# question on single rope climbing...



## DeanBrown3D (Jul 21, 2006)

Once you launch a line and weight into the tree, and then pull up a rope, how do you tie it up top? Do you pull it all the way down and use a loop and pull it back again? If yes, how do yo get it down afterwards! I'm mystified! (and as you can tell I have never climbed with rope before!)


----------



## DeanBrown3D (Jul 22, 2006)

Ok I see. Do you have to hang any weight on the rope so the ascenders don't just lift up the rope?

Also, would you recommend SRT to a complete beginner for their first climb? Maybe I am not reading this right, but I seem to remember that its a more difficult and advanced technique compared to the DRT. Do beginners do both from day one or what?

Thanks for any tips! 

Dean


----------



## DeanBrown3D (Jul 22, 2006)

Freeze?

hehe I have not got to the descending chapter!:biggrinbounce2:


----------



## DeanBrown3D (Jul 22, 2006)

Well, I am so terrified of hitting a hornets nest, I will be learning that change-over at 5 feet off the ground before I ever even reach 10 feet!

(It comes from a bad experience with 4" long blue hornets in Indonesia once, no bs either)


----------



## thesawisfamily (Jul 23, 2006)

Which book are you reading?

I've rappelled from cliffs, climbed rocks with ropes and painted water towers using a seatboard and block and tackle with 1/2", 5/8" and 3/4" ropes.

Now I want to learn the SRT and DRT I've heard of and seen employed once on a Martha Stewart episode.

Maybe I watch too much TV?


----------



## DeanBrown3D (Jul 23, 2006)

Beranek's and (on order) Jepson's.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 23, 2006)

DeanBrown3D said:


> Once you launch a line and weight into the tree, and then pull up a rope, how do you tie it up top? Do you pull it all the way down and use a loop and pull it back again? If yes, how do yo get it down afterwards! I'm mystified! (and as you can tell I have never climbed with rope before!)



How do you post severel hundred times here and never climb up a rope.

In SRT usually almost all the time, you pull your rope up and over and back down. The one end of the rope gets anchored to the base of the tree, and you climb up the other end. When you come back out of the tree you un-do your base anchor.

You can anchor up top, I do this a lot, you ascend up the doubled rope, git up there, set your anchor, work the crown SRT, come back down DRT. You're allowed to switch styles. Just be safe and know what you're doing. If you don' tknow what you're doing, keep asking questions. We'll get you there.

I'm fuzzy on what is meant that the ascender doesn't self-tend after a certain point. Please explain what is meant by this. I am fully in the dark on this one.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 23, 2006)

Here I found a picture of a trunk anchor, at least one way to do it. Here, I went with a triple-lock steel biner and then some other biner as a backup. Notice that the other one is directed opposite, gates opposed.

Usually I'm working with spliced ends so the figure 8 knot and the cinch around the steel biner would be unnecessary. An eye termination covers all that. Still, I always drop in the second biner for good practice.


----------



## Ax-man (Jul 23, 2006)

Dean,

Just my opinion here and mine only, forget the SRT, to me it is a waste of time, setting the rope and using the gear to get up into the tree, using the dbRT to get into a tree will work just as good, maybe not as fast. If your a novice at this tree climbing dbRT would be a better choice than SRT. 

If your climbing super tall trees in the 100 ft plus range then I could see SRT being the system of choice for entry, but for average tree climbing dbRT gives the beginner more options.

I have been playing around with this SRT on and off the last few years and don't see what the big deal is about it, myself. 

I'll probaly get clobbered big time for this post from the SRT fanatics. 

Larry


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 23, 2006)

SRT is really not a big deal. It's just another method or technique and there's all different sorts of ways to go about it. SRT is a 1:1 system, which is why I climb it, but so is static DRT, which I climb even more frequently. Static DRT, where both ends of the rope are on the ground and you ascend and descend the two parallel lines is known as DbRT. I have a hard time remembering which is which DRT is which.

