# Kong Double Ascender



## Chucky (Nov 1, 2004)

The Kong Double Ascender really looks like da bomb for footlocking into a tree. What's the best way to back it up with a friction hitch like a prusik or a klemheist? Put the hitch above the ascender (providing you can reach it) or below? If below, isn't it a major pain in the butt having to slide it up all the time? 

Also, are there better hitches than the prusik or klemheist? 

I know this has been discussed here before, but I'm still muddleheaded about it. Thanks.

Chuck


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 2, 2004)

Put the hitch above. If it's below, and the ascender slips, it will push the hitch down.

A prusik is fine. Others will work, too.

love
nick


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 2, 2004)

i like trying stuff before i buy, see if it might werk for me; or at least a reasonable facsimile to proposed positioning etc.

Prolly not as smooth, but i did come up with this playing around. Kong claims a more ergonomic position, which might be part of the slant in handle. Sent this drawing around to a few, noone sent back danger warnings etc. But this is jsut playing around, experimental, see if ya like the positioning, come up with other observations. Trying something like this you have no understanding of, just cuz ya saw it on the internet ....(standard disclaimer/warning)

i think the Kong Double is a toothed cam; which some wouldn't like.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 2, 2004)

*skip*

skip attachment, same as upcoming


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 2, 2004)

*this works well*

Here's a collage I put together last year in some thread I can't remember. In this instance I happened to be climbing SRT, but backing up the ascenders with dual lines is identical.

Also, I used a VT his time because I was playing with a new eye-eye tress cord I'd gotten from Nick from Wisconsin. Normally I will use a loop runner and just go with a three-wrap prussik.


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TheTreeSpyder _
> *i like trying stuff before i buy, see if it might werk for me; or at least a reasonable facsimile to proposed positioning etc.
> 
> Prolly not as smooth, but i did come up with this playing around. Kong claims a more ergonomic position, which might be part of the slant in handle. Sent this drawing around to a few, noone sent back danger warnings etc. But this is jsut playing around, experimental, see if ya like the positioning, come up with other observations. Trying something like this you have no understanding of, just cuz ya saw it on the internet ....(standard disclaimer/warning)
> ...



I like the simply apprach of testing, and I think the Kong is about ease of cliping in and out.

Don't know for sure about the 'tooth' issue. I have one arrieving today.

Jack


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 2, 2004)

*EZ*

CMI are toothed. Petzl are toothed, as are the Kongs. I have all three of the above. I have been using toothed ascenders for over ten years and have never had a problem. The teeth are pointed, but not sharp. The Kongs are my day to day steady Eddies. EZ to use, EZ to back up, EZ on, EZ off. I believe you'll like them, Jack.

Chuck, it is not a pain in the butt to push it up all the time. Keep the cord slightly loose, it adds very little friction. Over the thousands of times I have ascended with these, there has never been an instance where the ascender has failed and the hitch taken over. That is not to say the back up is unneeded. It is. It's there for insurance.


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 2, 2004)

*Re: EZ*



> _Originally posted by Tree Machine _
> *CMI are toothed. Petzl are toothed, as are the Kongs. I have all three of the above. I have been using toothed ascenders for over ten years and have never had a problem. The teeth are pointed, but not sharp. The Kongs are my day to day steady Eddies. EZ to use, EZ to back up, EZ on, EZ off. I believe you'll like them, Jack.
> 
> Chuck, it is not a pain in the butt to push it up all the time. Keep the cord slightly loose, it adds very little friction. Over the thousands of times I have ascended with these, there has never been an instance where the ascender has failed and the hitch taken over. That is not to say the back up is unneeded. It is. It's there for insurance. *



Thanks, my Kong arrieved and I'm setting it up for tomorow's work. I've used loaners and I like the idea of setting it up to work off on the way up. I'm just using a CMI, and I know Mark C.and others use a larger friction pulley.

It would be nice to see how others have set it up.

Jack


----------



## BigJohn (Nov 2, 2004)

That backup seems ok but what if you want to use it double. Personally for short hikes like 40 50 feet I like to double. I can go faster and its easier for me.


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by BigJohn _
> *That backup seems ok but what if you want to use it double. Personally for short hikes like 40 50 feet I like to double. I can go faster and its easier for me. *



what wronge with a prussic above on a double?

Jack


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 2, 2004)

Would cams spread lines far enough to fail prusik around both?


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 2, 2004)

Wow, great point, Thanks!


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 2, 2004)

To back up a double rope how about using the "Rock Exotica Dualcender"? Ya, $99 from Sherrrill.

Put it below, and work directly off it with it connected to the Kong above.

I'll have to do off the the clock time tomorrow morn to find a good way to do thish without a lot of extras.

Jack
Jack


----------



## Chucky (Nov 2, 2004)

Dan Said:

"I think that if one of the ascenders failed and one did not that the rope may still pass throught the prussic. I'm suggesting that a prussick or Vt may not hold on two ropes when one rope is moving and one rope is still."

That's interesting. I never thought of that. Jack mentioned backing it up with Rock Exotica Dualcender, which I never noticed before in Sherrill's catalogue. The Rock Exotica Dualcender is described in Sherrill's catalogue as being specifically "designed for use in the secured footlock technique in the doubled rope technique (DdRT)." I can't see how this device differs any as far as fall protection from the Kong Double Ascender, should one of them fail. 

The KDA and RED in concert certainly would certainly provide more than adequate safety, but it seems to be piling up too much metal. I'd like to hear more on how a hitch performs on two ropes moving in opposite directions. I have a feeling -TM- has experimented with this dynamic. And thanks, everybody for the responses.


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 2, 2004)

I gotta set up a quick test when I get home to see if the prusik would grab the two rope when moving in opposite direction.

I DON'T like the idea of 2 ascenders. Seems excessive.

What about a prusik on each end of the rope. a smaller prusik. Could be 5/16th or 1/4" rope. This would work. But time consuming to put on/take off.

Hmmmm.

love
nick


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by BigJohn _
> *That backup seems ok but what if you want to use it double. Personally for short hikes like 40 50 feet I like to double. *



Clarify 'double'. Traditional DbRT or DdRT? I'm assuming the latter, going up two parallel lines, footlocking up two parallel lines, both ends on the ground. Yes? Twice the speed of the former. Im also assuming you're talking about when you use dual ascenders? Yes?


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TreeCo _
> *... But one side could be used for your climbing hitch once you are in position. Just take it off the double kong. ...*



Very good time saving suggestion, Dan. Thanks!

love
nick


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TreeCo _
> *I'm suggesting that a prussick or Vt may not hold on two ropes when one rope is moving and one rope is still.
> Dan Nelson *



That has always been the suggestion because, even though you may, with dedicated effort, create some force ratio coefficient scenario where a prussik or VT can be made to not work. BUT, practically speaking, these backups, _even if they don't stop you fully 100%_, do assure one major key thing

one of the two ropes can in no way escape you. 

Given a worst case scenario of the cam of a backed-up ascender opening, and you dropping ~ 25 or 30 cm at most, you're gonna friggin grab the rope with your THIRD backup from dropping to earth, your ugly-gloved hands, and you can employ a fourth emergency backup system from dropping downward, your climbing boots, as in 'footlock'.

The key is not having the ropes in any way possibly able to get away from you. As long as your hitch is attached to the ascender, and the ascender doesn't leave you, a rapid, scary accidental descent is about as likely as as a gorilla flying out your butt.


----------



## glens (Nov 2, 2004)

Be prepared to go for a ride.&nbsp; That's what happened in my informal test a little while ago...

I reckon it would be a recoverable situation for someone quick on their feet, so to speak, and with enough time to react in any one of several ways.&nbsp; I can't say as I'd like to wind up in the situation, though.

Good thought process, there, Dan!

Glen


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 2, 2004)

*If my guess work above is true then TreeMachine is really not backed up like he thinks when he is climbing double rope.* 

Your guess work is just that, sir. He thinks he is backed up, and he is. 

*An easy test is to lock one of the cams open and see what happens.* 

Dang straight. 

Hey Glen, why don't you come down and run the video camera for me. 

FOR THE RECORD, although I do not condone this, I will use 1" tubular webbing sling in prussik fasion as my ascender backup. This will also work. Make sure the hitch stays dressed.

I had been using the below Nick from Wisconsin loop, but it recently tussled with my saw. Dang. That is one of the things chain brakes are for.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 2, 2004)

That pic also an image for why I use wirecore flipline.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 2, 2004)

Oh, no offense taken. You're cool.

It's not about 'being quick on your feet', Glen, It's about doing instictively what you would do. Grab the rope.

