Rope Runner Pro to try.

Really think I need to add a knee ascender to my gear though and I haven’t really settled on an answer for that. I did end up with a Camp Kilo footie that I haven’t used yet. Thought about trying it and/or trying to convert it to a knee ascender but keep looking at the wicked spikes on it and trying to talk myself into using it on my nice rope. I don’t know if it would be appropriate to use a Jet Step for a knee ascender but that’s ideally where I’d go at this point. Sounds like I shouldn’t worry quite so much about the spikey ascenders though.

So far my main approach has been to shoot for what seems to be a sturdy TIP and run a friction saver up there and SRT and if that’s good enough to get what I need, then great. The big hickory in the front yard at my parents, there’s no good way to get a really high TIP from the ground that I see, but there’s a nice thick branch at the bottom of the crown that is far more handy. So I’ve done SRT to there and when I’ve gone higher, get up to the top of the SRT line and toss a bag higher and run DRT from there. The worst part of the whole thing has been the 60+’ sprint up on one footie and what has got me thinking adding a knee ascender would make it an easier climb.

 

[Vicente]

@LBF the ct simple ascender makes a good knee ascender and they're cheap don't tear up your rope, I don't think a jetstep would make a good knee ascender at all.

 

[LBF]

@LBF the ct simple ascender makes a good knee ascender and they're cheap don't tear up your rope, I don't think a jetstep would make a good knee ascender at all.

I really like the Jet Step as a footie, the thing is self-tending instantly on my Scion line and I’ve been very happy with it, which is got me wondering if it would work as a knee, but I’ve never heard of anyone using it as such. I’ll look into the CT though

 

[Vicente]

I really like the Jet Step as a footie, the thing is self-tending instantly on my Scion line and I’ve been very happy with it, which is got me wondering if it would work as a knee, but I’ve never heard of anyone using it as such. I’ll look into the CT though

I think your rope would pop out to easily you'd have to do some pretty decent modifications to keep it locked in. I built my knee ascender with the ct simple ascender 8mm cord I just did a sewn eye to connect it to the ascender (wasn't very hard and works well) I used the bungee from climbing innovations and his foot loop. I used .8mm ritza tiger thread to sew my eye since I had it on hand not sure what the strength rating is but it's ridiculously strong the eye isn't life support so it's a good first one to do and my ascender works much better with it than without for some reason.

 

[CutHighnLetFly]

Oh man, you absolutely nailed one of the most important and commonly ignored truths in SRT climbing. Not only is it better and safer for the climber, tie-in-point failure is drastically reduced.

Man I'm sorry but this is just not an accurate statement. Srt is harder on the body and people are just as susceptible to blowing out a tie in using srt is just as easy if not easier. We just think it's better because it seems faster with the 1:1 movement.
There are things it does better, and there are things it is worse for. Maybe this is a good thread to start on its own

 

[DSMc]

Man I'm sorry but this is just not an accurate statement. Srt is harder on the body and people are just as susceptible to blowing out a tie in using srt is just as easy if not easier. We just think it's better because it seems faster with the 1:1 movement.
There are things it does better, and there are things it is worse for. Maybe this is a good thread to start on its own

"Order of harshness is DRT 4x, cinch SRT 2x basal SRT 1x, just analyse it as springs. A non-isolated SRT tip up in the spindlies does wonders for eliminating danger of fall shock load, but then you can't use a ramrod climbing style because you'll bounce. No free lunch. Personally I endorse smooth style. Don't climb into the resonance."

This is the quote from Bart that I was referring to. Do you really believe it to be untrue?

Humans are bipeds by design and dependent on leg power for the vast majority of directional movement. How can movement based on arm and upper body strength be more efficient and less taxing on the anatomy? How is it not beneficial to climb in a smooth, bounce-reducing manner?

 

[moss]

"Order of harshness is DRT 4x, cinch SRT 2x basal SRT 1x, just analyse it as springs. A non-isolated SRT tip up in the spindlies does wonders for eliminating danger of fall shock load, but then you can't use a ramrod climbing style because you'll bounce. No free lunch. Personally I endorse smooth style. Don't climb into the resonance."

This is the quote from Bart that I was referring to. Do you really believe it to be untrue?

Humans are bipeds by design and dependent on leg power for the vast majority of directional movement. How can movement based on arm and upper body strength be more efficient and less taxing on the anatomy? How is it not beneficial to climb in a smooth, bounce-reducing manner?