Our mainstay dynamic doubled rope technique, or DdRT, is a friction hitch-based system. One end of the rope is hooked to you, and the other end is on the ground With Static DRT (DbRT) and SRT, the *friction hitch* is optional and is really a poor choice compared with about a hundred other friction handlers (pieces, devices) you could choose from.

In SRT and static DRT (DbRT) the rope does not move in the crotch, thereby eliminating the need for a friction safer or a cambium saver. There is no wear in the tree's crotch, nor any wear on the rope. Either of these two systems are handled identically, frictionally speaking. Since all the friction is controlled in front of you, and not at the crotch, it is a consistent control tree to tree, rope to rope and weather to weather. The new 11 mm ropes the rope industry made for us allow us to use every device out there.

Even said, a hundred years of us collectively climbing on 2:1, using friction hitches doesn't convert overnight. I love the history of our profession, but DdRT on half inch line, _no matter what the hitch_ is so much more difficult, time-consuming, cumbersome and can be hard to learn. 

It causes me pain to watch the noobies slowly learning the ropes, just to learn within a self-limiting system. I guess it's a thing called _'convention'_ and it ain't all that bad, but three thousand posts ago I was saying the exact same thing, _Why do they make it so hard???_ Please pardon me while I :bang: :bang: 
It's either friction hitch addiction or device-o-phobia. 

BY DESIGN, in accordance with certain laws of physics, a 2:1 system (DdRT) is twice the work (motion) as a 1:1 system (DbRT or SRT). Add to that, friction from the tree's crotch or limb. Then add in the friction from the friction hitch. I come up with slow, frictiony and a lot of extra motion. 2:1 systems, in my honest opinion, should be used for descending only.

SRT is a 1:1 system. But so is the static DRT (the third brother) DbRT. *DbRT* is like the poor bastard child of the three systems, where SRT is the 'exotic' one and our friction hitch system, DdRT, is the Steady Eddie. Eddie is slower than the rest, but very, very popular. I would bet my life that most would quickly find that the static 1:1 systems are truly faster than the friction hitch, 2:1, DdRT our industry knows and loves.


I know I'm a guppy in an ocean here, but physics don't lie and devices are so simple it's almost like cheating. Hope that helps some. Sorry to ramble :deadhorse:


----------



## moss (Jul 23, 2006)

DeanBrown3D said:


> Well, I am so terrified of hitting a hornets nest, I will be learning that change-over at 5 feet off the ground before I ever even reach 10 feet!
> 
> (It comes from a bad experience with 4" long blue hornets in Indonesia once, no bs either)



I think the point about the wasp's nest is more about how important it is to know how to switch over to rappel, you need to have it down cold before you go more than 10 ft. off the ground.

A climber should be finding wasp and hornet nests by checking the climb route before getting off the ground. Since you can't always spot them from the ground you should always be aware of large flying insect activity as you climb. You can see them before they see you. A hornet's nest or honey bee hive is like a miniature airport, there is constant traffic in and out which you can observe before getting on top of it. I'm not saying you'll always spot every nest but a climber has the opportunity to greatly reduce the chances of being surprised.
-moss


----------



## moss (Jul 23, 2006)

Ax-man said:


> Dean,
> 
> Just my opinion here and mine only, forget the SRT, to me it is a waste of time, setting the rope and using the gear to get up into the tree, using the dbRT to get into a tree will work just as good, maybe not as fast. If your a novice at this tree climbing dbRT would be a better choice than SRT."
> 
> Larry



After climbing only DdRT for over a year I now use SRT for tree entry on most climbs when the first tie-in is over 60 ft., then switch over to DdRT (as most climbers do) to move around in the tree. That said Ax-man is 100% correct. Forget about SRT for right now. DdRT with a Blake's Hitch is the foundation, climb on it, learn it. Once you know what you're doing with it take a look around and see what else you need technique-wise. You may not need anything else.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 24, 2006)

> DdRT with a Blake's Hitch is the foundation, climb on it, learn it.