If you put a biner through the top of the ascenders, it becomes essentially impossible for the rope to exit the cam shell, even in the event that a cam both opened and jumped into the un-locked (open) position so that the spring doesn't return the cam face to the rope. 

With the biner in there, that, to me is a backup in and of itself. The friction hitch abve is redundant, though necessary as an additional backup.

You see, a lot would have to go wrong, a simultaneous, multi-system malfunction during a grand mal seizure, for potential injury to ensue. Even hanging, unconscious with one side of the ascender malfunctioned, I think it would not drop you.

We must assume well-maintained gear, in good working order. Does not matter if the rope is wet or dry, though.


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 2, 2004)

Tree Machine, that photo hurts me!

I hope it served you well during it's time of service 

love
nick


----------



## Chucky (Nov 2, 2004)

Well, I guess, like Nick, I'll have to go out back with my CMIs and from 10' up do my own testing of a "failed" ascender for my own piece of mind. 

If I drop like a stone: fail 

If I float down: pass 

I like the idea of ascending DdRT and not SRT because many of my jobs I now do I don't have a groundman to untie the tail of my secured lifeline. I realize I could running bowline a SRT to a limb, but that seems like extra work, too. And I guess I just like the FEEL of the DdRT much better, I suppose because I'm just used to it.

The way a double ascender can be gripped just seems so much easier and more efficient than two single ascenders.


----------



## glens (Nov 2, 2004)

Grabbing the rope, Jim, would be a primary response among the things that could be done quickly on one's feet.&nbsp; I'll come down and run the video camera for you; let me know where and when.

That lanyard wasn't the result of your new and improved 346 getting away from you, was it?

Glen


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 2, 2004)

No, the loop was a result of the saw before the power porting. I had my carb tweaked too... something. The idle was fluctuating, depending on the temp of the saw. It was just a little overzealous, let's say, the chain was spinning and i failed to use the chain brake. One of those avoidable things.

The 346XP, after mods, adjustment and an 058 73LP full chisel chain, geeeyod dang! What ABSOLUTE JOY. I have reached chainsaw nirvana.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)

*All happy gear needs a home*

Here's where they ride.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)

Oh, Dudes, here's an old picture, like 1991 or 92. This was my first set of Dual-handled. I was pretty proud of these.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 3, 2004)

i think the gear should be able to catch a passed out man, not dependant on quick action.

Spectra runners grip better for sling in friction hitch lacing, but i wonder how well the less dimension can be pushed up by cam device (in 1" runner too). i often wonder how much less heat the flat rope can take than the round.

Great Ingenuity TM.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TheTreeSpyder _
> *i think the gear should be able to catch a passed out man, not dependant on quick action. *


I fully agree. This should be the acid test.
*Great Ingenuity TM* 
Thanks, man. I've been waiting a lot of years to share this stuff. 

This is a really, really important topic. What we've got going here is the veritable gateway to new-school climbing methods.


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 3, 2004)

So, have we or have not a way to back up the Kong inorder to work off it on the way up?

If prussic on 2 ropes is NG, ...?

Jack


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)




----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)

*today's setup*

This is only the second biner I've found that will fit through the holes in the biner body. It's called _Freino_, by Petzl. Works well for this function, but the holes through the ascender do need to be filed so the unique shape of the biner may pass through. 

Nick, I need an assortment of tress cords, a Tenex, shorty, an 18" (46 cm) 8 mm tecnora eye-eye tress, short Tenex 8 mm loop and a 10mm loopie. The guys want pictures, we'll take your spliceware to Hollywood.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)

Side view.


----------



## glens (Nov 3, 2004)

The photos don't go high enough to show what "backed up" means.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)

Three wrap Prussik.


----------



## glens (Nov 3, 2004)

So grab a little slack with a footlock, flip up one of the cams, then let your weight back onto the ascenders.

What happens?&nbsp; Carefully tend the friction hitch and see if it holds any at all with relative movement between the ropes.&nbsp; (Hint:&nbsp; it didn't for me last night, but I only used the hitch I usually use on both ropes climbing without the mechanicals)

Glen


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)

Certain 3 things must be assumed. 1, your hitch is done and dressed properly, 2. ascender operates normally, functions well and proper. 3. The rope will not possibly leave the ascender shell. This is because the caribiner atop the ascender will disaallow the possibility of the rope leaving the shell.

Glen describes a scene where a likely possible failure setting, that would just not happen in a real incident. Failure is probably not going to be a nice, soft slow, gentle process. It would very likely be sudden and would affect the way the hitch behaves. The way Glen suggests is a way that you can deliberately cause, and show, that a hitch won't grab if you feather it down the line.

Let's be doing the testing under real life conditions.

I see two ways in which an ascender can fail.

Whamming it into a limb while ascending up and past it (see pic). There is proper technique for going past a limb and I'll share what I know.

I actually can't think of how else the Kong Dual ascender could fail. The rope is backed up with the encasing caribiner, and DOUBLY backed up with a correctly dressed hitch above it. This is a real tight system. 

I'll step up. Let's together figure out a standard. Let's be our own R and D lab. So far it's me and Nick from Wisconsin, on a mission to develop the most absolute, bombproof dual ascender backup system. A system boiled down to the least common denominator, simple, absolutely effective. Who else wants in on this experiment? Kruger? 

This is what tree guys do for fun, eh?


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 3, 2004)

TM- I could see a bit of brush/leaves getting caught in the teeth and jamming the cams open. That's a real danger.

How else could these cams fail?

love
nick


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)

Cool Beans, Mister.

Here in this pic I removed the ascender and used _only the backup_. This day it was a VT I was having 100% absolute control over the friction. That companionship with world class gear is very liberating and allows you to have a little fun while you get done what you gotta get done.



Whoops, I just realized this pic is SRT, and wer're talking DdRT.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 3, 2004)

*keep asking QUESTIONS*

Cam failure due to leaves, brush twigs. under our assumptions, ascenders are working properly, A OK, which means then that there are no leaves sticks and twigs in it to begin with. Fair enough? That means the leaves sticks and twigs which are causing the cam to fail are from the actions of you ramming the ascenders through twiggy leafy zones?

Common sense moment here. This is one of the best things about ascenders is you're able to inch and move the set up the rope with exactness and absolute control. Do not be a gorilla. Please watch what you're doing. 

Can you just assume some sense when going through thick stuff. This type of failure has never once happened to me personally, or come close to happening ever. Not to say that it can't, but leaves twigs, squirrel hair etc are easily avoidable.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 3, 2004)

If you're making the step to try and backup the Kong ascender why not just bag the doulbed rope and go single? SRT is MUCH easier to back up. I'm continually amazed that arbos still hold onto DdRT when the rest of the world works on single. At least consider going to single for ascent.

Tom


----------



## Chucky (Nov 3, 2004)

I'm starting to think Tom is right, and to ditch the idea of using Kong's double ascender on DdRT and just go SRT, at least to get the TIP set up and then work down the tree DdRT. I don't yet see a way to back up the system that is both safe and efficient. Not that I've given up yet, as I've seen the kind of creative and inventive ideas folks at this site have conjured up. 

Today I tested the DdRT system as Glen did by using two CMI ascenders with a Klemheist hitch above, and upon releasing the cam on one of the ascenders I dropped like a stone. I know that would never happen using SRT. 

And I do see protection the carabiner offers against the ropes escaping the ascender in Tree Machine's setup, and I appreciate the fact he's used the setup countless times with no problems. But even though I'd mostly use the setup on clear shots to the TIP, I'm still bothered by cam failure by a stick, or something. 

The trouble with SRT is I can't seem to footlock it very well like I can with two ropes. It may just be poor boot soles, as Tree Machine wrote about, though I've tried with three different boots. I could use a Pantin, but most of my tree entries are only 20-60 feet, and I like to keep things as simple as possible.

Thanks, BTW, for all the responses and photos.


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Tree Machine _
> *
> 
> [deletion]
> ...



Sure, and I'm still practicing with the Kong. Tried it yesterday, and had a hard time un-clipping it. The one I had tried out with last week was Big Johns, an older one and a little diferent in design. Of course mine is new and perhaps a little stiff. The distance of the connection to my saddle also has to be changed, had it a little long. I do like the long reach and yet, ....

Inorder to not have to reinvent the wheel, what kind of prussic cord are you using. The stuff I tried was OK after broken in and run a little, and that is not what one wants to use right off the roll, with a back up.

I had connected the prussic tied above the K to my biner connection below the handle to overcome the remachining the holes at the top for a binner.

I'll give it a little time today, with some other ideas.

Jack


----------



## Chucky (Nov 4, 2004)

I tried various configurations of different friction hitches for a backup for the Kong double ascender, even made up ones, and a prusik knot around both ropes, as Nick suggested, worked great. It stopped me almost instantly when both ascender cams were released. It seems since the prusik is a symmetrical knot, it still works when the direction of a load is reversed.


----------



## Chucky (Nov 4, 2004)

Under load after one ascender fails.


----------



## Chucky (Nov 4, 2004)

The prusik rope is 5/16 Sta-Set. I attached it to a carabiner attached to my saddle's center D-ring, but I wonder if it would be better to attach it to carabiner attached to the Kong double ascender, as Tree Machine does? The biner would also serve to push up the hitch better than the ascender alone does.


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Chucky _
> *Under load after one ascender fails. *



Thanks, I'll try your set up.

Didn't have time to do any testing today, rained out.

Jack


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 4, 2004)

Chucky, Man..... that's a good setup, I hadn't tried that approach. In fact, that may very well be the bombproof setup. Yer frickin brilliant. I'm encouraged that there are a few good ways to skin this cat already on the table.

Shall we start the book, "_101 Ways to Back Up A Double Ascender_ "? This thread can act as the research, and we can compile the data at the end, make recommendations, etc.

There's a time and place for ANSI, but they just don't cover the how-to's of this particular topic. We have to take our own safety into our own hands an figger this one out for ourselves.

Getting started is easy. I send Nick from Wisconsin a hundred bucks, and he sends me an assortment of his world class splicery made from the latest high-tech fibers. That part's already done. What next?






Chucky, please clarify, the setup looks that it can be two possible ways: two seperate prusiks, the lower one fed through the upper one, or it is one contiguous cord fashioned into what we could mebbe call, "The Double Chuck."

I see your rope double-Chucked with one cord. Well Chucked, my friend. Can you see how the under Chuck loop might be fed through the over Chuck loop, as in a 2 Prussik system? I'll bet this method would work as well as the Double Chuck


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Tree Machine _
> *Chucky, Man..... that's a good setup, I hadn't tried that approach. In fact, that may very well be the bombproof setup. Yer frickin brilliant. I'm encouraged that there are a few good ways to skin this cat already on the table.
> 
> Shall we start the book, "101 Ways to Back Up A Double Ascender "? This thread can act as the research, and we can compile the data at the end, make recommendations, etc.
> ...



This a 'one' piece. One prusic and doulble with 2 lines. That's a good one. One thing only to untie.

??? why is there such a nice big hole at the top of his K, mine isn't like that.

Guess I'll go to try a screw link at the top. Itg will be only a tie point for the prussic.

Jack


----------



## Chucky (Nov 4, 2004)

Ha! You're bustin' my gut, Tree Machine. "Double-Chuck!" At least you didn't call it an UP-CHUCK! 

I got looking at the Tree Climber's Companion, and under the description of the Klemheist knot it mentioned that it becomes a different knot when the load is reversed -- unlike the Prusik. So, following up on Nick's suggestion, I decided to just tie two prusiks with the same loop on both ropes, and BINGO! -- it worked! So, yes, It's one continuous piece, though I don't see why two wouldn't work as well.

Now, I'm hoping you guys can tweak it with the Kong double ascender to make it practical, since I don't have one yet.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 4, 2004)

*Could it be original....?*

Ok Chucky, you've got a few of us stirring with thought.

Did you just sorta wrap that thing and go, "Hey, that looks good."

Did you stumble into the Chuck wrap _completely_ by accident, or are you highly trained in military high altitude tecnical personnel rigging.

Are you some hybridized, new school techno hitch whiz kid, or was this thing just pure, dumb luck.

You make me ponder, Chucky. Since climbing a dual rope is truly and solely a treeguy sort of thing, I really kinda doubt that you pulled it in from another industry, like S.W.A.T. or special ops. It would not come from the pit caving schools, nor the rock climbing world.

Are you even from this planet, Chucky? Do your people regularly develop hitches far beyond our earthly arboreal means?

Fess up. Wher'd ya get it ? _Vee have vays to make you talk....._


----------



## Chucky (Nov 4, 2004)

*"Vee have vays to make you talk....."*

Well, -TM-, as long as it doesn't involve the hitch, a tree, and my NECK, then OK, I'll talk.  

No, it wasn't serendipity, just playing around with a bunch of friction hitches, and then the realization that Nick's suggestion of two prusiks was the one because of the knot's symmetry. It's Nick's idea, not mine. I just followed up on it and discovered experimentally that it works (at the expense of my ankles).


----------



## Chucky (Nov 4, 2004)

*You make me ponder, Chucky. Since climbing a dual rope is truly and solely a treeguy sort of thing, I really kinda doubt that you pulled it in from another industry, like S.W.A.T. or special ops. It would not come from the pit caving schools, nor the rock climbing world.*

I'm too much of a peaceable kinda guy for S.W.A.T., I don't like bats, and I've tried rock climbing -- not for me. I'm just a tree guy. It took me nine years to switch from a tautline to a Blake's, and I still use it today. I'm just getting tired of humping to my TIP for pruning jobs, so I'm changing to footlocking, and one of Tree Machine's posts about ascending with a Kong double ascender intrigued me. 

I know Tom Dunlap and others like SRT, and I've tried it, but I've never quite felt comfortable with it. I much prefer to footlock with a doubled rope because I get a better bite, and I don't like the idea of doubling the force on the branch I'm tied into with SRT. So, for me I'm thinking the double ascender is Da Bomb!


-Chucky
Neglect, Correct & Collect TREE SERVICE


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 4, 2004)

*w h o a ... the earth shakes...*

You're so modest. I'm about to offer you a Nobel prize in knot tying, nominate you for Knot Architect of the Year and crown you Grand Poobah of all new hitch inventors yet this decade.

It's Nicks??? 

I'm proposing that this ability to absolutely back up a dual ascender effectively opens the doors to new school climbing. You've broken through the barrier, light pours through from above, a white dove flys. A new hitch is born.

And you blame it on Nick? Dude, you are stealing your own thunder. You were on your way to fame, fortune and hot chicks and you're throwin it all away. Whadddaaa ya mean, _Nicks idea?_ .

Nick,.... comment?


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 4, 2004)

*Hmmmm.*



> To double ascender and footlock you will always have to isolate the limb and that is not always possible....or at least not always easy.



I'm not sure how you play the game, but isolating the limb is what I consider the funnest part of the Bigshot process. I look _forward_ to isolating limbs, tracing the line over limbs so it will parallel it's mate. 

Yea, with a little light tugging you get the bag swinging, and you release at the right moment to drop it over, or get it around the obstacle. If you are using ZingIt line, this shouldn't be any problem as the bag will always drop predictably (well, almost always). 

This is an art form, in my eyes, to be looked forward to and expected. Not a 'problem'. Limbs that you trace over (esp the lower ones) become limbs you will stand on as you pass them. This is a good thing.


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 5, 2004)

The 'chuck' and the 'nelson', one symetrical and one not.

I'm going to do some testing.

Later,
Jack


----------



## Burnham (Nov 5, 2004)

Jack, to me it looks like Chucky is using a pair of CMI ascenders, not the Kong Double...that's why the hole on top is different.

Is that right, Chucky?


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 5, 2004)

Dan, great minds!!!!!!!

When I originally suggested putting 2 prusiks for the backup, I was thinking 2 separate tress cords. Then Chucky went and messed things all up. Thanks Chucky! Now we're making process.

Dan, last night I went back to the drawing board to try some things out and I'll be darned if I didn't come up with the exact same thing as you! I think this might be the best back-up when using the double ascenders.






Now, as you can see in both my and Dan's photos, this method spreads the lines apart a bit. Maybe not a problem as they'll end up going through the ascender anyway. But I've found a bit of a variation that might be better, and I have one crappy picture that should be clear enough to see. If you invert one of the prusiks, the two will mesh together better. I'll show you in the next post.....


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 5, 2004)

...okay, in this picture you can see how I tied one of the prusiks backwards. They squish together better.






I considered this setup for footlocking without ascenders. I see one advantage. If you take a lock but only grab ONE of the strands, you will still go up! The "old" way, you would stay in place if you only had a lock on one of the strands. 

Now, I HAVE to mention this. While playing around, I checked to see what happens if you tie the prusik the normal way , one prusik going around two strands, then pull on the prusik and ONE of the strands. It still locks. It locked up just fine. The prusik (I was using a klemheist, actually) squeezed the two strands of the rope together.

Is this all moot?

love
nick


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 5, 2004)

You guys got me thinking how to get an easier lacing on the prusik grab. Here is another option/ strategie set that might give ~same grab, pull together, and be easier to lace.

By pattern, the long Frenchys could pull down into / or be dressed down into VT's without further alteration, 4 leg connection stronger (which you don't have to have here, and probably could hinder VT effect), 1 chord.






6.58k drawing using Glens drawing tip of saving first as .gif in MSPaint.


----------



## Chucky (Nov 5, 2004)

Burnham said: *"Jack, to me it looks like Chucky is using a pair of CMI ascenders, not the Kong Double...that's why the hole on top is different. 

Is that right, Chucky?"*

Yes, since I don't yet have the Kong double ascender, I had to test the double prussic hitch with two CMI ascenders by "failing" the cam of each ascender to see the effect on the hitch. It's in effect the same thing as using the Kong double ascender when one cam fails.

And the "Nelson hitch" and "Nick Knot" -- the symmetry of of the knot is just sweet. And the independence of coming up with it is reminiscent of Darwin-Wallace. 

Jack, it's the symmetry of the individual knots around each of the two ropes that's important, not the overall symmetry of the entire knot. Yes, Dan's and Nick's knots are symmetrical in overall appearance, but what's important is the symmetry of each knot on the individual rope.

Most important is Dan's caution that these knots are NOT PROVEN, and should not be used in climbing until they're extensively tested and proven to be safe, even as a backup knot.

What I was hoping for, is for you folks to tweak the setup for its most efficient use with the Kong double ascender.

BTW, -TM-, you really crack me up! (As well as teach me a lot!)


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 5, 2004)

*History is being made*

You guys have so amazed me. We come out with a problem, and no established solution. Now we have four winners, four killer hitches that will back up two independent, parallel lines. You guys,,,



I think



I am going



to 

weep....


----------



## MasterBlaster (Nov 5, 2004)

*Dam!*

And this is all I've got!


----------



## Chucky (Nov 5, 2004)

Face it, even an ol' dinosaur hitch like the one Butch uses ain't gonna slow down an experienced and accomplished climber. No matter how modern and sophisticated the equipment, it's the climber, not the equipment. 

What did Thoreau say? Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 5, 2004)

*You guys ARE great minds*

Today I picked the biggest, baddest, kickest assest tree I had on the schedule to field-test your hard work and creativity. I called GlenS to come out and witness and do a climb with me.

We had some big fun reveling in the pure effectiveness of the double Chucky. Even though the prussik loop was too long, the ascender tended the knot beautifully, like it wasn't even there. But fail a side, and bam, you stop.

Chucky, you get an A on the project.

The rest of you, Nelson, Nick, Spidey you're a buncha closet geniuses. You inspire me.


----------



## glens (Nov 5, 2004)

But it was a Modified Chucky, wasn't it?&nbsp; The photo will explain, maybe.

Glen


----------



## Chucky (Nov 5, 2004)

I don't know what to say to that, TM. Coming from you and GlenS, I'm truly and genuinely honored. But I still say it was all inspired by Nick.


----------



## glens (Nov 6, 2004)

Hey, Chucky.&nbsp; I can get into a tree pretty good, but once there I'm a relative neophyte.

I was playing around with some of the stuff, and the Modified Chucky (if TM posts the picture [if there is one -- that camera was awful finicky]) does not work.&nbsp; Luckily the modification was my idea so I can take full blame.

I did, however, come across a very simple setup which seems to have great promise.&nbsp; Not having a digicam I'll have to resort to the old-fashioned word picture.

The cord length for this needs to provide for minimum slack in order to remain effective.&nbsp; In my informal tests with no actual ascenders, it would appear a fairly flexible cord would work better than a stiffer one.
<ol><li>Stand facing the two hanging strands of rope.<li>Holding the cord by the ends, let it hang in a loop between you and the ropes<li>Pass the ends around the outside of the ropes and back toward you between them above its bight.<li>Repeat for a total of three times.<li>Drop the ends downward towards you over their bight and attach them to the ascender(s).</ol>
Good luck.

Glen


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 6, 2004)

So many good things you guys. And Glens yours too.

I've not had the time to work out what everyone has submitted. I'll be working with Big John tomorrow and since I'm the old guy with the clip board on this,  , I'll work in some K testing.

I'm sure BJ will have his great usual input. 

Think we need to set up some testing protocal, and be able to have some kind of stats, what do you think? (for ANSI )

Jack


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 6, 2004)

What is the concern about ANSI? Is there a perception that there's an ANSI regulation that deals with ascenders or backing them up?

I've promoted backing up ascenders or using two attachments for ascending for many years. Not because ANSI but from reading "On Rope" and several books on search and rescue. In those disciplines they attach twice. 

Tom


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 6, 2004)

If you're looking for a secure back-up on doubled ropes you could look at the Shunt. Or better yet, put two Rockers together. They have proven track records. In my SRT setup I have a Rocker clipped to my saddle D. It tails along nicely. Much quicker than making two hitches.

For you guys that are in pursuit of the mythical DdRT backup, I have a question. Why not just go SRT? The only reason for DdRT is that you haven't learned to footlock on a single. Think back to how hard it was to footlock in the beginning. How long did it take to get as good as you are now? Making the step to SRT will be much quicker because you understand the fundamentals. Once you get over the learning curve you'll wonder why you didn't go SRT a long time ago. I'm not just saying that from my personal bias. I've talked to many climbers who made the conversion and agree. 

Tom






Tom


----------



## glens (Nov 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Tom Dunlap _
> *For you guys that are in pursuit of the mythical DdRT backup, I have a question. Why not just go SRT? The only reason for DdRT is that you haven't learned to footlock on a single.
> *


Hi Tom.&nbsp; It's more a case of searching for the dual-ascenders-on-DdRT backup.

I don't use ascenders but have an interest because, well, I find it interesting.&nbsp; I have learned to footlock on a single rope.&nbsp; In fact, that's the <i>way</i> I learned and don't have a problem with it other than the friction hitch biting down so darn hard when weighted.&nbsp; I've gone to using doubled-rope because on it, the hitch works "normally".&nbsp; I've tried a number of differernt hitch configurations and am open to suggestion.&nbsp; I haven't bought a bunch of hardware because I don't know yet if this is something I want to invest that much in.

Glen


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 6, 2004)

Hello Glen.

Thanks fir the input, Tom, on those things. Especially the SRT. However, for the sake of not veering into your and my favorite method (SRT), let's stay with doubled rope technique ascent on the KONG Dual Ascenders. Backing them up.

Backing up these ascenders is CRITICAL. The difference between backed up ascenders, vs not backed up ascenders is huge in the confidence you have in the tree. Now, instead of getting up to the first limb, changing over to monkey mode I can just stay on the ascenders awhile. WHY? Because if it feels sensible to do that, I will do that. As long as you're working a level, or going up, you're golden. Switch over to descent mode for the way down, or for long limbwalking.

Why do we do this Tom? Because it is the ultra-simple, quick and easy, failproof, fully backed up, Chuckified bombproof setup. It's Chuckified, y'know what that means, ? like the Mother Ship just got whacked with a bottle of Champagne.

Esss Eye Emm Pee Ell Eeee Can I be any clearer? Ascenders are reliable, predictable devices that do what they do well, so much more effective than any hitch and the durable suckers will last and serve you 5-10 years 

Eeee Zeee
Footlocking up a doubled rope is decidedly easier than up one single line, as in SRT (however, SRT rocks and we love it (shameless SRT plug)).

Chucky has given the arborist world permission to work off ascenders. Does every body get it? You're now allowed to explore a style uniquely new to most everybody. We're asking no one to change their climbing method, just putting out there that you can now work safely off dual ascenders. Embrace your liberty of choice.

The results are in: A Double Chuck works. A Nelson Nick Knot works. Spidey's Double French works. Spidey says even a simple prussik works. Our duty now is to test out some various fiber, various diameters ( I vote 8 mm) and various lengths. Keep trying different stuff until we find an 'industry standard', something that has all the best properties. 

I'm going to do a stretch exercise on the behalf of all of us. I am going to put together a digital upgrade of the ascenders, pointing out what we need to accomplish regarding the captive backup with the caribiner through the top. I'm going to offer it up to you Chaps first. After we dissect it together, and we're aligned that it is a submittable idea, we will submit it to Italy. This is our duty.


----------



## Chucky (Nov 6, 2004)

_"Stand facing the two hanging strands of rope.
Holding the cord by the ends, let it hang in a loop between you and the ropes

Pass the ends around the outside of the ropes and back toward you between them above its bight.

Repeat for a total of three times.

Drop the ends downward towards you over their bight and attach them to the ascender(s)."[_


Glen, that was a great description, but even better, the knot was set extremely fast -- and it worked. They both grabbed and held fast. 

To make it even faster would be a matter of grapevining (double fisherman's looping) the ends of the rope and slipping them over a biner through the top of the ascender(s).

Tree Machine mentioned there's a problem fitting a carabiner in the Kong double ascender in this setup. I wonder how this can be overcome (other than filing)?

(Have you considered giving up this nonsense and pursuing a career in technical writing?)


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 6, 2004)

So as not to get into a bicker debate about ANSI, what if we proceed, with the intent of sharing this info with ANSI. Also would like to submit to "The Tree Climber's Companion" for addition into the next edition. That would kinda be up to you, collectively, on whether to do that. 

In this next shot I was getting ready to go up into this huge hackberry. I had a brand new rope, and was going to try an entirely new way (for me) to abseil. The job was really technical, high and over top a house and the days weather was perfect. It was 3 in the afternoon and my hair was on fire. I was in a new gear mood and I would be up there for sunset.

This pic shows the described 'Glen Hitch'. I climbed with it for 3 hours, and it works. We must add this to the running list of _Ways to Back up a Double Ascender_.


----------



## BigJohn (Nov 6, 2004)

To answer your question Tom one reason I prefer to double line is in some ocassions I don't want to rely on someone to untie my rope from the base of the tree or have a good shot with my rope placed perfectly and want to just footlock up a ways and hop off and start clearing out the bottom. I do find single line footlocking just as easy as double. I know to tie a slip knot at the base that can be untied from aloft but how safe can that really be with peopel dragging brush on the ground who are unaware of where they are. Both ways are great like anything have their time and place.


----------



## glens (Nov 6, 2004)

*Attachment: glen\'s hitch backup.jpg*

Jim, that hitch is the one I described as the "Modified Chucky".&nbsp; I toyed with it here today and it does not work in all cases.&nbsp; The one I later described tying seems to work in every way, so long as it is not tied with stout cord and too much slack.

Glen


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Mike Maas _
> *Did I cross over to a reverse dimension?
> Tom doesn't think ANSI has a major roll in safety in our industry? Perhaps he feels there are only a few tree climbers ascending ropes, so let 'em crash until there are statistics to warrent a standard?
> Stars are crashing in my universe right now.... *





Four people that I know personally, not via the web or third hand, have had slips [falls] from ascenders "failing". Knock on wood [my head] I've never had a failure though. There are plenty of other rumors about ascender accidents too. Backing up ascents should be mandatory as far as I'm concerned.

ANSI has nothing to say about ascender use much less backing them up. Sometimes ANSI moves too slow. Sometimes in strange directions. I talked with a friend who sits on the Z133 committee who said that there was discussion about taking out the "half inch rope exception." I wonder where that idea came from.

The reason I asked about ANSI is that there have been some referances to it and I would like to know why. Just for information not to hijack the thread.

Seeing the inovation with some new hitches is interesting. Have you looked on Storrick's site for other ascender hitches? There might be a configuration that could be modified to DdRT.

The Nomex/Technora cord from New England Ropes and sold by Bishop is a real nice cord for SRT hitches. If a hitch bites too hard on SRT add some more round turns.

Tom


----------



## roachy (Nov 7, 2004)

I think those backups are great but I have to agree with Tom .I did a vary similar setup years ago but could never get past the added friction the hitches cause ,it just seemed as if you will be fighting the hitch as you ascend.
My version was using two VTs and two Jumar ascenders .My only reason for trying this was for a rescue I could ascend up dis ingage one cam and use that vt as my climbing hitch and get right to buisness.Now since I use Srt almost exclusively its just an afterthought.
Still cant get over you guys thinking double rope is less difficult than single when footlocking hmmmmm.No two climbers are the same ,thats what makes it all good.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 7, 2004)

Stiffer line that holds open some in cord, yet enough coils to possitively grab inthe long Frenchy formation?


----------



## BigJohn (Nov 7, 2004)

Double line isn't easier just less hassle of haveing to ask someone to untie a rope. I always feel like I am imposing work on someone else who is trying to get something done themselves. Going double is Ok for short hikes. It does get heavy right about 50 feet. The rope in single line doesnt get that heavy until 100 feet and your gonna be little winded anyway at 100.


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 7, 2004)

The new 11 mm's , doubled, are around 11/13ths the weight of the 13 mm


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 8, 2004)

TM- the 11mm are way LESS than 11/13ths. Remember, area (which in this case affects mass) = pi R squared. 

The area of a cross section on 13mm rope is 126.61mm. A of an 11mm rope is 95.03. This equates to about a 25% difference, way more than the measily 11/13ths! 

11mm way lighter.

love
nick


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 8, 2004)

You are so right! Another plus for 11 mm technology. Genius boy, you've done it again!

Yes, the simple, off the cuff 11 divided by 13 would show 84.6%, or around 15% reduction, when more realistically 95.03 divided by 126.61 = 75.2%.
The 95.03 comes from the 11 mm. You take the radius, which is half the diameter, or 5.5 mm. Square that radius, 5.5 times 5.5 =30.25, and then multiply that by pi, or 3.14, and you get 94.98..... wait, Nick got 95.03.... oh, GEEK BOY has to use pi out to 4 decimal places. OK, 30.25 times 3.1415 = 95.03 square mm cross section GEEK!

Whipping through the math, the 13 mm has a square area cross section of (6.5 x 6.5 x 3.1415) = 132.7. Genius boy, you got 126.61.... this is significant, where did I screw up?

95.03 divided by 132.7 = 71.9 % , a 28% reduction in square cross surface area. This does not equate to weight, just cross section.


----------



## glens (Nov 8, 2004)

Jim, you can make it a bit easier on yourself.&nbsp; Since pi is a common factor you can leave it out.<blockquote>(11&divide;2)&sup2;&divide;(13&divide;2)&sup2;=0.7160</blockquote>That'll get you the relative <i>volume</i> for a given length of rope.&nbsp; The <i>mass</i> may be another set of figures altogether...

:<tt></tt>)


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 8, 2004)

As glens has pointed out, you can quickly determine the VOLUME once you have the surface area of the cross section. The volume would be for a hollow tube of rope 11mm wide and 150' long. Weight/mass comes from this. You can fill that tube with water and measure it....or better yet, fill it with polyester fibers. This is what we are doing when we weigh a rope. Filling the tube with polyester. 

From this, you can see that an 11mm rope is MORE than 11/13ths lighter than a 13mm.

love
nick


----------



## glens (Nov 8, 2004)

Nick,

There are more variables than simply displacement.&nbsp; A quick flip through the Sherrill catalog indicates weight of any given general rope construction covers a range of values for the same nominal size.

In order to use the relative volumes to project a relationship between the weights, one would have to assume material/density as being constant such as pi was in my previous post.

Glen


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 8, 2004)

Here is a chart from my most dog eared knot referance book; giving good, general layout of a charachteristics of materials and braids. General weight of materials etc. Much of our stuff is polyester and nylon. Nylon giving about the same strength, with more of that elasticity stuff in it. Also, by braid type; 3strand is more elastic.

Use the hidden, floating in Lower R.Hand corner, click button to enlarge to readable.

:alien:


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 8, 2004)

*mathturbation*



> (11÷2)²÷(13÷2)²=0.7160
> That'll get you the relative volume for a given length of rope.


 Volume is in cubic units, not square units.

Volume = pi r-squared h, where h (height) = the length of the rope. 150 feet = 4,572 cm, or, since we're working in mm, 45,720 mm

the volume of a 13 mm rope is then 6,068,341 cubic mm in volume and an 11 mm rope is a mere 4,344,789 cubic mm in volume.

The math works because if you divide 4,344,789 by 6,068,341, you get the same 0.7160, which means the 11 mm has 71.6 % of the volume a 13 mm.

This is a stupid exercise. I doubt anyone cares that I know how to use a calculator.

To calculate the weight, we would need to know the _density_, which is in grams per cubic (at least in our case here) mm. Also irrelevant because the manufacturers provide us with the weight per 100 feet and we can direct compare, with no math.

What was this thread about?


----------



## glens (Nov 8, 2004)

*Re: mathturbation*



> _Originally posted by Tree Machine _
> 
> 
> > (11&divide;2)&sup2;&divide;(13&divide;2)&sup2;=0.7160
> ...


Regarding that last question, I forget now.

You did well to include the whole sentence after the equation.&nbsp; I'm somewhat puzzled.&nbsp; It seems as though you're correcting me yet I clearly implied by that phraseology that the <i>relative volume</i> would be based upon the <i>relative area</i> when the third dimension became available (the <i>given length of rope</i>).&nbsp; Both of the common factors, pi and length, can be omitted from the equation used to determine the <i>relative</i> areas/volumes, but those factors are indeed necessary to obtain discrete values.&nbsp; As you ably indicated.

I apologize if I mis-read you there and that I felt the need to defend myself as a result.

Glen


----------



## Frans (Nov 8, 2004)

Ouch! My brain hurts! I'm goona sue somebody, or kick my dog...
Frans


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 8, 2004)

Thanks guys. This is too much fun. Glen you're right. I know (trust me on this one) that all ropes are not the same. I WAS assuming a constant type of construction. I just want people to walk away from this knowing that just because a rope is 10% bigger in diameter, doesn't mean it will only be 10% heavier. It will be more than that (assuming 2 similar/same rope constructions).


love
nick


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 9, 2004)

*re-gathering our thoughts*

Yous guyz are a buncha jeaniuses. The topic was Kong dual ascenders. It moved to backing them up when out of nowhere Chucky dropped the bomb, got us all stirred up, won the Nobel prize and hitch dude of the year though thoroughly crediting Nick from Wisconsin for the inspiration. TreeCo came on with the Symmetrical Nelson, and Nick from Wisconsin was right there with an inverted version. Spidey said the dual Frenchy works and added the regular ol prussik works also. Glen described a hitch, yet unshown, and Roachy stated that two tress cords, each one fashioned into a VT on each line will work, a version of which I started with on page 1 or 2.

Did I miss anyone?

Oh, yea, ZenMaster Bayou Boy and his futuristic means hit us with...
http://www.arboristsite.com/attach/18222.jpg


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 9, 2004)

I thought mebbe we should send a letter to Kong and pitch a modification to their Duals that would allow the easy insertion of any biner to hold the ropes captive in the shell and serve as an attachment for the backup hitch. 

I've put together a draft, for all your inspection. If and when we agree on the content, let's fire it across and seee if we can engage some necessary change. See, the Kongs are not built as a dual ascender. They're simply two Kong single ascenders with a handle, all riveted together. The top holes in the ascender are there for backing up in a single ascender configuration. when the two get riveted together as one, the existing holes no longer function, though I doubt this has ever been brought to their attention...... until soon.


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 9, 2004)

Looks good. I don't know what else to tell them.

Chucky, I will not and cannot accept credit for the idea. We were simultaneously working off eachother. I'll take 50%, but no more. Good idea, chuck. 

Incite change. 

love
nick


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 9, 2004)

Nice start on letter; i think to make case stronger etc.; ya might include how more and more arborists are being commanded not to spike, seeking such means as their products to ascend etc.

ZenMaster Bayou Boy and his futuristic means should know that the sound of 1 hand typing is not the same as the sound of 1 hand clapping


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 9, 2004)

I'd recommmend changing "what we feel" to "what we think"... or just loose that line altogether and go right consider a significant improvement


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 9, 2004)

*Fabulous team work!*

Thanks Daniel, and others. Changes noted, amendments will be made. Attached is a letter I sent to Kong last July, but have been negligent in following up. We, together, are creating the followup.

quote:*Chucky, I will not and cannot accept credit for the idea. We were simultaneously working off each other. I'll take 50%, but no more. Good idea, chuck.* 

So we call it the NickChuck? The Chucky from Wisconsin?

Nick, some time ago you were working on, what legend has it, the 'lost hitch'. You were intent on inventing a hitch. This was some time ago. Can you enlighten us? I have a feeling this was the track you were on. Yes, no?


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 9, 2004)

*da letter*

Successful arborist and tree climbers working together from around the world have have been investigating new techniques for climbing tree work. Your ascender is being focused on and inorder to fully utilize it's expanded potential we, jointly are requesting ...

Something like that, so that it includes others by authority.

Jack


----------



## Burnham (Nov 9, 2004)

Very well put, Jack!


----------



## Gord (Nov 9, 2004)

here's my contribution similar to spydy's but w/ webbing and central V not an attatchment point. it actually pulls the ropes together if loaded. this is three wraps, four may be appropriate also.


----------



## Gord (Nov 9, 2004)

other side.


----------



## Gord (Nov 9, 2004)

under load. this is what I would use. imo it's the only one that is simple enough to tie for each ascent.

edit: glen if this is what you were describing my apologies.


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 9, 2004)

*Re: A symmetrical Kong Double Ascender*



> _Originally posted by TreeCo _
> *I've gone back and looked at the photos of the Kong double ascender and I think a minor change in the way it is built would make it a much better product. I'm suggesting it has a serious design flaw because the way it is built it is impossible to capture both ropes with a carabineer on both sides at the same time. It's also impossible to do it with two carabineers.
> 
> If you notice the red and the blue sides are mirror images of each other. The ascender as a whole is not symmetrical. If the red and blue side were made identical except for color...and the blue side was on the opposite side of the ascender from the red.....over the other handle........the carabineer holes would not line up and it would be possible to capture the rope on each side with a separate carabineer.
> ...



I think all that needs to be done is; to elongate the hole to accomodate a biner passing through. A downward elongation with maybe a 2deg off set to maintain material integrity.

Jack


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 9, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: A symmetrical Kong Double Ascender*



> _Originally posted by TreeCo _
> *I was thinking that the double ascender is to wide for one biner to pass through all four holes....two holes in each ascender. Each ascender needs to have it's rope captured. One biner that catches the center two holes but does not catch the two outside holes I don't believe captures the rope correctly on either side.
> 
> Dan *



You are probably right there. How about elogation and splaying out the outer 2 holes and give the inside a bit more room for ease of acceptance of the biner? If Kong wont we will have to machine and test with drop loads?

Jack


----------



## glens (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Gord _
> *glen if this is what you were describing my apologies. *


That's precisely what I'd described, Gordon Wood (can't get that out of my noodle since the other day...), though not with strap.&nbsp; No need for apology.&nbsp; Indeed, I thank you for supplying the visual.&nbsp; Will the ascender properly tend strap hitch as it will with cord?

I think that instead of modifying the ascender configuration, there needs only to be a minor additional part.&nbsp; Go to your farm supply store and see if you can't find a hitch pin and keeper that fits.&nbsp; Then think in terms of making one out of aluminum and tethering the pin and keeper to the unit so they don't get separated in your kit bag.

Glen


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 10, 2004)

i think the lack of dimension in the flat webbing would make it not tend up as easily, might even jam in cam on some unlucky day?

You can grab the center to saddle (where the frenchys might pull into VT's); or not grab center; just use the 2 list of Frenchy coils. 

For firmer base for tending up, might not grab center, take each leg and throw a half hitch under each Frenchy so they would look more like 5/1 Distel or Schwab (depending on direction of turn going against or with same direction as Frenchy coil part respectively) only held by 1 leg each (not grabbing center of cord to bring to saddle).

Or, something like that...
:alien:


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 10, 2004)

Agreed 100%. That's precisely the problem we're trying to solve in presenting this to Kong. In my 'letter to Kong', if you look closely, I have shaven away the two outer 'holes' and have extended up the the two inner shell parts that slap up adjacent to each other. It is through this new, central extension will situate between the ropes and will contain a hole into which a biner will just fit.

Another approach to that hole is to elongate it slightly and place it on diagonal. In normal use the biner would then be down, and slightly away, not touching the ropes. In the case of a 'fall', the biner would be pulled up and into the ropes, creating friction on them in addition to the backup hitch. This is only theoretical.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 10, 2004)

Elongated holes have a short axis that could get bound and leveraged easier if any twisting etc. happened i think, maybe inverted teardrop? For walking the line between strength and openness?


----------



## glens (Nov 10, 2004)

It's entirely possible that Kong will not want to tool up for what amounts to a different design.&nbsp; And I don't even think it's necessary.&nbsp; See the attached image.

Glen


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by glens _
> *It's entirely possible that Kong will not want to tool up for what amounts to a different design.&nbsp; And I don't even think it's necessary.&nbsp; See the attached image.
> 
> Glen *



Good idea. BTW: has anyone been trying this all out. I havn't, no time to sneak away, are the hitches sliding OK going up. Or is there a problem like Jim Roach pointed out.

Jack


----------



## glens (Nov 10, 2004)

In my informal tests with the hitch (although not with a dual ascender), it slides up like a tab of butter on a hot ear of corn, even after loading (which would never happen in normal use, right?).

