working SRT

It makes you want to sing in the tree i guess. Actually I kind of bit off the company singing rock that makes rock climbing stuff. But my tree company is SInging Tree too and partly because my goal is to make trees so happy they sing, or if I kill them to reclaim their wood so it sings.
 
We plan to do 'rope ascent' at the Charlotte next year instead of strict secured footlock. Im pretty psyched about it.

Here's my issue though, somebody is bound to try gaming the rules by rigging up some engineering marvel that's fast but would never see the light of day in production work. I am definitely prejudiced against gobs of gear and bungees and pulleys everywhere for simply going up a damn rope. It's just not that hard.

I want, as a minimum, a time limit on the setup... Ideally I want to incorporate the setup time into the scoring time. I think if you do that, good old footlocking will still get most of the fastest times.
I gets sticky when you try to do that though with the security test and the fact that in the most efficient SRT systems there is no switchover for descent which also takes time, so one method is more efficient but that efficiency isn't measured.

If all you want to compare is straight line speed up a rope you begin you factor out athleticism and factor in ingenuity... Not necessarily bad but the ultimate in ingenuity is a hydraulic lift... I mean, why use a rope at all if it's less efficient?

The secured footlock is a very pure athletic event. Removing restrictions is a dodgy business because you still have to have some limits... So where do you draw the lines that won't have somebody up in arms because they think their special idea should be permitted.


The goal of the event should be to advance, develop and demonstrate methods of access for working climbers while giving them even ground on which to compete.
 
I've thought through a matrix that would compare footlocking with the various ropewalking systems that accounts for changeovers and efficiency. It would take longer than I have right now to explain, sorry :(
 
I think Mark Bridges idea that they are doing at the european comp seems like a pretty good idea. Time starts when you walk into the ring and stops when you are "down ready" he also takes into acount slack created during the climb. That disadvantages the footlocking a little. My goal right now with my wrench is 50 feet up and down in 25 seconds. way faster than I could do it footlocking. footlocking would be above a minute I think.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It makes you want to sing in the tree i guess. Actually I kind of bit off the company singing rock that makes rock climbing stuff. But my tree company is SInging Tree too and partly because my goal is to make trees so happy they sing, or if I kill them to reclaim their wood so it sings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bahahahaha
grin.gif
 
We did not setup the footlock for an SRT option this year. I usually try to have one thing unusual in the event to make it interesting. For example, the first year we held the PSRTCC we had the speed climb bell 115 feet up in a Sequoiadendron. This year the unusual thing was the use of conifers for three of the events, including the throwline.

I was the head judge, so I allowed SRT in the comp as long as the system meets with ANSI standards. We had the UNI and the wrench both make a good showing. I watched Shane Blacktopp use the rope wrench for the AR and I've got to say it was very efficient, although there was a little hiccup during the ascent when his foot ascender popped off the rope. But the transition from up to sideways and descending was much faster than any other SRT system including the UNI. Shane also used the wrench in the work climb.
 
I think the info is in with the requirements for hitches.

Meaning...there are no standards for slippage or shock loading. The only regs refer to breaking strengths and applicablity/fit for use.

This is an area that is likely to come under more scrutiny in the next revision of the Z133. More and more the CE regs are looking valid.
 
This is the crux of the issue. There are quite a few areas of our climbing systems that are "grey." Especially with rope on rope applications. Tensile and slippage tests are only as good as the variables in the test, yet we allow hitches of a lot of different materials and lengths and knots on a lot of different climbing lines with variables like time in service, type of rope, diameter. AND... the ANSI requirements are somewhat arbitrarily based and were developed when no one was climbing SRT or using split tails, much less mechanical ascenders and descenders.

What would the actual strength ratings for ropes and gear be if we started fresh?

Higher? Lower? Who knows, but I am way more comfortable seeing the use of mechanical devices potentially replacing the rope on rope applications. Especially if the devices are made so that they can only be operated correctly or not at all, vs. the extensive variations that come with friction hitches.

THE UNICENDER CLIMBING TOOLS SPECS
- The UNICENDER climbing tool slips on the rope @ 1200 lbs.
-The UNICENDER climbing tool has a breaking strength of 7,000 pounds,
-The UNICENDER climbing tool clamps the rope in 7 places distributing the load over a larger area than conventional ascenders.
-The UNICENDER climbing tools clamping surfaces are smooth. No teeth to put puffs in your rope.
-The UNICENDER climbing tool clamping blocks are made of heat-dissipating 7075 aluminum.
-The UNICENDER climbing tool has no maximum rope length limitation.

From the Unicender manual at Thompsontreetools.com
 
The Uni was the Rock Exotica version, I believe. I did not inspect this one personally, so do not know for sure what markings it did or didn't have on it. Is that an issue? There are other devices as well that do not have ratings marked on them. Is there a difference between the Thompson and Rock Exotica versions of the UNI?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Are they labeling the Unicender itself with the breaking strength or is it still void of markings

[/ QUOTE ]

Would that actual labelling on the product matter if the climber could produce the manual that has the documented information....or is the written documentation only allowed for cordage?