I've never climbed on a blakes hitch. You cast that statement far and wide, but at the same time you're right, I guess.

I just had a guy with me for a few months who came from a couple years at Bartlett. His method was a DdRT ascent using a Petzl ascender, rather than a friction hitch- a good start, but still a 2:1 system. Once up in the tree he'd tie a hitch of one sort or another and then work it. 

I offered faster, swifter methods but like so many, one learns a particular way and you don't stray far from it. Ya love rice, but ya won't try risotto.


----------



## moss (Jul 24, 2006)

Tree Machine said:


> I've never climbed on a blakes hitch. You cast that statement far and wide, but at the same time you're right, I guess.



Thanks for the latitude  Bear in mind I'm coming from a practical point of view of what's the simplest way to rope climb safely without having to do any switchovers once you're in the tree. I don't think it's possible to learn footlocking on a doubled rope (with a prusik or ascender) without observing someone do it or being coached. Plus you need to switch over to another system once you get to the branch. Pure footlock/prusik climbing is a very steep learning curve for a self-taught beginner. I have nothing against advanced hitches and ascender hardware but think that a simplified system that depends on rope and knots is a safe and less costly place to start.


----------



## clearance (Jul 24, 2006)

This all sounds pretty confusing, Dean, I see you have spurs and are asking about how to use them, I'll give you something. Spur up the tree, do what you gotta do, when you want to come down, tie a tautline around a good branch that has at least one other good branch below it and come on down. Keep it safe and simple, try the other stuff later.


----------



## OTG BOSTON (Jul 24, 2006)

I've been thinking of this ever since you showed me the SRT Moss. When you use a running bowline as an anchor did/do you back it up with a fig 8?

I can think of an example when a friend used a bowline to anchor to his saddle as part of a split tail system. The bowline slipped and he took a tumble


----------



## moss (Jul 24, 2006)

clearance said:


> This all sounds pretty confusing, Dean, I see you have spurs and are asking about how to use them, I'll give you something. Spur up the tree, do what you gotta do, when you want to come down, tie a tautline around a good branch that has at least one other good branch below it and come on down. Keep it safe and simple, try the other stuff later.



I was wondering when you were going to chime in  I think all bases are now covered.


----------



## moss (Jul 24, 2006)

OTG BOSTON said:


> I've been thinking of this ever since you showed me the SRT Moss. When you use a running bowline as an anchor did/do you back it up with a fig 8?
> 
> I can think of an example when a friend used a bowline to anchor to his saddle as part of a split tail system. The bowline slipped and he took a tumble



When anchoring the SRT line on a branch (as opposed to anchoring it on the trunk) the bowline is secured with a Yosemite tie-off (it's in Jepson's), the bowline is very stable when tied this way. I also add a double overhand after the Yosemite with excess tail. I am a paranoid sort  There's no way that knot is coming undone. It's worth noting that there is no rope movement at the tie-in point so there aren't any forces trying to undo the knot. It's not like a running bowline on a branch being lowered, banging into things and flipping around etc.


----------



## SuperDIYer (Jul 24, 2006)

As a really-new newb, this thread summarizes a lot of the questions and concerns I have... Let me throw some of them out there and see where these lead us.

SRT sound attractive, but having not read any of the needed reference material yet, I am a bit baffled by the talk of switching to a DbRT or DdRT once you are up in the tree. Why would I need to do that? What is it about the SRT equipment that makes this undersireable?

As most of my planned work right now is pruning up in adolescent maples at reasonable heights and with lots of structure, I guess I see DdRT the same as using REALLY long flipline/lanyard. It appears to be another way to tie into the tree from above, but I would not really be using it to CLIMB. 

However, looking forward to bigger projects, the prospect of having rope friction in the crotch of the tree is not attractive. Neither am I all that thrilled with the need to use a cambium/friction saver to continue to use that technique without the above concern. I am not REALLY concerned with climbing all that fast, so the fact that this would be a 2:1 system really doesn't concern me. 

Reading what I have, the DbRT really looks interesting... footlocking sounds reasonable as the propulsive force, but I find references to needing back ups for doubled-rope ascenders. So do I need to sliding hitches on each segment of rope above those ascenders? 

So assuming I am OCD enough to learn these techniques properly, whats the story here. Thanks in advance for the education that is sure to follow.

jtz

PS.... I know... RTFM... :bang: I'm working on getting to my local arborist store to get "The Tree Climber's Companion." Thanks anyway.


----------



## beowulf343 (Jul 24, 2006)

clearance said:


> This all sounds pretty confusing, Dean, I see you have spurs and are asking about how to use them, I'll give you something. Spur up the tree, do what you gotta do, when you want to come down, tie a tautline around a good branch that has at least one other good branch below it and come on down. Keep it safe and simple, try the other stuff later.


Dean, I agree with clearance except for one thing-run your rope over a branch then around the tree and then tie in. Just a quirk I have but until you can identify which limbs can hold you and which ones won't, this is safer. This way if the branch you are tied into breaks, instead of falling right out of the tree, your rope will slide down the tree snagging a stub, another branch, or even slowing your fall through friction.


----------



## moss (Jul 24, 2006)

I think we're falling into the trap of trying to teach climbing to beginners on the message board, probably a bad idea. The new climber is better off doing the research (Jepson's, Peter Jenkin's climbing basics video, etc.), start climbing low and slow and then ask specific questions. Once we start lecturing on broad topics of how-to-climb for beginners we're not really in a position to take responsibility for the results of the advice we're giving.

Here's a way to test it. Say you have a 17 year old son or daughter who wants to learn to climb and you're not available to teach them. Would you point them to this thread and say, "Do what they say". Would you feel comfortable with that? Something to think about.


----------



## clearance (Jul 25, 2006)

moss said:


> I think we're falling into the trap of trying to teach climbing to beginners on the message board, probably a bad idea. The new climber is better off doing the research (Jepson's, Peter Jenkin's climbing basics video, etc.), start climbing low and slow and then ask specific questions. Once we start lecturing on broad topics of how-to-climb for beginners we're not really in a position to take responsibility for the results of the advice we're giving.
> 
> Here's a way to test it. Say you have a 17 year old son or daughter who wants to learn to climb and you're not available to teach them. Would you point them to this thread and say, "Do what they say". Would you feel comfortable with that? Something to think about.


Good point there Andrew, Dean, try to go to work with some utility guys, they usually are brutal but effective climbers. Safe and simple, baby steps they say, if it aint broke don't fix it.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 25, 2006)

SuperDIYer said:


> I am a bit baffled by the talk of switching to a DbRT or DdRT once you are up in the tree. Why would I need to do that? What is it about the SRT equipment that makes this undersireable?


You do that because you work the crown while on rope, sinking your flipline for positioning and cutting. The 'equipment' problem is that SRT is viewed from everybody's standpoint from' how does the friction hitch fit into SRT? The 'equipment' problem is that once you learn to climb on 2:1 DdRT, thoughts and possibilites of climbing without the friction hitch, for some reason melt. The equipment is minimal and exceedingly simple. The 'problem' is a mental hurdle, mebbe fear of the unknown. It has nothing to do with the actual gear.



SuperDIYer said:


> It appears to be another way to tie into the tree from above, but I would not really be using it to CLIMB.


True, you're climbing the tree, which is going to be the case a lot of the time, especially on the size trees you're beginning with, as well as most all other trees once you've ascended into the crown.


SuperDIYer said:


> I guess I see DdRT the same as using REALLY long flipline/lanyard.


The difference being the rope would allow you to rappel out, the flipline being used for immediate zone positioning. For your medium maples, clip the rope to your harness, climb up there, flipline in, drop your rope over a tie-in, clip yourself in (or for the hitch tyer, tie yourself in). At this point you're tied in twice and ready to make a cut. You have just 'switched over'. 



SuperDIYer said:


> However, looking forward to bigger projects, the prospect of having rope friction in the crotch of the tree is not attractive. Neither am I all that thrilled with the need to use a cambium/friction saver to continue to use that technique without the above concern. I am not REALLY concerned with climbing all that fast, so the fact that this would be a 2:1 system really doesn't concern me.


But a 2:1 system is what you get with DdRT, friction of the rope sliding over the crotch. The prospect of limb or crotch friction is not appealing, yet a 2:1 system is OK. These two sentences collide with each other.



SuperDIYer said:


> Reading what I have, the DbRT really looks interesting... footlocking sounds reasonable as the propulsive force, but I find references to needing back ups for doubled-rope ascenders. So do I need to sliding hitches on each segment of rope above those ascenders?


Footlocking can be done on ANY of the three systems, though with the 2:1 traditional friction hitch system you have to footlock two lengths of rope through your feet to gain one length of gain in altitude. It's like walking up a steep sand hill where you go up two steps and come back down one. You'll eventually get up there. This is traditional DdRT.

Maybe instead of our climbing family viewing SRT as some fancy dancy, far-out technique, view the friction hitch system for the inherent limitations it puts on your climbing. SRT is the same steep hill, just firm dirt and rock instead of soft sand.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote TM:

Footlocking can be done on ANY of the three systems, though with the 2:1 traditional friction hitch system you have to footlock two lengths of rope through your feet to gain one length of gain in altitude. It's like walking up a steep sand hill where you go up two steps and come back down one. You'll eventually get up there. This is traditional DdRT.

Maybe instead of our climbing family viewing SRT as some fancy dancy, far-out technique, view the friction hitch system for the inherent limitations it puts on your climbing. SRT is the same steep hill, just firm dirt and rock instead of soft sand.

****

More rope access work is done off SRT than DdRT by a long shot. The work that arbos do requires movement up and down the rope, this is the unique part of arbo rope access.

I wrote an article on SRT for TCI magazine a while ago. If you want to read the article, let me know...

Rather than tieing off the access line to the base of the tree a better solution is to run it through a belay device. My favorite is a rack. Some people use a Gri-Gri but I feel that they have too many limitations. If a person needs to be rescued a groundie, with previous instruction, can lower the climber without actually going into the tree in most circumstances.

Every year more and more arbos are learning how much better SRT access is than any traditional access technique. In some cases treework can be done completely on SRT. 

I've spend time working on some gear/climbing hitch combinations that will ascend and descend a rope without a changeover. The perfect setup is elusive but I know that there is a solution.

If you want to see one mechanical ascent/descent solution, go to Gary Storrick's site, or Google, "unicender"

Strong limbs and single ropes!


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 26, 2006)

Tom Dunlap said:


> I wrote an article on SRT for TCI magazine a while ago. If you want to read the article, let me know...


May I? I have this one bookmarked in my personal library.

Click here for Tom's TCIA feature

I was comparing Tommy's article with Daniel's SRT article just yesterday. Both are excellent, and well-presented, Tommy's with a strong vein of political correctness and lingual precision, Daniel's a fresh, new presentation, more hardware-based (ascenders anyway) and great clarity on backing the ascenders up.

Still, It's stuff I've been doing since the early 90's, and I'm not bragging this, I just never learned how to use the 2:1 friction hitch until much later and by then it would have been going backwards as far as productivity and overall climbing abilities. It's more about the physics than it is of me as a climber. A traditional or even advanced 2:1 friction hitch system pits too much friction against man.

However, this topic isn't exactly about that. Sorry.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 26, 2006)

Here's the download on the lowdown on Daniel Murphy's article, actually the entire June 2006 TCIA magazine. Daniel's SRT article starts on page 10.


----------