Regarding the alignment of the ropes, the hitch as shown will indeed allow the ropes to slide toward the cams but the ropes will not be able to fall out of the "tunnels" since the ropes are tethered to each other each side of the divider.&nbsp; The only thing that would change in terms of cam action should be that the rope might at times have more wrap on the cam.&nbsp; If it's not loaded and you're advancing the ascender that shouldn't be much of a problem and it will certainly assist camming/locking action when loading the assembly in such instances.

Glen


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by glens _
> *In my informal tests with the hitch (although not with a dual ascender), it slides up like a tab of butter on a hot ear of corn, even after loading (which would never happen in normal use, right?).
> 
> Regarding the alignment of the ropes, the hitch as shown will indeed allow the ropes to slide toward the cams but the ropes will not be able to fall out of the "tunnels" since the ropes are tethered to each other each side of the divider.&nbsp; The only thing that would change in terms of cam action should be that the rope might at times have more wrap on the cam.&nbsp; If it's not loaded and you're advancing the ascender that shouldn't be much of a problem and it will certainly assist camming/locking action when loading the assembly in such instances.
> ...



I like the idea and I think I'll end up machining the holes. Since I do have experience in material strength and design I'll make a jig that others may use or copy. If there is interest it can be cast with machine shop plastics used for such limited run set setups.

Or just go as it is. I asked Big John the other day how he felt working of the Kong without any friction hitch back up, he said, "... I set it to not fail". He really thinks ahead in ways that are valid and for most not doable.

Jack


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 14, 2004)

Here is the set up I'm using, chosen out of all the good work everyone did.

Jack


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 14, 2004)

Shot of it if cams failed. And showing pulley for working off it ont the way up.

Jack


----------



## glens (Nov 15, 2004)

That's cool, Jack.&nbsp; Thanks for the feedback/followup.

It also works with only one cam "failed", right?

Glen


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 15, 2004)

Ok, heres the photo of the Chucky V backup prusik that I made for the Tree Machine. I think it'll work perfectly for what we're looking for.

love
nick


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 15, 2004)

Here's how I tied it. Just wrapped it up 4 or 5 times. Both 4 or 5 wraps worked perfectly. 4 was easier to push up (it broke easier) but 5 locked up quicker (the 4 wraps slid for half an inch before locking, but always locked).

love
nick


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 15, 2004)

Here's what it looks like when you pull down on it.


----------



## Chucky (Nov 15, 2004)

_"So we call it the NickChuck? The Chucky from Wisconsin?"_



Nick, that's a sweet lookin' New York Nick's Knot!


----------



## glens (Nov 16, 2004)

Looks nice, Nick.&nbsp; How well does it work with only one side of the hitch in service and the ascender gripping the other leg (simulated by grabbing one rope with your fist and with that thumb through the carabiner)?

Glen


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by glens _
> *That's cool, Jack.&nbsp; Thanks for the feedback/followup.
> 
> It also works with only one cam "failed", right?
> ...



Yes, and I only tried the 'failed' a couple of times.

Jack


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NickfromWI _
> *Here's what it looks like when you pull down on it. *



That's great Nick. If it works with only one side failed as Glens asked about I'll order one. OK?

Jack


----------



## glens (Nov 16, 2004)

As I recall, more wraps were required when capturing the center and it didn't work single-sided as well; and that function was the main point of the exercise, after all.&nbsp; But I wasn't using such a nicely-formed piece of cord, and that may make a difference.

Glen


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 16, 2004)

I don't know why I didn't take this picture, but if only one side is pulled, it still holds. But let me get the pics, first. The knot gets all funky looking, but does hold.

Glad you guys like this thing. This is the sort of great things that happen when great minds and the Tree Machine get together!

love
nick


----------



## glens (Nov 17, 2004)

Hey Jack,

Just noticed what's in the attachment.&nbsp; Just goes to prove how sensible you are.

Glen


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by glens _
> *Hey Jack,
> 
> Just noticed what's in the attachment.&nbsp; Just goes to prove how sensible you are.
> ...



 Well, ah, yes. I've been with Linux for at least 10 years. Even when the issue was can you get it to boot on your machine. And if it did then what? Backed it's development from the beginning.

Thanks for noticing,
Jack


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 17, 2004)

*Holy Ganoley !*

Hey fellas, I had to drop out for a couple days and spend some quality time with m'best girl. Results show that you've been doing your homework.

I am so proud of everyone's work I could just wee my pants! In the name of safety, the small-but-growing dual-ascendered climbing world applauds you.

Nick, I am especially impressed with your efforts. How freegin ingenious! You scratched your chin good and long on that new tress cord. I'll bet you laid there in bed awake mulling it over. When was that magic a-HA moment when it came to you? We wanna hear about that critical moment. Were you folding your laundry? Were you putting mustard on your sandwich, WHAT? You've done it; you've developed the lost tress cord!

History, once again, has been made. A new hitch is born. I am really pleased, big ear-to-ear grin, and quite excited to be the first consumer to receive the new-breed tress cord.

Krueger, how ya coming with the revamped hole system? I have held off sending the letter to Kong because I sense we're moving beyond an improvement suggestion, and are verging on a legitimate breakthrough; an actual working model. I encourage you to follow Spidey's suggestion of implimenting an inverted teardrop. 

GREAT WORK, you guys! There should be some sort of award. Since the advent of the Double Chucky, you've come so far, so fast.


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 17, 2004)

Well, TM, it wasn't as glorious as you hoped. I was standing at the splicing bench going, "hmmmmm, what exactly should I splice for the TreeMachine to make this work?" 

I got out the pen and paper and did a few sketches when the idea of the 3-eyed prusik came to be. When I can see my ideas, they tend to develop faster.

So, that's it. I drew it, made a quick prototype to verify the measurements, then spliced up the real deal. Tried it out that afternoon in a Eucalyptus tree. No complaints so far.

They'll be in the mail soon.

love
nick


----------



## glens (Nov 17, 2004)

Nick, 

I'd like to see you try one without the center tap and report any differences in function.&nbsp; It will take less turns on the ropes to perform the same, so take that into account.

Glen


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 17, 2004)

I thought about just using a straight eye-eye but I didn't like the idea of the carabiner being able to slide anywhere along the slings while climbing.

love
nick


----------



## glens (Nov 17, 2004)

I'm wondering if we're on the same page.&nbsp; I'm talking about leaving the bottom, common wrap of cord completely out of the fastening system.

Glen


----------



## Tree Machine (Nov 18, 2004)

That's going backwards in time, Glen. We know that works. Go back and look at Spidey's French Prussik, page 5.

I was going to carry on just using a regular 'ol eye-eye tress cord, but NOOoooo. Nick from Wisconsin decides to put on his thinking cap and problem-solved his way into crafting this ingenious piece of cordage, thereby forever altering our tress cord reality. I'm still kinda sweaty from the whole ordeal.

I can't wait to try it out on rain-soaked 11 mm.


----------



## glens (Nov 18, 2004)

You mean http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?postid=216010#post216010 (page 4 for me)?&nbsp; That's almost <i>precisely</i> what Nick has done.&nbsp; Tapping the center like that took more wraps to effectively grab both ropes in my tests, and drastically lessened the effectiveness when pulling the ropes differentially.&nbsp; Not to mention having more friction when pushed upward due to the extra wraps.

But then again, I used knots, not splices.&nbsp; That's why I asked him to form one after <i>my</i> specifications for testing; which would be yet forward-moving.

Glen


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: Holy Ganoley !*



> _Originally posted by Tree Machine _
> *
> 
> [deletion]
> ...



I've held off doing any mod on the K, still playing with the hitch. I'm using a biner connected to the handle right now.

Jack


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 18, 2004)

I guess this is what mine what modeled after....this picture by The Mighty Spidey. I didn't recall seeing that picture when I was doing my sketches...but Spidey must've planted that seed in my head earlier in the thread! But when I was looking at that way, I didn't like the idea of the carabiner being able to slide around while climbing. 

I tied up the one I made in the EXACT same way as shown in spideys drawing.

This IS a team effort.

love
nick


----------



## glens (Nov 18, 2004)

Define "the carabiner being able to slide around".

Glen


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 18, 2004)

Good question, glen. Here's what I mean: If you look at the pic, you can see where the 'biner would clip on this depiction. Without an eye there, the carabiner would be able to slide around, possibly altering how the double-prusik would be loaded....maybe to the point where it would load one prusik before, or more than, the other.

With the eye, things seems to stay as they should, nice and centered.

love
nick


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 18, 2004)

ps- those eyes WOULD be clipped to the biner....but would still allow the biner to move around.