If it is absolutely necessary for all life support gear to be clearly labelled with break strength I believe virtually every handled ascender would be out....Not trying to stir the pot here, just wondering exactly how the rules are being applied to each piece of equipment...Are there exceptions for certain equipment depending on use or do the rules apply equally across the board for every piece of equipment?
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is the crux of the issue. There are quite a few areas of our climbing systems that are "grey." Especially with rope on rope applications. Tensile and slippage tests are only as good as the variables in the test, yet we allow hitches of a lot of different materials and lengths and knots on a lot of different climbing lines with variables like time in service, type of rope, diameter. AND... the ANSI requirements are somewhat arbitrarily based and were developed when no one was climbing SRT or using split tails, much less mechanical ascenders and descenders.

What would the actual strength ratings for ropes and gear be if we started fresh?

Higher? Lower? Who knows, but I am way more comfortable seeing the use of mechanical devices potentially replacing the rope on rope applications. Especially if the devices are made so that they can only be operated correctly or not at all, vs. the extensive variations that come with friction hitches.


THE UNICENDER CLIMBING TOOLS SPECS
- The UNICENDER climbing tool slips on the rope @ 1200 lbs.
-The UNICENDER climbing tool has a breaking strength of 7,000 pounds,
-The UNICENDER climbing tool clamps the rope in 7 places distributing the load over a larger area than conventional ascenders.
-The UNICENDER climbing tools clamping surfaces are smooth. No teeth to put puffs in your rope.
-The UNICENDER climbing tool clamping blocks are made of heat-dissipating 7075 aluminum.
-The UNICENDER climbing tool has no maximum rope length limitation.

From the Unicender manual at Thompsontreetools.com

[/ QUOTE ]


I completely agree with Zeb in that our actual knowledge of exactly how a climbers chosen hitch reacts with their chosen climbing line and hitch cord is far less exact than we would like to think....Couple that with the fact that we also cannot exactly pin down the reaction of the tree to the climber in it and I think pretty quickly we may need to run our competitions entirely from the ground
crazy.gif
 
I've not seen these specs for the Rock Exotica version. They may exist. If not, I wonder why. I also agree with Zeb's comments on rope and hitches. We don't even need to consider the difference in size of climber to realize that the number of combinations make it practicaly impossible to test. All we can look at is history. Unfortunately the history with some of these tools is short.
 
It looks like Rock exotica distributes the exact same user manual, might be slight difference. That is what is downloaded off their website. The thing is, that all of these tools can be dangerous if in the hands of an idiot. Maybe the vetting process at competitions should be more concerned with who is putting it to use. If someone shows up at the comp who has never used a unicender and jumps on one for the work climb, that is a situation.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If someone shows up at the comp who has never used a____________________and jumps on one for the work climb, that is a situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many times have climbers showed up at comps with new ropes, harnesses, boots...etc. and been allowed to climb? Is there any more or less danger to the climber that changes rope size and type than from changing to a new hitch on competition day? I see an inconsistency to the view that a specific tool is NOT allowed but there is a general acceptance for almost any other tool.
 
Judgement people, judgement. That's why PEOPLE make the decisions better than rule books.
Judges look at every speck of gear, discuss new things and make calls based on common sense and experience. You can't possibly codify every climbing system, only specify minimums.
Climbing is not safe in the same way that walking is safe, by comparison it's very dangerous... but people get hurt walking every day.
Like Kevin said, it's the person using the gear, their habits, their experience, etc. That's why people run comps, not books.
 
Rock Exotica manual is the same as the manual from Thompson Tree Tools except they do not list the ratings. Hmmmm, kind of makes me wonder why they left that part out.

I might also point out that a lot of work goes into judging a TCC. Seeing as I just judged our TCC, I ought to know. Primeape as well knows how much work goes into the experience, in fact he has given me some really valuable advice in the past.

At our last comp I was on the lookout for splices that were not to manufacturers specifications. That's another can of worms there, especially now that some of the exotic cordage has very high tensile ratings. Many times I have had a competitor give me a blank stare when asked if they know what a particular hitch is made from. Sometimes a "buddy" spliced the rope for them. One time I found an arb, who happens to be a TCIA CTSP using a tenex e2e with one of the buries completely pulled out, the only thing holding it together were the locking brummels.

Point is, we do our best to understand as many of the components as we can as judges, but there are new tools implemented all of the time.If a climber cannot show me some documentation then I will probably disallow the use of the item, whether it is rope or hardware. From that perspective it sure would be nice to have ratings right on the device.

An interesting one is the Petzl handled ascender, rated at 5kn, but allowed in comps based on Petzl's OK that we use it a certain way. (I am summing this one up, a lot more details to that decision.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom