Footlocking

[Tree Machine]

Acronym misery, I agree, but there are two doubled rope methods, not double rope as Corey states above- that would be using two seperate lines (two ropes), hence 'double'. Doubled is the same rope, one side going up, the other side going down. That's where we get the Dd in DdRT

Of the two doubled rope methods, the one far more extensively used in Arboriculture is the 2:1, friction hitch system, with or without a split tail, this has been coined DdRT, even in the Sherrill catalogs. The two sides of the rope move opposite directions, relative to one another. There is motion and friction at the crotch-over point.

The other doubled rope method, the nearly unknown and non-existant DbRT, I assume, gets the 'b' from the middle letter of the word 'doubled'. That's my best guess, anyway. In this one, both ends of the rope stay on the ground. A backed-up dual ascender gets you up the rope, or a prussik, a la the thread starter's guy (if you have balls that size). Once up, the ascenders come off, friction control is put on and you work the rope on the two, parallel lines, both ends still staying on the ground and no rope travel (ie, no friction) at the tie-in point. All friction control comes from in front of you, just like in SRT. This is done with some sort of device.

Hope that clarifies, crystal clear. The problem, still, is the nomenclature, what to call them, how to term them. I'm not sure we have the liberty to go and decide and change names here, but I'm in agreement that the DdRT - DbRT thing is very confusing.

MDRT is a really good name, I think, and the acronym says more clearly what that rope technique involves; motion. The rope sides move up and down as you move upo and down.

For the other,I like 'static doubled rope' as the rope is static, from the motion sense, but that allows confusion that one might think it involves a static climbing rope (in contrast to a dynamic or semi-static), which it can, but any type of rope can be used. This would be SDRT.

Our conventional DdRT would be MDRT, the lesser known doubled rope method would be SDRT and then the unambiguous SRT. SDRT and MDRT would more clearly describe the two doubled rope methods, but at the same time, very, very, very few climb the 1:1 doubled rope method. The naming of this lesser method is more to keep in frame that it does exist. SDRT might be read as 'Single Doubled Rope Technique' which is actually OK as the actual handling of the rope is identical to SRT, only you you have the two lines going through friction control instead of just one.

 

[moray]

I'm not sure we have the liberty to go and decide and change names here, but I'm in agreement that the DdRT - DbRT thing is very confusing.

Nice post, TM! Is there some final arbiter of Correct Usage looking over our shoulder, like the (now extinct) French Academy? If not, and if enough people here start using MDRT as a better acronym, might it not catch on?

 

[gasman]

Nice post, TM! Is there some final arbiter of Correct Usage looking over our shoulder, like the (now extinct) French Academy? If not, and if enough people here start using MDRT as a better acronym, might it not catch on?

If you are going to do that I would also use the SDRT acronym as well.
So that the two (2) types of DRT are; MDRT and SDRT

To prevent any amibiguity you may should also rename SRT as SSRT

Then all the acronyms will all include complete and consistent information.

 

[CoreyTMorine]

Well done Tree! I heartily second or fourth or fifty seventh your new system of nomenclature; perhaps you should email a copy to Canopytree, he can do a final critique, and perhaps start spreading the new word over on the Buzz.

I also like SSRT.

 

[Tree Machine]

I heartily second or fourth or fifty seventh your new system of nomenclature; perhaps you should email a copy to Canopytree, he can do a final critique, and perhaps start spreading the new word over on the Buzz.

Hmmm. Change comes slow, but mebbe this is sort of needed. For the last few years, every time in mentioning stationary doubled rope technique (hey, that's better than static DRT), it requires a written explanation on the difference between the two.

Not certain I deserve credit, though. This is a group effort and would be an industry-wide, international agreement, published extensively. Can someone else take credit? I sort of try to avoid responsibility. It's part of my plan to never grow up.

Also, since nobody climbs this SDRT, I'm not certain there's a good reason on why the effort would be worth it.

More and more guys are ascending up a dual line, but they get up there, pull the tail of the rope up, fashion their friction hitch and go traditional. New school 1:1 ascent, old school 2:1 descent. I can dig it.

 

[BobEMoto]

Finally a definition of DbRT. I thought I was crazy doing that since no one seemed to talk about it.

 

[Pancake]

My Doubled Rope Technique acronym was a slipped keystroke- to lazy to spellcheck or read pre post. Mahk Adams has published a nice series in Arborist News this year -3 so far- about prissiks, closed and open loops, and ascenders and there are more to come. And If you go back 5 years or so there are some great articles on doubled lines (2005 and 06 issues in Climbers Corner.) I occasionally FL on a doubled static- very abrasive on the hands.

 

[Pancake]

My Doubled Rope Technique acronym was a slipped keystroke- to lazy to spellcheck or read pre post. Mahk Adams has published a nice series in Arborist News this year -3 so far- about prissiks, closed and open loops, and ascenders and there are more to come. And If you go back 5 years or so there are some great articles on doubled lines (2005 and 06 issues in Climbers Corner.) I occasionally FL on a doubled static- very abrasive on the hands.

 

[CoreyTMorine]

Hmmm. Change comes slow, but mebbe this is sort of needed. For the last few years, every time in mentioning stationary doubled rope technique (hey, that's better than static DRT), it requires a written explanation on the difference between the two.

Not certain I deserve credit, though. This is a group effort and would be an industry-wide, international agreement, published extensively. Can someone else take credit? I sort of try to avoid responsibility. It's part of my plan to never grow up.

It’s not really necessary for you to take any responsibility or credit; I was just trying to get you to do more work:biggrinbounce2: . But seriously Tom knows and respects you, and this idea (WHICH IS AWESOME) will have a much better chance of getting off of the ground if he is on board.

It is important that we iron this out; the current nomenclature is like trying to cut wood with a dull saw! Really, it’s horrible because it leads to all sorts of misunderstanding, and inhibits us from discussing and thereby improving our trade. This new system is clean and neat and sharp, it will make for better discussion and understanding.

Also, since nobody climbs this SDRT, I'm not certain there's a good reason on why the effort would be worth it.

More and more guys are ascending up a dual line, but they get up there, pull the tail of the rope up, fashion their friction hitch and go traditional. New school 1:1 ascent, old school 2:1 descent. I can dig it..

So people are entering the canopy SDRT and then switching to MDRT to work.

That is soooo much better than "people enter the canopy DdRT then switch to DbRT to work."

to me the difference is huge, the first one makes absolute sence, the nomenclature describes itself, the second i have to take time to interpret. You email Tom, I'm going to start a new thread

 

[beowulf343]

So people are entering the canopy SDRT and then switching to MDRT to work.

That is soooo much better than "people enter the canopy DdRT then switch to DbRT to work."

to me the difference is huge, the first one makes absolute sence, the nomenclature describes itself, the second i have to take time to interpret. You email Tom, I'm going to start a new thread

Actually shouldn't it be "people are entering the canopy SDRT and then switching to MDRT to work" which should mean "people enter the canopy DbRT then switch to DdRTto work"?

If you feel the need to change the acronyms, at least try to get the right new acronym with the right old acronym.

SDRT=DbRT
MDRT=Ddrt

Right?

 

[CoreyTMorine]

Good catch Beowulf! Yet another example of why we should make the effort to switch over to a more clearerer nomanclature.:yoyo:

 

[Slvrmple72]

+1 New nomenclature
Old nomenclature bad:bang:
I SDRT my way up and then MDRT to work in the tree. If I am going way up, say 50'+, a tall Stave Oak with two limbs close and over eachother I SSRT ( footlocking and prussik). I leave that line in place and set up another one for MDRT. Clear and concise I like it a lot

 

[Pancake]

What about the term dynamic Footlock? And what about foot wear- I prefer a boot with a high rand and arch to avoid twisting around the foot.

 

[Tree Machine]

And what about foot wear- I prefer a boot with a high rand and arch to avoid twisting around the foot.

The rope shouldn't 'twist' around anything, pancake. Just a gentle S-curve, or dual bight, under one foot, over the other. 'Twist' refers to a degree of spin about an axis.

I would love a set of boots that had a V-channel in the sole, something to better grip, or increase friction on the rope, but not in a capture or ascender-grip sense, just a formed groove for the rope that would prevent rope slippage when footlocking the single rope (SRT or MDRT). This would help noobie footlockers, I would think.

What about the term dynamic Footlock?

Explain what you mean by dynamic footlock, though. The definition isn't outwardly intuitive as a good term should be.

One would assume it would contrast with 'static footlock' which intuitively would mean being on rope, in a footlock position, but not moving upward or downward, just holding position. Dynamic footlock would then be 'moving footlock' or as we commonly know it, footlock.

If you were using a foot ascender, you would be using the same rope technique, SRT or MDRT, but no longer a footlock. Same with using a mar-bar system. No longer footlocking, but definitely SDRT.

Good questions, though. Getting them out here is the only way we learn.

 

[Tree Machine]

:hmm3grin2orange:

more clearerer nomanclature.:yoyo:

You crack me up, Corey. Good one!
:hmm3grin2orange:

 

[moray]

I would love a set of boots that had a V-channel in the sole, something to better grip, or increase friction on the rope, but not in a capture or ascender-grip sense, just a formed groove for the rope that would prevent rope slippage when footlocking the single rope (SRT or MDRT). This would help noobie footlockers, I would think.

Footlocking is way easier than hip thrusting, but for the old and weak (me), and for noobies, adding a single ascender with a foot loop has got to be easier still. I use this scheme for SRT and MRT both. I have shown quite a few of my friends the rudiments of climbing, and none of them have had a problem with the ascender and foot loop. Several of those were completely stymied by hip thrusting.

Good to know classical footlocking, though, in case you get caught out without your hi-tech ascenders.

 

[Pancake]

Not so much a twist as a wrap. Good point- you're quite the wordsmith. When I point my toes down to unlock the rope it will on occasion wrap around my feet if I am trying to advance too quickly. A quick kick releases the wrap.

 

[Tree Machine]

Ahhh, I get it, Pancake.

Clearing up the definitions requires we all use the same definitions and acronyms so that when they get used we all know what we're talking about, for instance, Moray,..... MRT? We're tryin to get clearier on the nomadclanture.
(just joking).

Good to know classical footlocking, though, in case you get caught out without your hi-tech ascenders.

Footlocking as nothing to do with ascenders. You can hip-thrust on ascenders. You can footlock on a friction hitch system.

Ascenders aren't high-tech. They're actually very simple devices that only do one thing, grab and clamp a rope, travel one-way.

An ascender/footloop system is a very good system, easy to learn, easy to use. The problem with the ascender and footloop is not in the use of it, but in the carrying around of it in the canopy when it's not in use (which is most of the time). Also, if you are standing in your footloop, ascender weighted, how do you advance it? You have a second ascender above it that you advance. You then place your weight on that one, and then advance the lower ascender, usually by sitting back, removing your hands from the upper part of the system, grabbing the lower ascender, advancing it, stand in the footloop, advance the upper, repeat. This describes a mar-bar system, too.

Once in the canopy and you're able to climb around, where do you put the ascender(s)/footloop system? You either hang it and get it on your way out, or you schlepp it around with you.

I go through this with my caver buddies. They have all sorts of fairly complicated and bulky systems. Easy to use, safe, but someone has to hold the bottom of the rope because the lower ascender won't self-tend until there's enough rope below where there's enough weight of rope so that the ascender will travel up, rather than grab and lift the standing end. Now it takes two men to get you going and on your way up.

With cavers, it's not a big deal. To get out of a deep pit, you're just going from bottom-to-top, and your work is finished. In Arboriculture, though, you're going from bottom to top and your work has just begun. That's a good part of the reason traditional caving rigs don't lend themselves seamlessly to the treecare culture. Ascent is such a small part (though critical part) of our overall work, generally speaking.

 

[moray]

Ahhh, I get it, Pancake.

we all know what we're talking about, for instance, Moray,..... MRT? We're tryin to get clearier on the nomadclanture.
(just joking).

Just my feeble backhanded attempt to stamp out that pesky D!

Footlocking as nothing to do with ascenders. You can hip-thrust on ascenders. You can footlock on a friction hitch system.

I consider my method a modified form of footlocking because I am standing on the rope, even if my feet aren't grabbing the rope. In the MRT system (MDRT if you must), I put the ascender just below the friction knot, so I stand up and advance the knot. For SRT I think I am using a sort of Texas system. Two ascenders, the lower one with 2 foot loops, the upper one with a short cord to the harness. The lower one also has a backup cord to the harness, so if either fails the other should hold me upright.

You are certainly right that it is more stuff to schlepp around. I usually just hang them from my belt, but sometimes I stuff them in a small bag, or leave them stuck on the rope 10 or 20 feet below me. So far it hasn't seemed like a big deal.

 

[woodchux]

I finally tried out a pantin yesterday...It was much better than an ascender w/ a footloop. The spring on my pantin seems weaker than the spring on a regular ascender.(maybe to help the rope advance easier ?)