----------



## glens (Nov 18, 2004)

I guess that's what I'd thought you meant.&nbsp; Do you understand that what I'm talking about is using much less cord (three wraps per rope) and <I>not capturing the middle with the carabiner</i>?&nbsp; Please don't dismiss it until you give it a try.

Glen


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 18, 2004)

Ok glens, now I got what you're saying. So you'd just clip the two eyes on the ends of the eye-eye sling. Ok, that makes sense, and might work, though I think that it will still be able to slide and move around a lot. But you're right...this shouldn't be dismissed until tried.

Ok, it's on the list. 

love
nick


----------



## glens (Nov 18, 2004)

Minimal slack is essential.

Glen


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TheTreeSpyder _
> *You guys got me thinking how to get an easier lacing on the prusik grab. Here is another option/ strategie set that might give ~same grab, pull together, and be easier to lace.
> 
> By pattern, the long Frenchys could pull down into / or be dressed down into VT's without further alteration, 4 leg connection stronger (which you don't have to have here, and probably could hinder VT effect), 1 chord.
> ...



Grabbing just at eyes, and not center is what i meant by you didn't have to have 4 leg connection(grabbing at bight too), but it is stronger (grabbing at bight too, with soft angle at the bight).


----------



## jkrueger (Nov 18, 2004)

I've used the double prussic with eyes and, correct me if I'm not getting it, don't see any reason for the 'center' connection. (???)

Jack


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 22, 2004)

Ok guys, I know it's been a few days, but I've been at the drawing board. Here's a few photos to show what I'm talking about...

So I tried out the style of prusik that Glen mentioned, which is similar to what I was showing, but except with a straight eye-eye prusik, no center eye or connection of any type. I only tried 2 different types of rope. One was a 1/4" Yalex ( 3/8th diameter after the splicing was done) and the other was a 6mm rock climbing cord. Hitches were tied on Fly rope (pictures show up clearer then an orange on orange rope).

So in both of these, and the version that the TreeSpyder suggested, they did advance up the rope easily, and they did lock up tight. But in both variations, I noticed something. After loading, they did NOT want to release their grip to continue ascending. It took a lot of finicking to "break" the prusik in the styles that Glen and Spydie suggest. 

I know that if you use a different combination of rope you will get different results, and therein might be the key to making this work. Until then, I'm liking having the middle eye. It's like having two friction hitches similar to what we use for our standard climbing lines, but now working in unison, side-by-side.

Here's the pictures so you can see the knots I tied and tell me if this is in fact what you had in mind.

love
nick


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 22, 2004)

This is that same knot, but how it looks from the side.


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 22, 2004)

I found that by putting the ends of the sling around the back, giving a little extra twist to the works, things were a bit smoother, though not as smooth at what I found with the "V" prusik setup.


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 22, 2004)

And here's what that same knot looks like from the other side.


----------



## NickfromWI (Nov 22, 2004)

Finally, here's what it looked like when I tied Spydies mid-connecting double-prusik that has no eye. Can we call that a "blind" mid connecting double prusik


----------



## glens (Nov 22, 2004)

Hey Nick.

Thanks for trying!&nbsp; I didn't have any problems getting the hitch loosened by merely releasing the weight on the ends and pushing up on the whole thing.&nbsp; Like you said, it's got to be a combination of varying factors.&nbsp; One thing I didn't have was the slightly stiffer cord that the splices produce near the infeed to the hitch.&nbsp; But making the leads much longer would increase the chance that they wouldn't maintain the hitch in a good and usable condition.&nbsp; And using knots introduces bulkiness / inconvenience.

I'd tried the middle setup too, and didn't like it much.

I didn't have a bit of luck with that last configuration either.

How's my setup work with a single failed cam scenario as compared to your 3-point hitch?&nbsp; The chances of both sides of the hitch ever being required simultaneously have got to be astronomically low.&nbsp; I feel the real need here is for good performance on single-snatches.

Thanks again.

Glen


----------



## Chucky (Nov 22, 2004)

Nick:

"So in both of these, and the version that the TreeSpyder suggested, they did advance up the rope easily, and they did lock up tight. But in both variations, I noticed something. After loading, they did NOT want to release their grip to continue ascending. It took a lot of finicking to "break" the prusik in the styles that Glen and Spydie suggest." 


But isn't the objective of the hitch to merely act as a backup, should one of the ascender cams fail? It seems you would only have to worry about "grip lock" of the hitch if one of the cams did indeed fail, and that would be only under extraordinary circumstances. In which case, you could either figure eight or munter hitch down to the ground.

I don't see the point in searching for a hitch that would allow an easy release from the ropes if the whole point of its being is as a backup. Of course, it would be nice if such a hitch existed, but, I think it would be unnecessarily complicated, thus defeating the purpose of efficient climbing. 

It seems to me that the best backup to the double ascender is the simplest, easiest-to-tie hitch, that slides easy up the ropes, and always grips the rope should an ascender cam fail, regardless of it's "griplock" on the ropes.

And I agree with Glen, the chances of both cams failing at once are so extraordinarily unlikely as to be considered as nil.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 22, 2004)

I haven't followed this thread to closely. Like I said earlier, it seems like an overcomplicated solution to a problem. 

But...the solutions being tossed around seem to be based on a backup above the ascenders. When I was first working through backups for SRT I decided that I wanted my backup as far from the upper ascender as possible. To me it seemed like an event that might cause the upper to fail would be prety unlikely to effect the backup if it was far away. That's why I used a Microcender for my lower backup at first. Now I use an ISC Rocker. The action seems to be the best suited for the task.

Why not use a pair of Microcenders connected to the front D? Or something similar. There's probably a way to gang two Rockers together. they tail along just fine for me. Another plus is that when I get to a landing station, the upper always leaves a little slack. I can tug my rope up and the Rocker comes up just like a slack tender under a climbing hitch. 

In the rare occasions that I need to down-climb a rope I follow a procedure that reduces my risks in a risky situation. Thumbing the cam of an ascender is very dangerous. If something were to happen while the cam is open the climber is likely to take a groundfall. When I thumb I take one hand and grab the back of my belt. Then I can only thumb one cam at a time. there is NO chance that both cams will be open at the same time. 

Tom


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 22, 2004)

Here's a pic of my SRT ascender setup with Microcender and Rocker.


----------



## Chucky (Nov 23, 2004)

Tom,

I think because this thread has grown so long, it's been easy to lose sight of what the thread was about originally. It's about climbing DdRT with a Kong double ascender, and finding a good backup hitch, should one of the cams of the double ascender fail. It's not about using two ascenders with a backup hitch on SRT.

However, thanks very much for that post, because I'm trying to learn SRT technique, and I'm looking for a good setup that is easy and efficient. I especially like how you've made the webbing adjustable. I never thought of that!


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 23, 2004)

Chuciky,

I haven't missed the core of the thread. I'm just looking at a back-up in another position. Why focus only on an upper backup?


----------



## glens (Nov 24, 2004)

Tom,

One could hardly get anything more simple, inexpensive, and trustworthy than a foot of cord and a carabiner.&nbsp; The whole purpose for having it immediately above the ascender pack is so its presence is the most unobtrusive.

You mentioned desiring your backup be in a different location than whatever it may have been that caused the failure of the primary.&nbsp; I guess that's a legitimate concern but I wouldn't have thought of it.&nbsp; All this time I've been envisioning an internal component failure causing the need for backup; not an outside force.&nbsp; Also, I suppose there's the remote chance a piece of shrapnel from a massive internal failure could interfere with the backup when immediately above the ascender, but that would be much less of a concern with a coil of cord than it would for another mechanical device.

I feel the focus on the immediately-upper position is merited for the reasons mentioned in the first paragraph above.

Glen


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Nov 24, 2004)

Going back to the double prusik -1 cord strategy. You could use a longer cord; and grab center again. Then, throw a hitch around each respective host under the bar of the Frenchy coils. With each eye before connecting; to achieve Double-Distel(or Schwab, depending on turn direction in relation to Frenchy coils) Mounts for less siezing closed? Allowing the hitch to grip host, and reduce load to each Frenchy, keeping it more in it's powerband for easiest use.

Then, evolve to dropping center again?

i'd think Tom knows more about these strategies than the rest of us from spearheading the SRT research and having addressed this problem for the last couple of years. i think he is the one that has us looking to backup the ascendor any, from the research and trials. Taking every off the wall, crazy, whacko, over thought, repetitive idea sent to him; i, of course, just heard that; and have no 1st hand knowledge of such happenings..... 

Or, something like that,

:alien:


----------

