# rig guy wirestops



## winchman (Mar 22, 2007)

i figure this has been covered somewhere on here, but i searched and found no matches. 
does anyone on here have real experience with the rig guy wire stops? our company was thinking of switching from conventional cables to this system, but of course we would love outside input before we dive in.
we do about six cabling jobs a year, and they always take so long just to install one little dinky wire. almost disappointing when you get to the ground and see one steel cable up there after a couple hours of hard work. plus the hazard of dropped tools, thimbles, cutting the cable in the tree, all would be lessened if we could utilize this other system. 
another thing: i googled for this system and couldn't find the website. any help would be appreciated.


----------



## jomoco (Mar 22, 2007)

*Rig Guy Wirestops?*

I am not familiar with Rig Guy Wirestops... post a link?


I am however very familiar with Tree Grips and now use them almost exclusively to attach my cables to the eyebolts in my cabling systems.

You must be extremely careful to ensure that the tree grip used is matched to the cable size being installed, most tree grips are color coded for a specific cable size.

I've found that using tree grips in my cabling systems dramaticly increases the speed of installation as well as the ease.

See the link below and scroll down to the end for tree grips, as you'll see they're cheap and very reliable if installed properly.

http://www.karlkuemmerling.com/prod05.htm

Work Safe get a cabling quiver!

jomoco


----------



## antigrassguy (Mar 22, 2007)

Just my 2 cents. I have no hands on knowledge of this product. But I have watched the advertisements emerge over the last couple of years. I dont like the approach. The reason i dont like it is because the cable anchor is on the back side of the tree. With j-lags or bolts the tree can close around these as they are static. With wirestops the cable runs thru the tree and as the tree moves the cables could saw on the living wood and not allow this wound to close. In my opinion the odds of decay setting in to the heartwood would be greatly enhanced thus creating a cavity.
Just because its easier and cheaper doesnt mean its better for the tree. Again just my opinion.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 23, 2007)

antigrassguy said:


> . With wirestops the cable runs thru the tree and as the tree moves the cables could saw on the living wood and not allow this wound to close.



My understanding of cables is that the true long term strenght is when the tree engulfs the cable and then you are at the same place you would be with the wire stop.

I too would like to see more long term data. I asked for some samples to do installs, and they sent me one or two sets. Not too helpfull.


----------



## NickfromWI (Mar 25, 2007)

http://rigguyinc.com/cart/index.php

or simply www.rigguy.com

Antigrassguy, I don't think that sawing thing really happens.

love
nick


----------



## treevet (Mar 25, 2007)

I think the issue is the drill through. The more invasive the penetration the more opportunity for decay causing organisms. Sounds kind of sexy. Hope I didn t infringe on posting rules.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 26, 2007)

On smaller diameter wood you should drill through with eye-bolts anyways.

My gut says it is a good idea for trees where steel is needed.

It will take the tree less time to grow over just the cable then cable and lag head.


----------



## NickfromWI (Mar 26, 2007)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> It will take the tree less time to grow over just the cable then cable and lag head.



Very, very good point.

love
nick


----------



## treevet (Mar 26, 2007)

Trees got to compartmentalize on the back side w live tissue now. I very rarely drill thru w lags. I put a lot of cables in, mostly from bucket. Still keeping 2/3 distance. You kids always got to change a good thing. Some of the old time ways just don t need a change.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 26, 2007)

treevet said:


> Some of the old time ways just don t need a change.




Ubetcha, I prefer dyanamic cabling to static because of the nonivasive nature of the system.


----------



## treevet (Mar 26, 2007)

I liken the lag to an injection hole. It is certainly much bigger but the overall volume may be similar w multiple injections. Yesterday you told me you injected for anthracnose, and you did so annually. Couldn t you have sprayed these trees or subbed it out? I have been trying to get ahold of the dynamic thing in my head from many years ago when some guy from Europe showed up w them at a Shigo seminar pitching them. We bind the tree w moveable support to protect the crotch from breaking out from moving?


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 27, 2007)

treevet said:


> Yesterday you told me you injected for anthracnose, and you did so annually.



The anthracnose Arbotec injection is a 3 year cycle that can be streached to 5 or more years on some trees. My every year comment was that some people I've talked to do annual treatment for applescab, and I can see that in only a few limited sighting situations when sprays are impractical or illeagle. To expand on the thought that is.



> We bind the tree w moveable support to protect the crotch from breaking out from moving?



The attatchements do not envelope the tree, and usually have a piece of web tube for a friction guard.

Being that they are not kept ridgid, they do not have a girdling effect on the stem.

On vigorous trees, when it grows above the cable system 10-15 years later, you can install a new one over it and remove the old one without leaving hardwear.

Steel still has a place, but most cables can be rope systems.


----------



## coydog (Mar 27, 2007)

I've installed a few of these, what I like about them is that you only have to drill the diameter of the cable, thus allowing you to set the cable in smaller diameter stuff. What I don't like about them is that once set the termination at the stop is like a bundle of barb wire, couple that with a very inconspicuos system and you could potentially have a nasty hand injury for a later unsuspecting climber.


----------



## treevet (Mar 27, 2007)

How trustworthy is the rear stop? I m sure if you ask the manufacturer or the distributer it is failproof. Wonder how is appears to you. It is obviously easier, quicker and therefore more profitable. I ve never done a cable job and not drawn some knuckle blood from splicing.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 28, 2007)

Those that i did had a contact surface like a through bolt. I do not see a differance.


----------



## antigrassguy (Mar 28, 2007)

OK i'll throw another one out here, a bolt or a j-lag is a solid hunk of metal so that when the tree does start to grow around the metal it could seal off any moisture from entering inside the tree. Cable is wrapped and not solid so moisture and air could run inside the cable to the inside of the tree and encourage decay. I would like to be able to dissect a tree that has had wirestops installed about 10-12 years ago to look at it. Just trying to talk this thing through.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 29, 2007)

antigrassguy said:


> Cable is wrapped and not solid so moisture and air could run inside the cable to the inside of the tree and encourage decay.



Ther helical thread on a lag does somethign like double or triple the surface area of the hole. Water movemeent is by surface effect, it can move in on a lag too.

As the tree starts to engulf the bend of the eye or jay it forms a seam, then goes over the cable or grip.


----------



## Rigguy (Mar 30, 2007)

*Using Wire Stops*

1. I have been installing cables using Wire Stops for over five years. It takes me about 20 min. to install a cable.
2. The wire does not saw. The 1/16" oversize on the hole is sealed by the cambium during the first growing season.


----------



## jomoco (Mar 30, 2007)

*Please elaborate*



Rigguy said:


> 1. I have been installing cables using Wire Stops for over five years. It takes me about 20 min. to install a cable.
> 2. The wire does not saw. The 1/16" oversize on the hole is sealed by the cambium during the first growing season.



I am always open to new innovative systems that make our work as arborists easier, faster, more durable etc.

Please post a link that describes the step by step installation proceedures and hardware fo this new cabling system and possible configurations.

From my limited understanding of the system I am left wondering the exact mechanism used to ensure the proper cable tension, which to me is a critical component in proper cabling, short of an inline turnbuckle, I am unsure how tensioning is achieved with this new system.

Until substantial long term results are documented on this new system, I am unlikely to use or recommend it for use in such a vital application.

jomoco


----------



## diltree (Mar 30, 2007)

jomoco, "Until substantial long term results are documented on this new system, I am unlikely to use or recommend it for use in such a vital application."

lets first call the TCIA on this one and see what they think......:rockn: 

just joking jomoco your my boy:jester:


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 31, 2007)

jomoco said:


> From my limited understanding of the system I am left wondering the exact mechanism used to ensure the proper cable tension, which to me is a critical component in proper cabling, short of an inline turnbuckle, I am unsure how tensioning is achieved with this new system.



What to you is proper tension? My understanding of a proper cable system is that there should be some slack under full leaf load. Not a droop, but the system should be tensioned. The purpose is to keep the sections from move away from each other and overloading the weak union, not supporting the stem/limb and taking load off the union.


----------



## jomoco (Mar 31, 2007)

*Varying tensions for varying applications*



John Paul Sanborn said:


> What to you is proper tension? My understanding of a proper cable system is that there should be some slack under full leaf load. Not a droop, but the system should be tensioned. The purpose is to keep the sections from move away from each other and overloading the weak union, not supporting the stem/limb and taking load off the union.



It depends on why I'm cabling in the 1st place. If I'm in a split crotch situation, I'll want to apply enough tension to close the split, then rod the crotch as well. It all depends on the reason I'm cabling.

I always use galvinized through eyebolts on my cables, and tensioning is a straight forward matter of turning the nuts on the eyebolts to achieve the desired cable tension, cutting off the excess bolt and mushrooming the end of the bolt to eliminate sharp edges and ensure the nut doesn't back off.

So short of ropes, come alongs etc, how is proper tensioning achieved with this nifty new product?

Bear with me here, I'm just a dumb old school kinda guy.

jomoco


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Mar 31, 2007)

jomoco said:


> So short of ropes, come alongs etc, how is proper tensioning achieved with this nifty new product?



This is my prefered method for closing a split for bracing. On smaller trees I'll use a truck sized ratchet strap instead of a come-along, bigger trees, slings and come-along.

Sometimes a rope in the split side, running down to The Winch. You can run a static bo'lin around multiple crotches for a straighter pull.

I feel that if you pull on the bigger wood between the brace and the cable you will not risk bowing the stems in. Get the brace done, the install the cable with the needed tension.

Having taught cables in the tree changes the dynamics and the way it will develop caliper from then on.


----------



## coydog (Mar 31, 2007)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Those that i did had a contact surface like a through bolt. I do not see a differance.


how did you achieve a smooth surface termination? Don't the separated cable strands protrude past the stop, if even a small amount, thereby leaving sharp edges behind?


----------



## coydog (Mar 31, 2007)

cool! I just looked at their website and see that they sell safety caps for the termination now. They didn't have those to my knowledge when I was installing them, it's been a couple of years. I never liked leaving sharp edges behind.


----------



## treevet (Mar 31, 2007)

coydog said:


> cool! I just looked at their website and see that they sell safety caps for the termination now. They didn't have those to my knowledge when I was installing them, it's been a couple of years. I never liked leaving sharp edges behind.


What s the website coydog, I punched name in and got A site.


----------



## coydog (Apr 1, 2007)

NickfromWI said:


> http://rigguyinc.com/cart/index.php
> 
> or simply www.rigguy.com



this one


----------



## treevet (Apr 3, 2007)

It seems like there should be a washer. Also is it just probably a diminishing diameter thread that is gripping the surface (uneven surface) of the cable strands that can be expected to take repeated shock loads? Also, periodic inspection is part of the responsibility of anyone installing a cable system and there is a hidden part (in the stem) of the cable that cannot be inspected. Thanks for reposting website. Not completely turned off by it yet, though.


----------



## Mitchell (Sep 4, 2007)

*any updated opinions*

Is there any updated opinions on this system out there? I was considering it for some future projects. Just looking for the good word?


----------



## Greenstar (Jun 14, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Those that i did had a contact surface like a through bolt. I do not see a differance.



Do you use a washer? I wonder if its always necessary?


----------



## treeseer (Jun 14, 2009)

Washers only needed if stem is hollow/crackable/weak, or if the washer is part of a system to flatten the surface for the fastener and avoid side loading.

Otherwise the less bark compression the better eh?


----------



## treevet (Jun 14, 2009)

Not blessed by even an acknowledgment of it's existence in ANSI yet.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 14, 2009)

treevet said:


> Not blessed by even an acknowledgment of it's existence in ANSI yet.


ANSI does not "bless" any specific product. Do you see any language in ANSI that speaks against the product?


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 15, 2009)

coydog said:


> how did you achieve a smooth surface termination? Don't the separated cable strands protrude past the stop, if even a small amount, thereby leaving sharp edges behind?



I am too cheap to buy a fancy wire cutter for the EHS strand, so we just take our portable air compressor and use a die grinder to cut off the extra wire. This works pretty quick, and doesn't leave sharp ends. You could also use an extension cord and a 4" angle grinder with a cutoff wheel. I feel like the die grinder is a safer option 30' up in a tree, so that's what we use.