In agreement with with @CutHighnLetFly on the "harder on the body" aspect of SRT. Or should I say it can be. Tricky equation to balance between SRS and MRS. The main one for me is that while legs and core muscle involvement are huge in efficient climbing MRS or SRS, and if all things were otherwise equal 1:1 beats 2:1 any day of the week... Once a climber is in the crown of a tree they are making a lot of moves utilizing upper body more. For that kind of movement, 1:1 loading on shoulders, wrists, etc can add up with repetitive stress compared to 2:1 which is simply less of an initial jolt when you make a power move.

On ascent I use everything at once, legs, core, and arms/shoulders. It works for me. But... my shoulders complain a little in the long run. It's tough to sort out where repetitive stress injury comes from, I believe running saws in trees does a lot of the damage to wrists and shoulders long-term.
-AJ

 

[islandarb]

There is absolutely no way that SRT is harder on the body than DdRT. At 55 SRT is allowing me to climb on easily. Using leg muscles is way more efficient, the constant friction of SRT is by far more energy saving. Once SRT is mastered there is no going back I think. Humping day after day will destroy the upper body. There are many world class DdRT climbers that have mastered it and excel, but they are few in number. I could go on, but all this is debatable. Maybe a new thread might give those who love DdRT a voice and can chime in with their views on the debate. I will never climb a tree DdRT in my life again. Using my tail with it for accessing certain places in a tree is about all I can muster it for.

 

[moss]

Love Bart's quote though, bringing as much smoothness as possible into SRS ascent is the ticket.
-AJ

 

[moss]

There is absolutely no way that SRT is harder on the body than DdRT. At 55 SRT is allowing me to climb on easily. Using leg muscles is way more efficient, the constant friction of SRT is by far more energy saving. Once SRT is mastered there is no going back I think. Humping day after day will destroy the upper body. There are many world class DdRT climbers that have mastered it and excel, but they are few in number. I could go on, but all this is debatable. Maybe a new thread might give those who love DdRT a voice and can chime in with their views on the debate. I will never climb a tree DdRT in my life again. Using my tail with it for accessing certain places in a tree is about all I can muster it for.

Ha! Yes. I'm all SRT even on the shrubby little things I climb. So many benefits. I'm 67 (holy shit!) and my shoulders have a mild chronic whine going on ;-) Not an actual problem at this point, working on shifting ergonomics in everything I do tree-wise to keep on the good side of that.
-AJ

 

[islandarb]

I love the fact I can go up and down a tree at will like I am on an elevator.....hardly breaking a sweat. Like when setting rigging or clearing a hole for a path for lowering stuff....

 

[islandarb]

Ha! Yes. I'm all SRT even on the shrubby little things I climb. So many benefits. I'm 67 (holy shit!) and my shoulders have a mild chronic whine going on ;-) Not an actual problem at this point, working on shifting ergonomics in everything I do tree-wise to keep on the good side of that.
-AJ

Agree 100%.....It is all in the movement. Some folk never master SRT and that is fine. Probably just need to climb with more SRT efficient climbers to catch on. @CutHighnLetFly I do get where you are coming from, but disagree with some of it. I know Andre you are proficient in both and probably use them equally because of the type of trees you climb. Trees here are not favoring DdRT in the least. one would have to move the TIP way too often. I know this because in did it for a good few years when I started out. Mushroom shapes here just favor SRT.

 

[DSMc]

There is absolutely no way that SRT is harder on the body than DdRT...

^^^Yes 100% agree. When climbing the trees upper canopy, movement will also be primarily lower body.

An example that easily demonstrates the proportional differences in strength is setting a sling while advancing up a slippery vertical spar. Do you rest by setting your foot in the loop or hang by your hand?

 

[CutHighnLetFly]

It has potential to have a lot more impact on your body with every step you're taking. First off the opinion that ddrt systems are based on your upper body is just that an opinion. You can certainly be using your legs. Second, where is the energy going when you rope walk on let's say a static line? Into your joints. Into your body. Moving rope systems have less of an impact on your body because of the 2:1 benefit reducing energy put into the motor of the object in motion. You. "It hurts more but for less time" is how someone said it at a talk i heard by someone who had done a study on this very thing. Because of how hard it was to gather the consistent data for certain tests, much of it was based on ascent and then what they could for data on slack tending. I was pretty interesting and made me question why inwas so committed to just climbing srt