----------



## treevet (Jun 15, 2009)

treeseer said:


> ANSI does not "bless" any specific product. Do you see any language in ANSI that speaks against the product?



If I had a system fail under extreme circumstances and a client took me to court, which anyone can do for any reason, I would want to have a system mentioned by ANSI and have installed it to ANSI standards. So should you if you still do any cabling work. CYA


----------



## treeseer (Jun 15, 2009)

treevet said:


> If I had a system fail under extreme circumstances and a client took me to court, which anyone can do for any reason, I would want to have a system mentioned by ANSI and have installed it to ANSI standards. So should you if you still do any cabling work. CYA


I put in a big one 3 days ago. Thanks for all the advice; it will be taken under advisement. :monkey:
Wirestops can be installed to ANSI standards with plenty of cya, thanks.


----------



## treevet (Jun 15, 2009)

treeseer said:


> I put in a big one 3 days ago. Thanks for all the advice; it will be taken under advisement. :monkey:
> Wirestops can be installed to ANSI standards with plenty of cya, thanks.



How ya gonna put in a system not mentioned by ANSI to ANSI standards?:jawdrop:

You put up a "big one" a couple of days ago? Can I call you Rig-Guy?:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Mikecutstrees (Jun 15, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Washers only needed if stem is hollow/crackable/weak, or if the washer is part of a system to flatten the surface for the fastener and avoid side loading.
> 
> Otherwise the less bark compression the better eh?



Just as an FYI I cleaned up storm damage this year from a white pine that had been cabled. The leader that was cabled had failed. Upon closer inspection the person who had installed the cable some time ago did not use any washers and the nut pulled through the wood. The tree was not decayed and the cable was placed correctly about 2/3 up from the crotch in wood about 8-12" in diameter..... Mike


----------



## treevet (Jun 15, 2009)

I think he's gotcha on that one.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 15, 2009)

Mikecutstrees said:


> the person who had installed the cable some time ago did not use any washers and the nut pulled through the wood. The tree was not decayed and the cable was placed correctly about 2/3 up from the crotch in wood about 8-12" in diameter..... Mike


So the nut pulled through >8" of undecayed wood? That's why 33.5.10 says what it says, huh Dave? re CYA, I think I'll use washers from now on, and heed 33.5.20, and i'll be cya'd just fine, thanks!


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 15, 2009)

MY guess would be that the installer used the wrong sized drill bit to bore the original hole. Too big a hole for any style equipment, it will pull through easily.

Was that cable that pulled through done with traditional hardware, or with Rigguys wire nuts? The drill you use for your older style 5/8" anchor bolts is not correct for installing Rigguys wire nuts. 1/16" larger than the strand you are using is correct. 

Note: the holes are easier to drill when the bit is smaller; cheaper drill bits too!


----------



## Mikecutstrees (Jun 15, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> MY guess would be that the installer used the wrong sized drill bit to bore the original hole. Too big a hole for any style equipment, it will pull through easily.
> 
> Was that cable that pulled through done with traditional hardware, or with Rigguys wire nuts? The drill you use for your older style 5/8" anchor bolts is not correct for installing Rigguys wire nuts. 1/16" larger than the strand you are using is correct.
> 
> Note: the holes are easier to drill when the bit is smaller; cheaper drill bits too!




I don't know how big the hole was that was drilled. I do know it was done a few years ago > 3 and that it was traditional hardware, eye bolts cable and dead end grips. The cabling failed under and ice load in december..... Mike


----------



## BCMA (Jun 16, 2009)

We have used these wire stops with no ill effects. The crews like using them as they are easy to install. We have had no system failures.


----------



## treevet (Jun 16, 2009)

BCMA said:


> We have used these wire stops with no ill effects. The crews like using them as they are easy to install. We have had no system failures.



This is the time in this type of thread where I, or someone else comes in and says, "hey, they have not been around that long (to have failures) and the main concern is the potential deterioration of the stranded cable by delamination or ungalvanizing by chemicals and a dark damp environment that you can see on old lags and eyes but they are solid so it takes more time to compromise the strength of the unit that cannot be inspected. I also question the longevity of the termination". 

I will continue to use the bolts as I have for 40 years and not opt for the easy and fast application. The gas powered drill has made a cable installation a picnic compared to back in the day.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 16, 2009)

treevet said:


> I will continue to use the bolts


And will you comply with 33.5.10?


----------



## treevet (Jun 16, 2009)

treeseer said:


> And will you comply with 33.5.10?



I always have but we no longer use as standard as long ago, diamond shaped washers and bark trace them into the sapwood prior to installing. This used to be the accepted procedure. I was taught by Bartlett in 1969.

Glad to see you sprung for the standard.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 16, 2009)

treevet said:


> I always have ...
> Glad to see you sprung for the standard.


Ditto (well from now on) and ditto!

It's a lot easier to talk about the rules when we both have a copy.


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 16, 2009)

If I have a copy, it long ago escaped me. How 'bout you guys tell us what the standard says?


----------



## treeseer (Jun 16, 2009)

always use washers on through hardware.

It costs less than a penny and a half a day to stay current w ANSI.


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 16, 2009)

My guess would be that the outer nut on the Rigguys might qualify as the washer itself. It would be real tricky to get a 3/8" washer as large (and as thick) as needed to carry the load. 

The rigguy nuts are 1" in diameter where they meet the wood, and absolutely NEVER will bend under the load of EHS strand. A standard 5/8" washer is a bit less than 1 3/4", so it technically has a greater area to spread the load onto. 

I never saw one of the diamond shaped washers referred to previously.


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 16, 2009)

BCMA said:


> We have used these wire stops with no ill effects. The crews like using them as they are easy to install. We have had no system failures.



What do you use to cut your EHS with? I broke a pair of bolt cutters, and went to using a die grinder.

I know they sell fancy wire cutters for that, but they look like they would take tremendous strength to actually cut strand up in a tree.


----------



## BCMA (Jun 16, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> What do you use to cut your EHS with? I broke a pair of bolt cutters, and went to using a die grinder.
> 
> I know they sell fancy wire cutters for that, but they look like they would take tremendous strength to actually cut strand up in a tree.



We use a pair of heavy duty felco wire cutters. It's a chore but they work.

I would be open to other choices if there are any.


----------



## treevet (Jun 17, 2009)

I have seen a guillotine type piece that you insert the wire into a small heavy apparatus and the top has a sliding wedge that you strike with a sledge hammer and it cuts the wire with one blow.

I saw it in a truck years ago and the owner said it works real well. Looked like it would to. My guess is it came from the electric company.

I just use heavy duty bolt cutters that are high quality.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 17, 2009)

hacksaw with linux blades. takes a few strokes but it is light and cuts clean. last time the crew cut 3/8" ehs with a bolt cutter the ends were so buggered i had to file before it would slide in the hole.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jun 18, 2009)

Hacksaw does fine. Figure, one end does not need to be cut, as it is already a cut end. It goes through and is terminated. The second side needs to be cut. I find gripping the cable with vise-grips and then using the vise-grip as a guide for the hacksaw blade really helps. Having the vise-grip on there allows you to choker a sling onto the cable so that it doesn't get away from you after the cut has been completed. Just make sure the cable is not bending at the point you're cutting or two things can happen: the blade can get pinched, or strand #7 can bend once it's the only strand holding and this can be a beeotch to insert if one strand is out of line with the rest.


pdqdl said:


> Was that cable that pulled through done with traditional hardware, or with Rigguys wire nuts? The drill you use for your older style 5/8" anchor bolts is not correct for installing Rigguys wire nuts. 1/16" larger than the strand you are using is correct.
> 
> Note: the holes are easier to drill when the bit is smaller; cheaper drill bits too!


I think probably traditional hardware, he used the term nut. The rigguy hardware is termed wirestops and the parts are called the block and the taper.






1/16" hole drilled larger then the cable diameter is common, but lately I've been stuffing 3/8" cable through a 3/8" hole. It can be done.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 18, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> lately I've been stuffing 3/8" cable through a 3/8" hole. It can be done.


Dayum, how do you do that--either you are reaming the hole a few extra times or you got amazin muscles!


----------



## Tree Machine (Jun 18, 2009)

Amazing muscles, ha ha!


----------



## treevet (Jun 18, 2009)

While you guys are sawing away I got my lag bolt in (occassionally use heavy eyes), spliced and dunndy. GM has already spliced the other end (common grade) and most of the time with an accurate measurement, no need for cutting at all. If a cut is nec., hey just lop it off with a bolt cutter like clipping a toenail.

You guys have gone too hi tech beyond ANSI standards just for convenience and supposed speed....but that hacksawing stuff is silly. (not funny silly either haha), You got amazing strength on the cable and questionable strength on the termination......weakest link's gonna get ya.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jun 18, 2009)

So, do you have something objective to offer, or just your opinion?

Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion. However, unless you have some sort of what makes what the weakest link, and some measure of how weak that is and maybe a comparison of the strengths of other systems, then you're offering nothing but conjecture.

But I respect your opinion.

As far as something objective, hacksawing through 5/16" EHS cable, about a minute. The weight of the hacksaw compared to a bolt cutter (which can deform the cut end) a relative fraction and easily clipped on.

I come from the standpoint of being a climber, and having to assemble, hoist and climb around with all the gear necessary to do the procedure, I have to admit that simplicity does factor in. However, I don't use wirestops exclusively. I've got J-lags, left and right thread, thru-bolts and associated hardware, bundles of spiral cable wraps in a couple different sizes and dynamic cabling. I'm not going to dog the manner in which you choose to cable a tree, Treevet (or anybody) because I'm certain I use, or have used, or will again use that manner of installing a cable. I choose the system based on the individual tree, it's size and the condition of the tree in general, especially what's going on at the crotch(es).


----------



## treevet (Jun 18, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> So, do you have something objective to offer, or just your opinion?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion. However, unless you have some sort of what makes what the weakest link, and some measure of how weak that is and maybe a comparison of the strengths of other systems, then you're offering nothing but conjecture.
> 
> ...



Thank you for respecting my opinion Jim, and I also respect yours. Most of what we type out here is conjecture and one could not help but think that some of this conjecture is used by the standard makers in their positions of writing them. Vast reservoirs of experience on this forum at their disposal.

I am leery of new stuff, esp. in applications where damage or injury is likely should failure occur. What do I have to add? Like I have said before, I likely install 70 or 80 cables a year on an average. Over 40 years that is around 3000 cables, so my opinions are more than conjecture. I don't like the termination of this system and I do not like the hidden portion of the cable inside the stem. Hacksawing cable in the tree is just another thing that is troublesome. 

Why has not the ANSI committee acknowledged this system? I am sure they are being pressured to do so. Some of the things I have brought to light with my conjecture early in the appearance of this system may be their problem as well.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jun 18, 2009)

treevet said:


> I likely install 70 or 80 cables a year on an average. Over 40 years that is around 3000 cables, so my opinions are more than conjecture.


And this is why I respect your opinion. Experience counts for a lot in this business, and you've got gobs more than me. What you're saying is that what you've used works. That's A-OK. You're comfortable with it, you like it, you're dialled into that way. Nothing wrong with that. 

But to dash a new method, primarily because you like a different method, that's just not very scientifically based.

I have the 'privilege' of regularly inspecting former cabling work of Arborists of the past, both intact, failed, and on the way to likely failure. The failed ones allow me to better understand the 'weak link' in these systems. Generally, it seems to be soft annealed cable along the lines of where the strands wrap around the cable in a traditional splice. It is because of this repeated observation that I went to EHS cable as the general practice.



treevet said:


> I don't like the termination of this system and I do not like the hidden portion of the cable inside the stem.


 Hidden cable inside the tree or hidden J-lag or thru-bolt? Any invasive system will have a hidden, non-inspectable component. You have an issue with it being the actual cable over whatever else. Likes and dislikes are just that. 


treevet said:


> Hacksawing cable in the tree is just another thing that is troublesome.


Hacksawing in the tree, or from the bucket? There's a difference. Using soft-grade cable or EHS with your cutting tool? I like the simplicity, compactness, lightweight and economy of a hacksaw. I had formerly hoisted a small generator up so I could use a corded 1/2" drill and an angle grinder with the thin, metal cutting blade to sever the cable. I could defend the speed and efficiency once there at the point of the procedure, however, as a climber in the overall beginning-to-end procedure, the practical sense trumps all. I invested in an 18V Li-ion cordless impact drill/driver since I can use this for a myriad of other purposes. I've used a gas powered drill, awesome, but sort of limited to the variety of things it can do, takes up much more space and more weighty and bulky to climb with..... but truly an awesome tool, in and of itself.




treevet said:


> Why has not the ANSI committee acknowledged this system? I am sure they are being pressured to do so.


 I don't think they publish based on pressure, but rather more likely scientifically-based, objective testing and measures. Some things just take time. I've only been using wirestops for four years, never had one fail, but from the long-term standpoint I can't make a comment, except to speculate and I won't be able to inspect any decay profiles unless one of these trees becomes a takedown. In about 90% of the cases I'm installing the cable(s) to _prevent_ the tree having to be taken down.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 18, 2009)

treevet said:


> one could not help but think that some of this conjecture is used by the standard makers in their positions of writing them.


Don't count on anyone going fishing here or anywhere else for your/our pearls of wisdom. If you have a comment/s, it needs to be written clearly and submitted to your org's committee rep.

O and if you have done 3 or 3000 or 300,000 systems one way, how does that elevate your thoughts on a system that you have not used to a level beyond conjecture? I've tied into trees 10,000,000 times with a prussik knot, but that does not make me an expert on a distel or a schwabisch.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jun 18, 2009)

I think any system should be judged and evaluated based on it's own merits, irrespective of other systems.


----------



## treevet (Jun 18, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Don't count on anyone going fishing here or anywhere else for your/our pearls of wisdom. If you have a comment/s, it needs to be written clearly and submitted to your org's committee rep.
> 
> O and if you have done 3 or 3000 or 300,000 systems one way, how does that elevate your thoughts on a system that you have not used to a level beyond conjecture? I've tied into trees 10,000,000 times with a prussik knot, but that does not make me an expert on a distel or a schwabisch.



As usual I do not agree with your post. I am not vain enough to think policy makers are waiting by the puter for my next remittance on cabling or eab, or climbing techs, etc, etc.....but I do think they (they being committee mbrs. and not nec. any more qualified than I am) would have the propensity to push the search button on one or all of the forums prior to considering the topic they have been chosen to brainstorm.

I also think it is silly to even state that someone that has put in 3 systems as compared to someone who has put in thousands are on even ground. I think there is no question someone putting in a conventional system many many times and witnessing the lifespan and integrity of them can pass judgment on something they have not used but just viewed the components of. The 2 of you, dashing conjecture, have little background to pass judgment on these systems yourselves in that mindset as although you have installed them, they have not been around very long to let deterioration enter the equation. 

Do you consider yourself an expert on rigguy? Is there any unbiased testing on the components you can present? 

NO??? Well then you are just full on conjecture (could have used another word) yourself.


----------



## treevet (Jun 18, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> And this is why I respect your opinion. Experience counts for a lot in this business, and you've got gobs more than me. What you're saying is that what you've used works. That's A-OK. You're comfortable with it, you like it, you're dialled into that way. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 18, 2009)

This thread has inspired me to e-mail the boys at Rigguy. Here is the transcript of what I sent, and what they sent back:
(I addded the emphasis on their quote)

********************************************************************************************
> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
> David Little ([email protected]) on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 19:22:36
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Question: In a recent thread at ArboristSite.com 
> (http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?p=1591539#post1591539), it was 
> pointed out that the Rigguys do not conform to ANSI standards because they do 
> not have a washer for "through hardware".
> 
> Are there any probabilties that your equipment will become ANSI certified, and 
> do you offer any washers that will allow the dedicated arborist to remain in 
> compliance with the regulations concerning washers?
> 
> Action: Submit
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
David,

Thanks for your inquiry about the Wire Stop. The washer is somewhat of a non-issue for two reasons. First, the standard was written to address a through bolt installation that needed a washer for the relatively small nut. The Wire Stop for 3/8"-5/16th strand is 1.125 inches in diameter about the same size as a washer. Second, While I do not see the need for a washer using Wire Stops, there is no reason that they can not be used. However, We do not not sell the washers. In six years of use, there has never been a reported case of a Wire Stop pulling through a branch or trunk.
We would very much like the ANSI standard to address the issue and are active in having that done at the next standards meeting. *In the mean time, they have said that the Wire Stop does conform to all the should clauses in the standard and can be used even thought it is not directly addressed in the standard. This is also true of the "Cobra System". *Please call if you have further questions.

Thanks again for your interest,


Steve Tillitski

706.340.1288
********************************************************************************************
I will be sending them a note requesting a quotation from somebody at ANSI, instead of a relatively useless comment from the manufacturer.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 18, 2009)

Nice work going to the source, David. 6 years and 1000's of installations is a ton of testing and a growing track record. You will hear back from ANSI if you send a comment to your rep and wait.


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 18, 2009)

I guess I wasn't too clear: I will ask Rigguys who THEY talked to at ANSI that indicated their stuff was ok. What they e-mailed me did not sound exactly credible.

Myself, I must admit that I am not concerned with whether or not ANSI approves of their equipment. I may be wrong, but I don't fear any lawyers about any cabling job I do. 

Nature put the tree there, and nature made it fall. "Nothing made by man has ever lasted forever, so why would you expect a cable to last forever?" 

Besides, I don't have enough money to get a lawyer interested in suing me. They go for the deep pockets, and here I am in my boxers with no pockets at all.


----------



## treevet (Jun 18, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Nice work going to the source, David. 6 years and 1000's of installations is a ton of testing and a growing track record. You will hear back from ANSI if you send a comment to your rep and wait.



Not trying to be contentious but I emailed Robt. Rouse (chairman) a year ago re some of my feelings about the cabling standard and got nada.


----------



## treevet (Jun 18, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> > Myself, I must admit that I am not concerned with whether or not ANSI approves of their equipment. I may be wrong, but I don't fear any lawyers about any cabling job I do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 18, 2009)

Yeah. I hate lawyers. I will raise my price on almost any work if I find out they are a lawyer: I have had too many just not pay the bill, believing they can afford a legal battle better than I can.

I have been doing work since 1982, and I have never been sued for anything. Some of that is luck, some of it is just taking care of problems when they are really my fault. Part of my luck might just be because I am too bold to consider suing without having a legal knock-down dragout battle (I will NOT roll over and pay money for a fraudulent claim), and most of that luck is based on me not having enough money to fight for in court.

Ok, who here at AS has ever been sued over a cable failure? No guys, don't get out your law books and look for a stack of precedents, whom here has REALLY been sued?


[On the merits of strength of case and probability of winning a judgment, I'll bet a lawsuit against tree cabling can almost never be won in court unless the cables fell apart shortly after they were installed. I will further bet that most of the lawsuits that get filed are based on damages to property that was already highly at risk]


----------



## treevet (Jun 18, 2009)

My bet is you find cases in Merrulo or Bloch's Tree/Law books but I can not recall for certain. At 60 my memory is sometimes not dependable and I don't feel like digging. I would also think that if death was involved with the failure and cable involved that law suits would be flying all over the place.

Few weeks ago I had my GM back out this lag out of an elm that just died from the DED. I then slabbed the piece and found it was installed 20 years ago. The cable was long gone and obviously was installed without a thimble. 

My opinion (conjecture ofcourse) is that a strand (cable section) inside the tree for twenty years would be worthless.

I might even consider enamel painting this lag and reusing it if I was in a spot for one more it is so solid and sound.


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 18, 2009)

Why do you think the buried strand would be in poor condition? The bolt looks to be in pretty good condition, and bolts are not galvanized nearly as thickly (usually) as are cables.

Steel does NOT rust according to its exposure to water, or high humidity conditions. Rust is a chemical reaction with oxygen; water seems to accelerate the process, probably by increasing the molecular contact with more oxygen, probably facilitated by pH changes and other corrosive minerals. I imagine there is much less oxygen and corrosive minerals inside a tree than in the atmosphere, but I really don't know.

I don't know whether surrounding strand with living wood from a tree would be any more damaging than just out in the atmosphere with the elements. I will GUARANTEE that barbed wire lasts a lot longer inside the trunk of the tree than it does out in the air.

I can show you LOTS of old hedgerows where the ancient barbed wire has completely rusted away, but you had better plan on getting dull chains from all the buried wire.


----------



## treevet (Jun 19, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> > > Why do you think the buried strand would
> > >
> > >
> > > > be in poor condition? The bolt looks to be in pretty good condition and bolts are not galvanized nearly as thickly (usually) as are cables.
> > > ...


----------



## Tree Machine (Jun 19, 2009)

We really need to look at oxidation and basic electrochemistry, sacrificial anode and such. I think a better understanding of this will, let's say, give you a better understanding of this. And 'you' not meaning anyone in particular, but the readership as a whole. Entire books are written on this, but I think we can get what we need from an online source. 

My wife asked me why zinc oxide was in sunscreen, and I didn't know. In looking it up I came across other zinc references, galvanization anodic protection, corrosion and such which interests the heck out of me. I never did learn why zinc oxide is an SPF ingredient.

I don't have the moment to dig up the link(s), running a bit late for my day job, but could someone link us to something at Wikipedia to start? I swear this will address pdqdl's last post and Treevet's. Let the science speak.


----------



## arbor pro (Jun 19, 2009)

treevet said:


> My bet is you find cases in Merrulo or Bloch's Tree/Law books but I can not recall for certain. At 60 my memory is sometimes not dependable and I don't feel like digging. I would also think that if death was involved with the failure and cable involved that law suits would be flying all over the place.
> 
> Few weeks ago I had my GM back out this lag out of an elm that just died from the DED. I then slabbed the piece and found it was installed 20 years ago. The cable was long gone and obviously was installed without a thimble.
> 
> ...



I've been looking at the rigguy system simply because I've had bad luck with using lags on smaller diameter branches. Though I use only a standard lag spinner for installation, I often end up cracking or breaking lags during installation. Others break weeks or months after installation indicating that a stress crack must have occurred during the install process. I've also had instances of a cable slipping off of a j-lag (installed with a thimble and wrap). In such instances, the cable was slightly taught after installation however, slack occured during a wind event and the loop slipped off of the lag. 

My installation proceedure today is the same as when I was taught in arboriculture class two decades ago by a very well-renowned tree expert. I'm pretty sure I'm doing things right but, I sure do have problems with lags. (BTW - the lags are purchased from Sherrill Supply, not some corner hardware store).

Anyhow, that's why the rigguy system interests me. I'd like to do away with lags and bolts all together but I've been hesitant for the same reasons as everyone else. I don't want to switch to a system that may fail prematurely.

I don't do nearly as many installations as some of you guys so, even though I've been cabling for 20+ years, I consider myself little more than a novice at it doing maybe a dozen installs a year at best.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jun 28, 2009)

Here's a couple interesting photos from a takedown I did yesterday. I don't really have any comment on them. They say what they say. You have to do your own interpretation.


----------



## treevet (Jun 28, 2009)

Not much to interpret without some background and/or more picts. Nice splice!

If it was a removal......not much room for comment on what could be done. Seems like if it was not a removal it was time for the lead to come out or at least another cable to augment that one and prob some pruning with that extensive cavity. New cable would've had to eliminate the lag choice and had a termination nut and washer although that lag was still functional if not for the decay. Seems like it was still functional anyway. Cable prob was way past the end of useful life if not broken.

You have to wonder if that lead (pictured) was responsible for bracing another lead over a high level target. If so we get closer and closer to removal.

Nice picts. Tree Machine.


----------



## Ekka (Jun 28, 2009)

Competitor products too.

http://www.endz.biz/

http://www.endz.biz/installationmanual/


----------



## treevet (Jun 28, 2009)

Wonder if our Rig Guy friend is the litigious type? 

Stay tuned to find out. :greenchainsaw:


----------



## Tree Machine (Jun 29, 2009)

treevet said:


> Nice splice!


Agreed.



treevet said:


> Seems like it was still functional anyway. Cable prob was way past the end of useful life if not broken.


It was still intact and very, very tight. I did a tightwire walk across it from one stem to the other and it held.

I sort of wish I'd taken other pictures. It was a leaning trunk, on the gutter up against the house, the bulk of the crown over the house, the rest over a perennial garden. Nothing that would overly impress most of the crowd that runs here.

Hey Treevet, if you don't mind me asking, other than you personal dislike of the cable being inside the tree, that you're not so keen on new methods and just plain being OK with the systems you've used in the past, do you see any other problem with the wirestop system?

Also, if I'm reading anything wrong into the above question, do let me know.


----------



## treevet (Jun 29, 2009)

I have to add also 

1. Don't like the termination where the cable is separated and thus more subject to delamination or degalvanizing and then hitting the weakest link scenario when individual strands fail. Seems to me a nut and washer or 24 individual threads on a 5/8 lag bolt biting into wood would be a more certain hold or termination. 

2. Don't like the unstable cable as opposed to a bolt where it enters the drilled hole. Seems the movement would prevent closure where a stable bolt would not.

Did you guys get any work from the big blow Thur nite? We got a pretty big hit down the road here.


----------



## chris_girard (Jul 14, 2009)

Here's an answer that I got from Bob Rouse at TCIA regarding the RIGGUY system:

"At the last revision of A300 Part 3, the A300 committee decided that there were no A300 Part 3 standards that prohibited the use of RIGGUY wire stops/systems.

They also decided that placing the wire stop system in the standard by name or under a new generic “wedge and ferrule” category was premature, they wanted to see a little more field use and experience.

So, when the RIGGUY systems are installed correctly and the current A300 Part 3 standards are met, the systems will meet A300 standards, even though they are not referenced by name.

Let me know if you have any more questions,"



Bob Rouse, VP of Industry Standards & Credentialing
Tree Care Industry Association, The Voice of Tree Care
P: 603-314-5380 ext. 117 • C: 603-203-4962 • F: 603-314-5386 

136 Harvey Rd., Suite 101 Londonderry, NH 03053 www.tcia.org


----------



## treevet (Jul 14, 2009)

chris_girard said:


> Here's an answer that I got from Bob Rouse at TCIA regarding the RIGGUY system:
> 
> "At the last revision of A300 Part 3, the A300 committee decided that there were no A300 Part 3 standards that prohibited the use of RIGGUY wire stops/systems.
> 
> ...



"wedge and ferrule" termination, I thought that was their sticking point.

"Let me know if you have any more questions" yeah if you catch him someplace face to face. If you e-mail or write or call him like it says on the standard.....you won't get a reply for years. Probably too busy out signing autographs.


----------



## treeseer (Jul 14, 2009)

treevet said:


> "Let me know if you have any more questions" yeah if you catch him someplace face to face. If you e-mail or write or call him like it says on the standard.....you won't get a reply for years.


standard says to submit written comments to your org rep which in your case is bruce hagen. commitee reviews comments regularly at meetings then provides feedback. follow the channels and you will be heard and responded to; that is my experience, and others'.


----------



## treevet (Jul 14, 2009)

treeseer said:


> standard says to submit written comments to your org rep which in your case is bruce hagen. commitee reviews comments regularly at meetings then provides feedback. follow the channels and you will be heard and responded to; that is my experience, and others'.



Wrooooooong!

"Suggestions for improvement of this standard should be forwarded to" A300 Secretary, c/o Tree Care Industry Associati9on, 3 Perimeter Road-Unit 1, Manchester, NH 03103, USA (Secretary being Mr. Bob Rouse as I stated) or e mail: tcia.....

I emailed the org., got no response, phoned TCIA, the person who answered the phone gave me Rouse's e mail addr. and I emailed him and haven't had a response in a year. Forgotten now what I was suggesting but I am sure it was of huge importance lol.


----------



## treeseer (Jul 14, 2009)

well either should work but i stand corrected. Dunno about the autograph thing but i'd suggest resubmitting *specific* comments, and you should hear back.


----------



## treevet (Jul 14, 2009)

treeseer said:


> well either should work but i stand corrected. Dunno about the autograph thing but i'd suggest resubmitting *specific* comments, and you should hear back.



I will give it another try and report back.

I did have very specific comments and since I spent one evening shooting some pool with Mr. Rouse in Saranac, New York about 20 years ago at Paul Smith's at a Shigo seminar, kinda thought I might get a reply. What a peaceful place renting a cabin on the lake there.

Nobody's perfect, I will again give it another try. I would love to know how they feel about the hidden aspect of cable in the drilled hole and would also like to know why they do not mandate a life span that is documented initially and monitored on cable installations.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 15, 2009)

treevet said:


> I would love to know how they feel about the hidden aspect of cable in the drilled hole and would also like to know why they do not mandate a life span that is documented initially and monitored on cable installations.


The life of a cable is different in different parts of the country, one of the biggest factors being the acidity of rain and then, as you would presume, the amount of that low pH rain. As well coastal areas with salt spray coming off the water are affected.



TM said:


> We really need to look at oxidation and basic electrochemistry, sacrificial anode and such. I think a better understanding of this will, let's say, give you a better understanding of this. And 'you' not meaning anyone in particular, but the readership as a whole. Entire books are written on this, but I think we can get what we need from an online source.
> 
> My wife asked me why zinc oxide was in sunscreen, and I didn't know. In looking it up I came across other zinc references, galvanization anodic protection, corrosion and such which interests the heck out of me.


Well, I did some further searching on this and came about some known and predictable behaviors of metals, metal interactions, anode protection, oxide protections, electrochemical potential and how it all relates to corrosion and base-metal protection.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 15, 2009)

My first reference is from my dad. He's not a treeguy, but he owns a boat on the Gulf of Mexico. On the back of the boat, beneath the waterline, is a big hunk of metal called a 'zinc' named so because it's simply a big block of zinc. It is attached by a conductor line that's in direct contact with the metal parts of the engine. Corrosion protection is offered to the metal parts of the engine through the preferential consumption of the zinc. It's an electrochemical law of electricity first described by Alex Volta back in the late 1700's. At the same time another dude, Galvani was doing similar investigations and came up with electrical laws that stand today because _these physical laws do not change_. They involve far more discussion as to how they works, but Zinc, in contact with ferrous metals, will be sacrificed preferentially, keeping the ferrous metal from itself becoming corroded (oxidized).

On a side note, chrome and iron work opposite to this. Chrome is protective as long as the surface of the chrome plating is unbroken. Once the iron beneath is exposed, it will preferentially corrode, as shown by the bumper on my Toyota.

/

The next reference is from a metallurgist who listened as I asked corrosion questions specifically about our cable systems. He shared with me electromotive force, valence electrons and other stuff I'll spare you the details, but specifically I asked him about the zinc coating on the cable, life expectancy, and very specifically, the area inside the tree and whether this area was going to be more prone to corrosion. He said electrochemistry doesn't work that way. Anode protection, as he called it, offers galvanic protection of the entire cable, not a specific part of the same cable. He asked me if I've ever seen a zinc galvanized cable that is rusting in one area and still coated in zinc in another. I told him I've seen plenty of rusty cables. He asked if I've seen any rusty cables that still had zinc on them. I had to answer honestly "No." He said that's because all the zinc needs to be consumed before the iron will oxidize. "How about ungalvanized cable attached to galvanized thimbles and galvanized lags?" Same thing, the zinc on the thimbles and lags will be sacrificed, or 'spent' before corrosion begins on the cable itself, as long as there is direct contact of the two dissimilar metals. Interesting.

What about the Zinc coating 'flaking off' when the strands of the cable are opened up and one central strand bent? He was looking at a picture I had of a traditional cabeling splice. "Like this?" I said, well, kinda, but then showed him a picture of a wedge and ferrule termination. He said hot-dip galvanization of iron forms a _metallurgical bond _to the parent metal where the two metals form a 'contact alloy'. It is not a 'plating' or simple surface coat and is not applied electrically through an anodization process like chrome. The steel is simply dipped in molten zinc and the natural bonding occurs.

What about nicks that may occur on the surface of the cable, exposing a portion of the iron hidden beneath? What about the cut ends of the cable? Again, the laws of electrochemistry apply. He also said zinc oxide and zinc carbonate (elemental zinc reacting with oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air) is a powerful surface protectant of the zinc itself and will surface-coat adjacent exposed iron, as long as there is direct contact. He said if bending and 'delamination' were a real concern, we should be more concerned with opening up the cable and winding 7 individual strands around and around the mother cable as compared to putting a mild bend in one single strand. "However", he says, "Electrochemically speaking, its all the same."


----------



## D Mc (Jul 16, 2009)

TM, that was some great information. Thanks for posting it. 

Dave


----------



## pdqdl (Jul 16, 2009)

D Mc said:


> TM, that was some great information. Thanks for posting it.
> 
> Dave



:agree2:

That was _exceptional_ information, and reveals good counter arguments to some real concerns by others in this thread. It's too bad we can't cite some metallurgical reference in support of what has been asserted.

I have seen cable rusted where galvanization is still present, so it is not quite as definitive as it has been described above. For example, we have all seen rusted-out car bodies where the galvanized sheet metal is partly rusted out and where other parts are flaking paint off the perfectly good galvanyl beneath. Probably a lot of folks don't realize they have seen it, but it is in every junkyard in the country.


----------



## treeseer (Jul 16, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> :agree2:
> 
> That was _exceptional_ information, and reveals good counter arguments to some real concerns by others in this thread.


Mr. TM has an amazing grasp on finding out how things work.


> It's too bad we can't cite some metallurgical reference in support of what has been asserted.


It's gotta be out there; maybe a mfr. has the interest to decipher and deliver it.


----------



## treevet (Jul 16, 2009)

Anyone have a comment on the flexible aspect of the cable where it leaves the stem? If a bolt it would be rigid and a non issue but because it is flexible and since a tree doesn't always pull in a straight line with swirling winds....IMO the cable continually reinjures that hole and ruptures wall 4, CODIT the most important wall.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 17, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Mr. TM has an amazing grasp on finding out how things work.


Yea, thanks to Wikipedia. LOL.

I strongly question the comment I put out there that an ungalvanized cable will not corrode until the galvanized portions of the anchor are spent. Fortunately, (I hope) ungalvanized, regular steel cable is not used except by hardware store cabelers and homeowner types.



Treevet said:


> Anyone have a comment on the flexible aspect of the cable where it leaves the stem?
> IMO the cable continually reinjures that hole and ruptures wall 4, CODIT the most important wall.



Sure, I'd like to comment on that with pictures. First, though, I'd like to start with a reference from Dr Alex Shigo, that injury causes responses in trees of which callus formation is one. I'm paraphrasing, not quoting, but we all know this to be true. Injury causes the tree to form callus. Callus is simply undifferentiated cell growth that in the case of injury eventually differentiates into xylem (wood) tissue. _Differentiated_ xylem (that wood which has arisin from a wound site) has an enhanced and unique ability to form more callus more quickly. In a tissue culture lab, there's a fast way to get callus to multiply more quickly; pull apart the lump of callus into a number of smaller pieces and cell division and production is accelerated.

Ok we (field arborists) don't work in laboratories, but biology is biology.

Reinjury of an injury will stimulate callus growth which differentiates into what we call wound wood. This cycle is central to injury response and is fundamental as a survival mechanism. Whether there is an existing crack in a trunk that keeps refracturing the callus line, or a cable is protruding out a stem, this stimulus causes callus tissue to keep reforming.


The pictures I spoke of above are from a cabling job I started yesterday. I didn't have the camera, and then the battery ran out on the drill, the other battery sitting at home in the charger. I took this as sign to bail and come back later. The pictures refer to a couple points made by contributors above (cable rusting where galvanization is present, flexible cable/ reinjury at the cable's entry site).

Then I have some biology-as-it-relates-to-zinc that I feel it really important to put out (and scientifically reference).


Again, I'd like to point out that I'm not in an argument with Treevet, or defending wirestops. We're just simply trying to substantiate claims made through biology and physical science.


----------



## treevet (Jul 17, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> Sure, I'd like to comment on that with pictures. First, though, I'd like to start with a reference from Dr Alex Shigo, that injury causes responses in trees of which callus formation is one. I'm paraphrasing, not quoting, but we all know this to be true. Injury causes the tree to form callus. Callus is simply undifferentiated cell growth that in the case of injury eventually differentiates into xylem (wood) tissue. _Differentiated_ xylem (that wood which has arisin from a wound site) has an enhanced and unique ability to form more callus more quickly. In a tissue culture lab, there's a fast way to get callus to multiply more quickly; pull apart the lump of callus into a number of smaller pieces and cell division and production is accelerated.
> 
> Ok we (field arborists) don't work in laboratories, but biology is biology.
> 
> Reinjury of an injury will stimulate callus growth which differentiates into what we call wound wood. This cycle is central to injury response and is fundamental as a survival mechanism. Whether there is an existing crack in a trunk that keeps refracturing the callus line, or a cable is protruding out a stem, this stimulus causes callus tissue to keep reforming.



Callus has nothing to do with wall 4. Wall 4, the barrier zone, the strongest wall, simply stated is the wall between wood present at the time of the injury and wood formed after the injury. There is nothing beneficial in the wounding of callus.

Wall 4 is the reason we find a large tree stem still standing with no wood inside it and being held up by a thin doughnut of wood on the perimeter keeping it erect. This may be good and can certainly be a neg thing as extreme weather can cause failure.

Anyway, if we are re injuring wood formed after the initial wound is made (the cable abrading the circumference of the drill hole).....well, that ain't good.
This IMO is how a gaping cavity and eventual failure can develop and occur. (not to mention the failure of the cable).

Unrelated to this but relevant to this thread is that time of wounding is of importance.....

Wounds made in spring at the time of leaf expansion will have a moderate cambial die back.

Wounds made in summer or mid growth period, usually have very little cambial die back.

Wounds inflicted in the fall, or after the growing period will have a large area of cambial die back.

In other words, this time of year may be the best time to install cables if there is an opportunity or need.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 17, 2009)

treevet said:


> Wounds made in spring at the time of leaf expansion will have a moderate cambial die back.
> 
> Wounds made in summer or mid growth period, usually have very little cambial die back.
> 
> ...



I definitely need a reference on that one. And cambial dieback due to what? Cable-induced wounds, pressure from hardware, pruning, storm damage, .... all of the above? Are you talking cambial dieback, or _rate_ of cambial production


----------



## treevet (Jul 17, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> > I definitely need a reference on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## treevet (Jul 17, 2009)

Does anyone on this thread think it is even conceivable for 3/8 stranded cable to have anywhere near the lifespan that a solid 5/8 bolt hidden in the drill hole would assuming both were professional quality galvanized hardware?


----------



## treeseer (Jul 17, 2009)

treevet said:


> Does anyone on this thread think it is even conceivable for 3/8 stranded cable to have anywhere near the lifespan that a solid 5/8 bolt hidden in the drill hole would assuming both were professional quality galvanized hardware?


It depends.

Do support systems fail due to bolt failure?

what is your point?

o and read p 145 is the phrasing that absolute? cambial dieback that i see is not due to drilling but to large branch removal.


----------



## treevet (Jul 17, 2009)

treeseer said:


> > Do support systems fail due to bolt failure?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## D Mc (Jul 18, 2009)

treevet said:


> Anyone have a comment on the flexible aspect of the cable where it leaves the stem?




Static systems, by their very nature, if required, need to be "static". The systems I have examined that have lasted the longest have been so. Systems that have failed prematurely, not taking into account improper installation or materials, have been highly mobile. 

I feel that if a tree requires the strength and stability of a static system that it is worth running extra cables or braces to keep independent system movement at a minimum. If this is not possible, other options should be investigated. I feel this would hold true with Rigguy and conventional systems.

Dave


----------



## treevet (Jul 18, 2009)

D Mc said:


> Static systems, by their very nature, if required, need to be "static". The systems I have examined that have lasted the longest have been so. Systems that have failed prematurely, not taking into account improper installation or materials, have been highly mobile.
> 
> I feel that if a tree requires the strength and stability of a static system that it is worth running extra cables or braces to keep independent system movement at a minimum. If this is not possible, other options should be investigated. I feel this would hold true with Rigguy and conventional systems.
> 
> Dave



That all is true Dave but with swirling winds that are the norm in storms around here you just have to observe to see that unwanted movement occurs. IMO in the best scenario, the "boxed in" system,....the limbs/leads have the opportunity to be forced INWARD against the lean and system although this is the only opportunity they have. I have watched this happen many times. 

My point is if a stable bolt fitted or forced very tightly into the drill hole is NOT going to move under any circumstances. This is better than the FLEXIBLE cable leaving the drill hole and not even tight inside the hole.

This will damage the hole opposite the termination hole.

I have no vendetta against rigguy, just like to look at all angles as I install a lot of cables.

Sometimes "old school" got to be old school by being the right way and around for countless years.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 18, 2009)

treevet said:


> Unrelated to this but relevant to this thread is that time of wounding is of importance.....





treevet said:


> wounds......from drilling......



My apologies. When I read "unrelated to this" it threw me off. Unrelated indicated you were talking about wounding "unrelated .... but relevant to this thread" which to me meant 'wounding unrelated to this', like wounding from something other than what we're talking about. 

So I asked what you're talking about. I retract the apology.

Good science doesn't assume. Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 18, 2009)

treevet said:


> This is better than the FLEXIBLE cable leaving the drill hole and not even tight inside the hole.


Where do you get this hogwash? This is truly an assumption. Please explain, then I'll gladly refute it with pictures and a couple sentences. "the FLEXIBLE cable leaving the drill hole and not even tight inside the hole." _is an assumption_, as it can't be anything else. Have you actually DONE a thru-cable installation?


----------



## treevet (Jul 18, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> I think the bigger question is will the cable last long enough to do the job for the length of time required for the application. If both the cable and the bolt outlast the tree then your question is a moot point....unless you have plans to re-use the bolt. Wonder what the life span of .



I think the biggest questions are, 1. Is the termination good enough 2. What is the best hardware to go into the hole that is unable to be inspected. 3. Which system causes less injury to the tree. 

In the event of failure the concern is "throw" of the segment supported and that would make it a worse situation than if it had never been cabled in the first place. This all could be mitigated by mandated documentation of installations and strict researched data on life span of cables under ALL circumstances done independently and published in ANSI. This would take very sophisticated research and installation observation but part of our evolution I would hope.


----------



## treevet (Jul 18, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> Where do you get this hogwash? This is truly an assumption. Please explain, then I'll gladly refute it with pictures and a couple sentences. "the FLEXIBLE cable leaving the drill hole and not even tight inside the hole." _is an assumption_, as it can't be anything else. Have you actually DONE a thru-cable installation?



Cable is flexible and bolts are not. Even you can follow that. Where is the assumption? When a branch is blowing around with a section of flexible cable exiting the hole opposite the termination hole it will bend sideways over the exit hole if the branch goes sideways and the hole would be the pivot point. A bolt will not. 

I have not done a thru cable and at the moment do not intend to do one. I am not that lazy and don't fall for gimmicks.


----------



## treeseer (Jul 18, 2009)

treevet said:


> When a branch is blowing around with a section of flexible cable exiting the hole opposite the termination hole it will bend sideways over the exit hole if the branch goes sideways and the hole would be the pivot point.


This is what youi ASS U ME hut I have doen several installations wioth TM and he always has design and tension right enough so moviment ios minimal and bending does not jappen.


> I have not done a thru cable and at the moment do not intend to do one. I am not that lazy and don't fall for gimmicks.


This is :censored: tlaming and you are wasting a lot of time with this fatwah. go ahead an bolt and splice to cable; we do not attack your method at all but havimg zero experience is the very definition of ignorance sp you are firing blanks right now please put down the gun.

re research, there is an ongoing study at UMass by dennis ryan et al so go ask him ok?


----------



## treevet (Jul 18, 2009)

treeseer said:


> This is what youi ASS U ME hut I have doen several installations wioth TM and he always has design and tension right enough so moviment ios minimal and bending does not jappen.



Hope you aren't planning on driving the car right now.



> This is :censored: tlaming and you are wasting a lot of time with this fatwah. go ahead an bolt and splice to cable; we do not attack your method at all but havimg zero experience is the very definition of ignorance sp you are firing blanks right now please put down the gun.



Just discussing a process, pretty much the heart and soul of any forum. You gave up specifically attacking my contentions either because you were not successful or because you have had too many drinks as I have read you mention before and illustrated in the grammar and content of your post. Conduct unbecoming a BCMA (or person for that matter).



> re research, there is an ongoing study at UMass by dennis ryan et al so go ask him ok?



Put it out there boy.


----------



## treeseer (Jul 18, 2009)

no no drinks, just no glasses. 

this has gone from firing blanks to firing blanks with a nasty spin. :spam:

ain't my job to hand you someone else's research on a platter. :welcome:


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 19, 2009)

> Sometimes "old school" got to be Oldschool by being the right way and around for countless years.



Old school used to be flush-cutting pruning cuts. Old school used spikes on pruning climbs. Old school used to be painting black tar on wounds. Old school used to be filling cavities with concrete. My grandpa was old school, said there was nothing wrong with digging a hole and draining used motor oil into it. 

I'm not going to knock thru-bolts and washers and thimbles because I use that system and keep that hardware in stock. However, to advance arboriculture we need to adopt and test new methods and new gear, otherwise we never advance and improve.

Treevet is bashing a system on presumptive assertions, like the cable will corrode more quickly in the tree, the cable is loose and will shift within the tree, the cable will cause damage to wall 4, the cable will fatigue at the point where it comes out of the tree.... did I miss any? Because these are all important points to look at. As a growing body of informal field trials with the wedge and taper system(s) the good, the bad and the ugly should be more or less consistent across the board. Time will be certain to tell.


----------



## treevet (Jul 19, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> Old school used to be flush-cutting pruning cuts. Old school used spikes on pruning climbs. Old school used to be painting black tar on wounds. Old school used to be filling cavities with concrete. My grandpa was old school, said there was nothing wrong with digging a hole and draining used motor oil into it.



Silly and melodramatic analogy. Lots of old school practices still used and you have just listed injurious practices when it is apparent old school cabling is not more injurious than this new, unaccepted practice and likely less. 

WTF does your old grandfather being ecologically insensitive have to do with favoring the status quo with a new untested treatment? :monkey:



> I'm not going to knock thru-bolts and washers and thimbles because I use that system and keep that hardware in stock. However, to advance arboriculture we need to adopt and test new methods and new gear, otherwise we never advance and improve.



You save a few minutes and a few calories exerted here. This ain't finding a cure for DED. There is absolutely nothing more beneficial to this system over the old ways. 

If there is let's hear them. I have given numerous reasons why it is less beneficial and you both have given up contesting them and began personal attacks on me, a sure sign you don't know what you are talking about.



> Treevet is bashing a system on presumptive assertions, like the cable will corrode more quickly in the tree, the cable is loose and will shift within the tree, the cable will cause damage to wall 4, the cable will fatigue at the point where it comes out of the tree.... did I miss any? Because these are all important points to look at. As a growing body of informal field trials with the wedge and taper system(s) the good, the bad and the ugly should be more or less consistent across the board. Time will be certain to tell.



I am not "bashing" this system (another personal attack). When a PhD puts out a new piece of work, it is the OBLIGATION of his/her colleagues to tear apart and contest this research or group of opinions (sometimes based on assumptions and conjecture) to the point where if it stands on it's own, it becomes a published piece of work. There should be no resentment in this process, it is common procedure.

ANSI has glaringly chosen not to acknowledge this system and numerous points I have brought up and others have should, in itself, be reason for pause. I would NOT use this system. Tree machine and Treeseer are advocates. Amongst all the negatives brought up "IN COMPARISON" to the standard OLD SCHOOL systems ACCEPTED by ANSI my biggest misgivings would probably be, in order of importance...:

1. Termination in comparison to current standard.

2. Hidden aspect of the cable inside the stem that is where cables usually fail with time (cable as compared to solid hardware) that is unable to be inspected and replaced. As we all know we often need to replace cables and the reason is most often observed significant deterioration of the cable. The current cabling method ACCEPTED BY ANSI permits inspection of the entire aspect of cable and the hidden part of the system (bolts), most outside of Clark and Meilleur would agree, will last longer than a cable hidden from inspection.

Keyword in the last sentence is "inspection".


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 19, 2009)

OK, how do you inspect this?







Or this?


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 19, 2009)

And to be frank, I don't think I've been attacking you. Maybe I called you out on the cable slipping through the hole argument and asked if you're coming to these conclusions based on fact or your overwhelming bias.

Other than that I think you're a strong contributor and as argumentative as this all may seem, it will eventually get the suggestive, crap, assumptive information off the table and replaced with something more solid.


----------



## treevet (Jul 19, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> argumentative as this all may seem, it will eventually get the suggestive, crap, assumptive information off the table and replaced with something more solid.



I don't see that happening on this thread. There needs to be independent testing with published data and that probably takes more time and work than someone is ready to devote.


----------



## treevet (Jul 19, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> OK, how do you inspect this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Picture one is obviously substandard work.

Number two appears to be near time for replacement, probably 7 or eight years old, if it is found that cable delaminates/corrodes more quickly in the hole than in the open air. Only scientific research will determine that and, again, time and patience are part of it prior to dissecting the live tree section.

I generally replace or augment with another cable when the hardware (bolt) is buried. Like I have said in the past, I once asked a cable mfctr. what the life expectancy of my cable was and he said probably about 7 or 8 years. I do not have anything else to go with so I go with that.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 19, 2009)

treevet said:


> Picture one is obviously substandard work.








Regardless, that cable had not failed. The grown over part can not be inspected and should be subject to the same type of fatigue (swirling winds) you suggested earlier. It is clearly an ANSI approved method of cabling, other than the installer did not choose to cut off the excess end and just bent it back around, and he should have begun his spiral wrap a turn sooner.


This image shows another grown over splice, where it has been suggested that the portion within the tree may corrode/delaminate faster and where suggested fatigue due to tree movement occurs. Two strikes against it, yet the cable failed in a place other than where it would seem more likely to fail. Here's the picture of one of the two failed cables in this tree.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 19, 2009)

Here's a closeup, something I noticed while up there, is that where the grown over cable exits the wood, the galvanization appears more 'intact' just coming out, and the loss of zinc coating on the cable seems more pronounced out in the open air. 

I propose the question, then; could the protected, closed-off environment within the tree act as protection against the natural processes of oxidation?

This flies in the face of what Treevet is suggesting, however this could be equally as plausible. Look at the picture.


----------



## treevet (Jul 19, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> This image shows another grown over splice, where it has been suggested that the portion within the tree may corrode/delaminate faster and where suggested fatigue due to tree movement occurs. Two strikes against it, yet the cable failed in a place other than where it would seem more likely to fail. Here's the picture of one of the two failed cables in this tree.



I know you have good intentions and you THINK you are giving scientific evidence by comparisons but it is not. By the look of the picture the cable was put in way too low and is supporting much too large wood and you as usual are making inaccurate assumptions. This cable appears to have broken from too much load or shock load beyond it's capacity. This renders any of the discussion about cable deterioration moot.

When do you decide to replace a cable Clark?


----------



## treevet (Jul 19, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> Here's a closeup, something I noticed while up there, is that where the grown over cable exits the wood, the galvanization appears more 'intact' just coming out, and the loss of zinc coating on the cable seems more pronounced out in the open air.
> 
> I propose the question, then; could the protected, closed-off environment within the tree act as protection against the natural processes of oxidation?
> 
> This flies in the face of what Treevet is suggesting, however this could be equally as plausible. Look at the picture.



Hogwash, ....it appears to me that dirt and dust washed down with rainfall over the nearby cable aspect has coated the cable there. That part of the cable is not, nor has it ever been inside the tree.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 19, 2009)

Who knows? I'm just surmising. I don't make claims and let me be clear, I do NOT THINK I am giving scientific evidence by comparisons (it is correctly called empirical evidence). I am showing pictures, helping build a body of information, making no judgements not choosing to be biassed. I'm evaluating a new cabling system, gaining experience and knowledge of it by direct trial.

I appreciate the opportunity to share here in this thread. I can only learn more from it.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 19, 2009)

Treevet said:


> When do you decide to replace a cable Clark?



So far just when I come across old school methods that clearly haven't worked. Do you want to see more pictures?

I have to say the only broken cables I've come across are the regular grade, spliceable type of cable.

What kind of cable to _you_ use with the thru-bolt system, Dave?


----------



## treevet (Jul 19, 2009)

Like you I use both depending on the application. Most of the cables I put in will allow common grade (and even lags) (up to 10" dia limbs) and I will have my gm splice one end on the ground and leave one end spliced on the reel. I often drill the hole 1/16 smaller than recommended on lags. If the situation demands it I use EHS and dead ends. 

After all this discussion I may try a rigguy installation just to be able to have a first hand opinion on it. It is like deja vu all over again, you and I on another cable thread. Truce for a while, I am done with one for now.

Any further discussion about the properties of metal and galvanization, etc. would be aided by Outofmytree. He is extremely knowledgeable on this subject.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 20, 2009)

treevet said:


> After all this discussion I may try a rigguy installation just to be able to have a first hand opinion on it.


Why bother? One cable system performs exactly the same function as another. Kinda like television in an analogous way. You get the same shows broadcast on either, why switch to the new hi-def TVs when the old-school analog TVs perform the same basic function. They're tried, trusted and true, 50 or so years strong. Why take the risk? Those new TVs, they could burn out your retinas, y'know? Stunt the growth on your grandkids. Turn your dog into a platypus.


----------



## D Mc (Jul 20, 2009)

LOL, Certainly is interesting to read you guys "discuss" things. 

I would also like to point out that all the old school or tried-and-true methods currently in use for cabling and bracing were developed through field trials first. And then science was applied to fine tune setups. But it required experimentation to determine hardware applications, size and placement. 

Dave


----------



## treeseer (Jul 20, 2009)

Thanks for posting those pics/empirical evidence/data from field trials. I remember pruning that hollowed out silver maple!

Cincy is not that far from Indy--maybe next time northwest in winter treevet can bring his binocs and :Eye: some installations.


----------



## treevet (Jul 20, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> Why bother? One cable system performs exactly the same function as another. Kinda like television in an analogous way. You get the same shows broadcast on either, why switch to the new hi-def TVs when the old-school analog TVs perform the same basic function. They're tried, trusted and true, 50 or so years strong. Why take the risk? Those new TVs, they could burn out your retinas, y'know? Stunt the growth on your grandkids. Turn your dog into a platypus.



Didn't say I'd change over to the dark side and go rigguy just said I'd try one out probably on a low importance application.

This look familiar to you Jim? Love to hear the metal experts discuss the density of hardware and resistance to failure to corrosion. If you, like me, are always looking for the weakest link in the system, These separated strands IMO (layman for sure) have much shorter life span when separated than as a tight unit (and way less than solid bolts)......


----------



## treevet (Jul 20, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Thanks for posting those pics/empirical evidence/data from field trials. I remember pruning that hollowed out silver maple!
> 
> Cincy is not that far from Indy--maybe next time northwest in winter treevet can bring his binocs and :Eye: some installations.



Be glad to, even have a beer (root) with you guys.  Might even bring one of my pickers down so you two can take a little journey out of the stone age.


----------



## treeseer (Jul 20, 2009)

treevet said:


> Might even bring one of my pickers down


Picker as in my favorite flavor, cherry red? Ride em cowboy, yeehah!


----------



## treevet (Jul 20, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Picker as in my favorite flavor, cherry red? Ride em cowboy, yeehah!



 !!


----------



## treevet (Jul 20, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Ride em cowboy, yeehah!



The response was more in regards to this (also joking) Mr. Obvious.


----------



## treeseer (Jul 21, 2009)

Translation: I like using bucket trucks aka cherry pickers.

The line was from the Stones' "Can't always Get What You Want", before your time I guess.


----------



## treevet (Jul 21, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Translation: I like using bucket trucks aka cherry pickers.
> 
> The line was from the Stones' "Can't always Get What You Want", before your time I guess.



Ya can't always get whaaat ya want....

Ya can't always get whaaat ya need...

Ride 'em cowboy....yeeehaaa (?)


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 21, 2009)

I'd love to have a lift truck. Problem is, my love for climbing far exceeds the desire to not climb.






Here is a pic I took, where the customer sprung for the rental of a manlift. Climbing for removals and pruning, not much practical need for a lift device (for me, at this point in life), but when it comes to cabling, what an absolute joy.


This image that Treevet dropped in is of a rigguy install, partway through. It looks like a 4-stem install, but it is a 3-stem tree, and the cable coming through the hub directly at the camera guy is still on the coil.

The two terminations that are in have not been trimmed and the third, is just about to be started. The reason for terminating the stems at a center hub is that only three holes need to be drilled into the tree, rather than 6 holes (2 per stem) if you were triangulate stem-to-stem. The downside of this central hub termination is that you're very likely in open air, in the middle of the three stems with no tie-in point for the climber. This tree, the stems splayed outward from the triplet trunk in fine bouquet fashion. It was only the second time in 17 years I've used a manlift, and I was truly grateful to have it. This particular setup would have been nearly impossible to install without a lift.


----------



## outofmytree (Jul 21, 2009)

What a fascinating thread. 

Great information here for someone like me who has never cabled a tree. 

A long time ago I worked with steel and some of the discussion here has sparked my metallurgical interest. I was particularly interested in the concept of complete consumption/donation of zinc in an electrical circuit prior to consumption/donation of iron. On a theoretical level this would be true, yet I have a wealth of empirical evidence which suggests it is not. How to establish which is correct? Firstly to observation. How many of you have seen a rusty "tin" roof? In most cases they would have been a rusty galvanised (zinc coated steel) roof. However there is almost always significant quantities of zinc remaining... hmm. If I had to guess I would suggest that there are *MULTIPLE* electrical "micro circuits" created within the sheets of galvanised steel, with multiple sites of donation where energy is flowing from points of high potential to points of low potential. If this is so, and I hasten to add that this is a guess, then the same would apply over a length of cable whether concealed or not. I imagine the relative variation of the cable materials, on a microscopic basis, would make uniform corrosion near impossible. All of which means only that, lacking long term investigation over the relative speed of corrosion of galvanised material in trees, it cannot be categorically stated that any through system would be safe to use without inspection involving a rated resistance test.

By the way, does anyone use stainless steel cable? Given that it would, under most circumstances, last longer than a tree, it seems a logical solution.

TV would you be kind enough to post a picture or two of a recent cabling job done either by yourself or at least as you would have done it? I am keenly interested in the method by which cable is attached to bolt.


----------



## Greenstar (Jul 21, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> I'd love to have a lift truck. Problem is, my love for climbing far exceeds the desire to not climb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It looks as if your central hub here in the picture is for larger diameter cable, and therefore the separation of the cable strands through to the other side.

That isn't 3/8" cable is it?


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 21, 2009)

It's 5/16" cable.


----------



## pdqdl (Jul 21, 2009)

The Rigguys hub is designed to accommodate 3/8" EHS as well, so the holes look a little big for the 5/16" strand. Probably an issue of no great concern. If they were gentlemen, Rigguys would also make that hub with tapered holes so that you could reduce the bulkiness of the installation.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 21, 2009)

_That_ is a great idea.


----------



## treevet (Jul 21, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> The reason for terminating the stems at a center hub is that only three holes need to be drilled into the tree,



Technically we have 6 holes wounding conductive tissue and bark with a thru drill. You would have 6 as well with a boxed in system using lags and they would be much shallower, although a little wider.

http://www.rigguy.com/product-dvd-v-11.html

Here is a little vid I found on rigguy.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 21, 2009)

treevet said:


> Technically we have 6 holes wounding conductive tissue and bark with a thru drill. You would have 6 as well with a boxed in system using lags and they would be much shallower, although a little wider.


 Or 12 with thru-bolts.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 22, 2009)

Here's a picture from earlier today, 9 cables in the tree, two failed. They were all old and quite rusty.

This picture also answers a question earlier from Outofmytree; by the way, thank you for popping in and contributing.







The type of termination attached to the J-lag is called a traditional splice and can be used with J-lags or amon eye thru-bolts. It must be used incorporating a thimble, as this one is.

To perform this splice, you unwrap the cable 4 or 6 inches, create a bight in the cable, that is, bend the cable around the thimble where it is still intact, at a place a couple inches this side of where it was unwrapped. You now have intact cable going up one side of the thimble, around, and backdown the other side, _then_ it opens up into the 7 individual strands. 

Take one strand, bend it 90 degrees and begin wrapping it tightly around both the remaining 6 strands and the incoming, intact cable. When you go around three or 4 times, cut it, take strand #2, bend it 90 degrees, wrap it tightly around the remaining 5 strands and adjacent incoming cable. Repeat with strands 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 until all have been wound around.

You can not use EHS (Extra High Strength) cable with this method. EHS doesn't bend well. EHS has the benefit of a much higher tensile strength and assumed longevity, but until the wedge and taper system, the only termination option was with spiral wraps (dead ends) and those could be employed with either J-lags or amon eye thru bolts, and again a thimble must also be used.

The rigguy system offers a new option with the benefit of minimal hardware (just the block and taper) and a very small diameter hole that has to be drilled since it is only the _cable_ that fits through the hole, not larger diameter hardware, and it terminated from the backside in a different manner, but the same as a thru-bolt/washer/nut system.


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 22, 2009)

treevet said:


> http://www.rigguy.com/product-dvd-v-11.html
> 
> Here is a little vid I found on rigguy.



Hey, thanks! I hadn't seen that.


----------



## treevet (Jul 22, 2009)

You keep discussing and illustrating failed lags and everyone including ANSI would agree they have their limits and thus should be used with discretion. I recall you had a cable system fail and crash a house. I have not....ever. When a stronger application is called for I upgrade. 

To be considered is the fact that Rigguy MAY be at the lower end of this range as is a lag installation. Sure, you can use EHS but is the EHS the weak link in the system. I doubt it. Again I do not like the separated strands of cable (also called strand) at the termination to be subject to corrosion more easily by lack of density if nothing else. Again for the zillioneth time I do not like the thinner stranded piece of hardware (cable as opposed to a thicker and solid bolt) hidden from view in the hole. 

One can see I believe in your picture that the shaft of the j lag appears more degraded than the hook that is in the open air. Rigguy is a brand new entity with almost no history or longevity to refer to for assessment of failures.

If it was a high level target and extreme pressures from say prevailing winds, storm exposure, heavily leaning leads (maybe over a very active playground) are you all gonna be the research for this system. Not me.

We have to consider that this Rigguy fellow is an entrepreneur. He has found a niche to save us arbs. a little time and energy. On his website he requests anyone else's inventions to come forward. Maybe if this does not work out he will try a tool to help install carpet flat against walls and become "Rugguy".


----------



## treevet (Jul 22, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> Hey, thanks! I hadn't seen that.



Your welcome.


----------



## Greenstar (Jul 22, 2009)

treevet said:


> You keep discussing and illustrating failed lags and everyone including ANSI would agree they have their limits and thus should be used with discretion. I recall you had a cable system fail and crash a house. I have not....ever. When a stronger application is called for I upgrade.
> 
> To be considered is the fact that Rigguy MAY be at the lower end of this range as is a lag installation. Sure, you can use EHS but is the EHS the weak link in the system. I doubt it. Again I do not like the separated strands of cable (also called strand) at the termination to be subject to corrosion more easily by lack of density if nothing else. Again for the zillioneth time I do not like the thinner stranded piece of hardware (cable as opposed to a thicker and solid bolt) hidden from view in the hole.
> 
> ...



Dude, I'm sure Rigguy has tested the system extensively. Otherwise it would have received bad press already.

So I guess the debate here is whether the single strands that splay out to anchor the cable rust faster and start snapping faster under exerted pressure, and hence fail more easily in a less amount of time??

I don't know man..

I have thought about it for a few months now myself, and its seems like a pretty good system all around!


----------



## treevet (Jul 22, 2009)

Greenstar said:


> > Dude, I'm sure Rigguy has tested the system extensively. Otherwise it would have received bad press already.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## outofmytree (Jul 22, 2009)

treevet said:


> You keep discussing and illustrating failed lags and everyone including ANSI would agree they have their limits and thus should be used with discretion. I recall you had a cable system fail and crash a house. I have not....ever. When a stronger application is called for I upgrade.
> 
> To be considered is the fact that Rigguy MAY be at the lower end of this range as is a lag installation. Sure, you can use EHS but is the EHS the weak link in the system. I doubt it. Again I do not like the separated strands of cable (also called strand) at the termination to be subject to corrosion more easily by lack of density if nothing else. Again for the zillioneth time I do not like the thinner stranded piece of hardware (cable as opposed to a thicker and solid bolt) hidden from view in the hole.
> 
> ...



Hi TV. I love the passion you have for this part of our trade. 

Could I ask if you have seen failures of through systems that involve components rather than incompetent installers?

I take it the rusty hook TM showed is what you guys refer to as a j lag(?). The deficiencies of this sort of fixture are going to be accelerated by corrosion as decay of the surface decreases friction by decreasing the area of holding face. That is, as it rusts, it gets thinner and wobblier. 

TV I think it is just as likely that the difference in relative corrosion you pointed out is a result of different metal composition as it is to be different location. Unless you have empirical evidence to suggest that through bolts fail from corrosion I think we can safely say that the principal concern with the rigguy system is what you have stated earlier. That the most likely point of failure is hidden within the tree from the start. 

I can add fuel to the fire by saying that I have much experience of corrosion OUTSIDE a tree where the zinc coated steel cracks after bending. So it is indeed more likely that a cable that is seperated, bent and abraded will suffer greater corrosion that one that is not. The question is, will this increased POTENTIAL for corrosion, equal an increased potential for failure, or is the system engineered to allow for this possibility.


----------



## treevet (Jul 22, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> Hi TV. I love the passion you have for this part of our trade.



Hi Outofmytree, as I said earlier, I hoped you would show up in this thread.


> Could I ask if you have seen failures of through systems that involve components rather than incompetent installers?



Every system is going to fail given time I think it is safe to assume. The important thing is to get the longest survival of all links and, SOMEHOW become able to quantify lifespan and act accordingly.




> I take it the rusty hook TM showed is what you guys refer to as a j lag(?). The deficiencies of this sort of fixture are going to be accelerated by corrosion as decay of the surface decreases friction by decreasing the area of holding face. That is, as it rusts, it gets thinner and wobblier.



I have not seen any lags pull out in a proper installation without wood deterioration from the tree or that part dieing period. By proper installation I mean what was common sense and now is ANSI limitations put on lag usage.



> TV I think it is just as likely that the difference in relative corrosion you pointed out is a result of different metal composition as it is to be different location. Unless you have empirical evidence to suggest that through bolts fail from corrosion I think we can safely say that the principal concern with the rigguy system is what you have stated earlier. That the most likely point of failure is hidden within the tree from the start.



I think we can agree that there is a different appearance in the inside aspect of the pictured lag from the exterior section. I have found this to be true many times when splitting wood and retrieving old lags. Is the interior environment conducive to rust? Damp, dark, chemicals etc may be the cause. Until scientific research is done on this all opinions will be conjecture.
But I think an astute observer can correctly state that rust will occur on both the bolt and the cable in the drill hole as a matter of course and that likely the bolt will last longer than the thinner, stranded cable....No?


I


> can add fuel to the fire by saying that I have much experience of corrosion OUTSIDE a tree where the zinc coated steel cracks after bending. So it is indeed more likely that a cable that is seperated, bent and abraded will suffer greater corrosion that one that is not. The question is, will this increased POTENTIAL for corrosion, equal an increased potential for failure, or is the system engineered to allow for this possibility.


----------



## treevet (Jul 22, 2009)

:agree2:

Also, You know it is not like the guy (rigguy) can upgrade this system and make it conform or better.

It lives or dies with the wedge/ferrule. You cannot put a thread on the cable end and then put a washer and nut on the threads as a termination. Also, You cannot change the cable running thru the tree to a solid thicker piece by some magic. It is what it is.


----------



## pdqdl (Jul 22, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> ... I bet the soft wire with spliced eye is superior to EHS cable installs........



I'll take that bet.

Just look at the load ratings of the two different kinds of wire. And like you pointed out, the utility companies are using grips on EHS.

EHS is what? Three times stronger than mild strand?


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 23, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> I bet the soft wire with spliced eye is superior to EHS cable installs.........It would be interesting to know how long those dead end grips hold up. I see them in power line applications so they must be good.


Power companies also use wedge and ferrule systems. I've seen them for anchoring guy wires from pole to ground. Using wire wraps to connect the ground anchor to the cable would mean any Joe Walkalong could release the system with a pair of pliers. The power company's wedge and ferrule looks a bit different than rigguy, same principle, though.

Here's a couple more pics of an aged lag and splice system. Those lags are surely not going to fail. 



TV said:


> Also, You cannot change the cable running thru the tree to a solid thicker piece by some magic. It is what it is.



I somehow think this 'is what it is' and also cannot be changed by magic.

That brings up a good point, in changing out cables..... if you were to pull a future cable out of a rigguy set, wouldn't it seem logical that you could reinsert a new cable of the same diameter back into the same hole?


----------



## treevet (Jul 23, 2009)

How do you know they are lags and what is your point. These are obviously candidates for replacement. The system has likely fallen below the "2/3" distance from crotch to top and the tree has added on much more mass (to be supported) in the interum, not to mention the deterioration of the system.

This is why your theory to remove the old cable and slide another thru the stem does not wash IMO. Time to replace or add another above this one IMO.

Anyone have any comment on lightning attraction to cable systems? I have seen strikes jump leads thru cables many times but do not know if the bolt is more apt to hit a metal cabled tree?


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 23, 2009)

treevet said:


> How do you know they are lags and what is your point.


I know they are lags because they are in the same 9-cable system where two of them had failed. My point? No point, really. I just took the time to shoot the pictures, so I thought I'd share em. Pictures help break up a rather long-winded debate.














treevet said:


> These are obviously candidates for replacement. The system has likely fallen below the "2/3" distance from crotch to top and the tree has added on much more mass (to be supported) in the interum, not to mention the deterioration of the system.


All true. Nor did the installer follow ANSI recommendations on proper spacing of the lags.

In this image below, one of the failed cable sites (left protrusion) has been completely sealed over by the tree. The one on the right, mostly eaten, cable still intact.








treevet said:


> This is why your theory to remove the old cable and slide another thru the stem does not wash IMO. Time to replace or add another above this one IMO.


I would have to agree with that, too.



treevet said:


> Anyone have any comment on lightning attraction to cable systems? I have seen strikes jump leads thru cables many times but do not know if the bolt is more apt to hit a metal cabled tree?


Yes. Anyone out there, feel free to add in. As individual and unique as every lightning strike is, these natural forces do follow certain laws of physics and are very predictable in that respect. Lightning is initiated between areas of positive charge and areas of negative charge. When the areas of negative charge and positive charge are large enough to create a strong electrical field, a discharge is initiated.

The key word here is _area_. If a tree or tower or dude with a golf club or umbrella is in that area, that object or person _could_ be hit. It depends on another law of physic involving electricity, and that is that electricity wants to go to ground through the path of least resistance.

If a cable is part of that path of least resistance, the cable will take the hit, but the cable itself does not attract electricity. The cable, as far as I know, does not spontaneously make the area more negatively charged and would not make the tree more likely to take a hit. That's coming from the standpoint of physics.

From my personal experience, I've seen a lot of lightning struck trees. None have had cables in them.


----------



## outofmytree (Jul 24, 2009)

This thread is more fun that most of the joke threads. Honest!

That lightning question is a really interesting one.

It has been said, and I would love some feedback on this, that "lightning rods" on houses do not affect the chance of a strike one way or the other. If this is true, and I do not KNOW this to be so, then by the same logic, a steel cable system would equally have no effect on the chance of a strike in a tree. Of course, if a cabled tree was struck the cable would be more likely to conduct the charge than the tree but exactly what effect that would have, I could not say.

Touching on the wedge and ferrule discussion, what sort of testing has been done and documented for the system? If we take aside the "hidden component" issue, it would be handy to be able to compare the failure under load of a wedge and ferrule vs splice to eye termination on the same cable. I would think that the manufacturer would have published these sorts of testings already. If only we had a search engine and someone to use it........


----------



## Tree Machine (Jul 24, 2009)

> It has been said, and I would love some feedback on this, that "lightning rods" on houses do not affect the chance of a strike one way or the other. If this is true, and I do not KNOW this to be so, then by the same logic, a steel cable system would equally have no effect on the chance of a strike in a tree. Of course, if a cabled tree was struck the cable would be more likely to conduct the charge than the tree but exactly what effect that would have, I could not say.



It is for the same reason that lightning protection in trees does not itself attract lightning. What it does is offer a path of least resistance in the case of a strike, down to ground and away from the roots of the tree where the charge dissipates.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



> what sort of testing has been done and documented for the system? If we take aside the "hidden component" issue, it would be handy to be able to compare the failure under load of a wedge and ferrule vs splice to eye termination on the same cable. I would think that the manufacturer would have published these sorts of testings already.



Yea, I'm kinda interested in what kind of objective, measurable testing has been done that can give reproducible results.

Treevet refers to 'the fox guarding the henhouse', but results from the manufacturer are just fine, as long as the same test can be independently performed independently by someone else independently and results would be in the same ballpark.


Hey Rigguy, ye are being summoned. Step forward and throw down. We are _assuming_ you have testing data, and we would like to see it.

If you don't have any testing data, I'm afraid you could be sunk with this crowd.


----------



## treevet (Jul 24, 2009)

Tree Machine said:


> It is for the same reason that lightning protection in trees does not itself attract lightning. What it does is offer a path of least resistance in the case of a strike, down to ground and away from the roots of the tree where the charge dissipates.



I have seen many strikes on cabled trees and like I said many times (maybe all but I cannot recall) the strike will follow the cable to the other lead that has been cabled often leaving 2 wounds the remainder of the way down. Just like you often see a strike go down and hit the base of a branch and split and go around the branch attachment to the ground.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think we have a little rudimentary research here ourselves with Jim's pictures. It seems some cables have failed and some have not. Likely the cable came from the same spool and is existing in the same environment. One might assume that pressure on these cables was the deciding factor in these failures. Does it look like that Jim? Or maybe the failed cables (although deterioration existed in all of them) were swaying sideways on a fulcrum or pivot point that was the exit hole.


----------



## treevet (Jul 24, 2009)

Ran into this old school cable I used to see around a lot. Nothing much wrong with it except it has no thimble and is rather conspicuous with the turnbuckle.

It must be in for over 6 years as I have been the only arb on the convent in that period.


----------



## treevet (Jul 24, 2009)

Here is another view just for the pict. In this tree I also found a 5/16 cable (don't know why they downsized) that was properly spliced and thimbled and one side had grown over the lag and the other side was still well exposed. No turnbuckle on this one for some reason.

Also found on one lag that another cable had been attached to the same lag but only the splice and thimble was still there. Either the lead fell off (more likely scenario) or it had died and been removed and the cable was clipped at the splice.


----------



## treevet (Jul 24, 2009)




----------



## pdqdl (Jul 27, 2009)

*Regarding lightning rods*

It is not exactly true that lighting rods don't "attract" lightning, for two different reasons.

1. A sharp point tends to improve the ability of static electricity to make the leap into the air. This is most likely due to the lower resistance of the metal and the tendency of all the available charge to be focused at the single highest point (closest to the opposite charge) rather than diffusely spread across a broad surface. Lightning strikes are essentially gigantic capacitor discharges. If the stored capacitance is spread out over a large area, it just doesn't jump the air gap as well.

Example: if you take a static electricity generator and set two steel balls exactly 1" apart (hooked up to leyden jars or some other capacitor), you will get loud, powerful sparks. If the same setup is hooked up to steel pin points exactly 1" apart, the frequency of the sparks is greater, but the spark is weaker, because less electricity was stored before the spark jumped the air gap.

2. By providing a point of least resistance to the ground, you are also providing a path of least resistance to voltage accumulation. Most ground to sky lightning is the result of raindrops carrying electrons to the ground, where they pool. Conversely, the clouds become positively charged by the same mechanism. Eventually, the voltage peaks in a location most favorable for the transfer of electrons, and we have lightning. 

If the lightning rod is well grounded, it will definitely improve the transfer of static voltage to the top of the building, where it will certainly be more likely to be involved with a lightning strike.

Perhaps some electrical engineer will pipe in with better info on this topic.


----------



## randyg (Jul 27, 2009)

*4 Year Test Results*

I recently removed a hackberry that I had installed 2 cables in around 4 years ago. I'd used the Rigguy terminals and 3/8s EHS cable. The amount of corrosion inside the "nut" and around the "cone" was very minimal however, upon splitting the wood to inspect the cable inside the tree, I felt physically sick when I saw what had been hidden. No rust but much of the coating had loosened from the cable and all this white and green slimey crap was all over everything. Not feeling very "proud" of this system since that day. I think if high $ targets are present, I'm going back to through bolts. Used to hand wrap/splice the standard grade, but think I will switch to those dead-end splices with thimbles so can stick with EHS cable.

Anyone else with 5 or 6 year results? I think the "endz" system was out a year or two before rigguy. VERY similar.


----------



## treevet (Jul 28, 2009)

That is quite significant that the "covering" of protection had been degraded by whatever forces involved in such a short period and the cable was left much more subject to rust. I would forward those findings and maybe some pictures to ANSI. 

Also in regards to switching to just ehs instead of common grade....I wonder if the life span of one is any different than the other. If not then common grade is fine for some applications.


----------



## randyg (Jul 29, 2009)

treevet said:


> That is quite significant that the "covering" of protection had been degraded by whatever forces involved in such a short period and the cable was left much more subject to rust. I would forward those findings and maybe some pictures to ANSI.
> 
> Also in regards to switching to just ehs instead of common grade....I wonder if the life span of one is any different than the other. If not then common grade is fine for some applications.



Though there was no rust, reminded me of some galvonic corrosion I'd seen on some boat parts, esp. around salt water. Got no pics, and since HO paid $200 each, said he wanted to keep them, show buddies or whatever? Both cables were installed "not-level?" at about a 10 or 15 degree slant, and was on the ground when I split one open so not sure, but may have been the down-hill one which would account for the moisture? Did not take time to crack open the other end. Hind sight. Next time I'll surely make closer examination.


----------



## treevet (Jul 30, 2009)

Cool...I am gonna start taking some closer looks when the op. presents itself too. I am currently documenting all installations separate from just completed work orders.


----------



## treeseer (Jul 31, 2009)

randyg said:


> No rust but much of the coating had loosened from the cable and all this white and green slimey crap was all over everything.


Without any record this is tough to use this experience. Green slime may be ugly but a nonissue.

Maybe your client can be persuaded to part with the cable if he knows it is going to further science. I'd like to know how much coating was lost, and the possible consequences, and I'm sure others would too. It should go to the manufacturer, and/or someone else who can assess it professionally.

Sorry but with no evidence this can't be considered as anything more than hearsay. Not even an image taken of this?


----------



## jomoco (Aug 1, 2009)

The very crux of the flaw in the Rigguy system is what it does to the 7 strand cable itself.

And until Rigguy can get any 7 strand cable manufacturer in the world including china to sign off on using their cables in his system, anyone using his system is taking a big chance in my opinion.

Galvinized coatings are essential to any steel cable's ability to meet it's estimated safe working life.

To separate and crush each strand of cable to achieve a safe termination point is a direct assault on the cables anti-corrosion coating that inevitably shortens the safe lifespan of the cable.

And that's just one of the drawbacks of the Rigguy system, sideloading repeatedly bending the cable at the same entrance hole in the cabled stem is another, along with the wear of steel on wood creating a funneled entrance hole that can never truly heal for as long as the wind blows in any crossing direction.

This sideloading frictional wear is isolated to the steel on steel coupling of the eyebolt ring and cable thimble when using good old tried and true old school systems with a century of proven ability supporting their usage in tree preservation.

I'm not so old school that I don't support the use of EHS 7 strand and dead end grips in almost all my installed cabling though, because I do. I think it's a great trustworthy combo provided you match the correct size cable to the correct sized dead end grip.

Just an old geezer's opinion guys.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Aug 1, 2009)

Another geezer espousing the same stuff til blue in the face Jomoco. As I said in previous posts....there is no way to improve or correct the termination as it is the whole basis of this system.


----------



## treeseer (Aug 1, 2009)

jomoco said:


> To separate and crush each strand of cable to achieve a safe termination point is a direct assault on the cables anti-corrosion coating that inevitably shortens the safe lifespan of the cable.


ok, if by "crush" you mean bend, yes, the strands are bent, the center strand maybe 75-80% and the other 6 much less. As I observe it, the bending points on these strands is outside the full load-bearing portion of the system, because it is outside the fastener. It's the pressure/friction inside the fastener where most of the load is terminated.But I agree this is a concern, so it should be part of the inspection, triennial in most cases.


> ... sideloading repeatedly bending the cable at the same entrance hole in the cabled stem is another, along with the wear of steel on wood creating a funneled entrance hole that can never truly heal for as long as the wind blows in any crossing direction.


 This can happen, IF the cable is not running in a straight line per ANSI, or if the cable is not adequately tensioned, per ANSI. So, as with any system, substandard installation can screw it up.  If the angles and the loads make a lot of sideloading probable, maybe another system is preferable.


----------



## treevet (Aug 1, 2009)

I think it is inclement weather (high winds) that makes side loading and even slacking by driving the loaded branch backwards and swinging, most probable cause Guy and this is what will destroy wall 4 CODIT. IMHO Wall 4 CODIT is a substantial factor in retaining integrity and longevity of system.


----------



## pdqdl (Nov 4, 2018)

Bump. 

Old thread, but I am seeking newer opinions. Has anyone got any newer information on the use of the Rigguy wire stop installations?

I can say with confidence that my very few installations have gotten easier: a good battery operated 4" angle grinder makes very short work of cutting EHS cable. It is much better than the air powered die grinder I used to use.


----------



## gorman (Nov 13, 2018)

pdqdl said:


> Bump.
> 
> Old thread, but I am seeking newer opinions. Has anyone got any newer information on the use of the Rigguy wire stop installations?
> 
> I can say with confidence that my very few installations have gotten easier: a good battery operated 4" angle grinder makes very short work of cutting EHS cable. It is much better than the air powered die grinder I used to use.



That’s what I use when doing cables. I have yet to use the bevels they came out with but am definitely going to pick some up so i can get a nicer fit against the stems on angled cables.


----------



## pdqdl (Nov 13, 2018)

Not sure what you mean.

"Have yet to use the bevels"? Do you mean those funny looking angled blocks they sell too? Quite frankly, I don't see the purpose. Those looked like they would be as inadequate as not using them at all unless you magically drilled crooked at the correct "wrong" angle, so why buy them? 

For all trees where there is a large taper, it would be impossible to make both faces of the cable entry perpendicular to the hole. Even if you fixed one side of the hole with an angled contraption, that would still leave the exit hole at an odd angle.

The purists would argue that they need to be perfectly straight. Much earlier in this thread, I think one guy had a laser pointer rigged to his drill motor so that he could get perfect alignment on the previous hole. I suspect that works very well. Myself...I'm not quite that perfect. I just eyeball it, and hope it comes out right.


----------



## gorman (Nov 13, 2018)

If the rig guy is at an angle it will exert a disproportionate force on certain wire strands depending on the angle. The bevel eliminates that so there’s minimum strength loss.


----------



## pdqdl (Nov 16, 2018)

That is consistent with any other plan to keep things perpendicular. My problem is that there is only one bevel device, so how can it compensate for the many different angles an installer is likely to end up with?

I looked a fairly well done cable installation today, but it was probably 15 years old. It was probably done with eye-screws and only in 5/16 cable; the terminations were hand wrapped and almost completely buried in new growth. At this late stage, the cabling height was only about 1/3rd the height of the tree branches being supported. I think it's probably a good thing that the tree is pretty strong otherwise.


----------



## gorman (Nov 16, 2018)

There are some that hated on the rig guys (mr. Shaw) and claimed instances of failure. Personally I’ve never seen it and neither have my colleagues. I don’t do a lot of cabling but when I do I always use rig guys.


----------

