Climbing Techniques

Hello, Im new to climbing and I'm wondering what techniques you guys use.

I've been practice for the last couple of month on a DRT use the blakes hitch, and to advance I use a home made lanyard to tie in with. Throw the throw bag on farther up, pull the climbing line up, untie the blakes hitch, unhook, re-hook, re-tie, and continue climbing. Also i have someone on the ground pulling the slack so I can advance the hitch, (cant get the footlocking thing down)


Also, what are some of your opinions on redirects? I have no clue about how to get them in place, or what to use for them. What are some other options to use when limb walking?

cut the tree down and then walk climb it.
)
kidding.
welcome.

old threads

Look back at some of the old threads. Lot of good info there. If foot lock is not your thing. Get a pantin or cmi foot ascender. There is several other tree forums to find info on also. Be safe. SDS

Thanks guys, ill have to look into those foot ascenders. Ive seen them, just wasn't sure how well they worked. Are they basically just another hitch with a loop? was thinking maybe I could rig something up. Money is so tight with us right now, as most of the little bit of money we do make goes on newer and better equipment.

I've read about SRT, but sounds like allot of rigging and allot of money.

This seems like a great site, with allot of helpful information. Look forward to being apart of the community.

Hi redman. Reading your opening post, you are ascending in the most difficult manner there is. Re-throwing a shotbag while in the tree is almost a certain way to frustrate your day. Having two men working on one man's ascent, it gets no slower or more tiring or more time-inefficient.

I'm not being a critic. If a seasoned pro were to use these methods they would slow an otherwise fast climber.


The reason money is tight is too much of your mental energy (and physical) is wrapped around the acts of rope setting and entering the canopy. If less time were spent here, more time could be freed up to do actual money-making tree care.

Here's some quick tips: Set your rope once, as high as you can once. Don't ever bring a shotline into the tree unless you're doing some traverse project like in rec climbing.

Your 2:1 doubled rope system, which is DdRT, (not DRT) does not lend itself well to footlocking. Like walking up a steep sand hill as opposed to a paved path up the same slope. A foot ascender does not change that the climbing technique is still a 2:1 system

2:1 DdRT does not lend itself well to using redirects. Your ropes move contra to one another and ANYTHING that rubs the ropes either together or against something, like a biner or a limb increases friction, resistance, your progress and your abilities. Two redirects and you may not be able to even advance, period. Redirects are magnificent safety and positioning features, as long as your climbing system will allow it.

Lastly, inefficient climbing and ropesetting and low income can go hand-in hand. There are pieces of gear that if purchased will pay themselves off in time saved. And this is every time, from then on out. Just a few key pieces, and everything changes. Save SRT for on down the road. Throwlining/Ropesetting is the gateway to entering the canopy. Arboriculture has this part well-nailed down. Get good at this, the climbing methods will come with experience. Throwlining/ropesetting you can become expert at in a short time. Climbing, well, this has a lot of different factors, but it's generally impossible to do climbing on rope until you've got a rope over a safe tie-in point.

If you are having trouble foot-locking, maybe change your boots to one's with less of a heel. It is really easy with tennis shoes.
Jeff

Tennis shoes. Jeff, don't tease the readership. This is 101, they could believe you.


One can have the best footlocking boots, and the best footlocking rope and the best footlocking ascender, and 2:1 will STILL be somewhat less than half as efficient as 1:1, translated means somewhat more than twice as much motion.

Personally, I'm pretty highly skilled at footlocking, but if I try to ascend in 2:1 fashion, either with a hitch setup, or an ascender setup, I will suck. My ascent will be slow, tiresome and full of excess motion and effort. It becomes easier to air-hump. Footlocking is frustratingly hardly effective. Many just get used to this and it's just the way you go up a rope. Entire careers on this method. Our entire industry bases their climbing on this method. I'm so sorry. You're all doing it wrong.


Now some guys don't know the difference between 2:1 and 1:1. They learn 2:1 from whoever taught them and that's all you know. You try different hitches, but it's still all 2:1.

SRT is 1:1, but technically the most difficult to master, and poses limitations.

Twin line (DbRT) is by far the easiest to learn, easiest to master, simple and versatile. The problem is the proper gear has just not been developed and offered to our profession.

In 1:1 twin line, you can footlock barefoot. You are required to have dual ascenders, though, and honestly, there's not a definitive pair of THOSE out at this time. The new CMI's, with a couple of mods, are really, pretty good.

What I'm getting at is, tree care is hard work. Ascending can be hard work. If you choose to ascend 2:1 on a Blakes hitch with no friction saver, you are going to experience ascending a rope in its most difficult, energy-taxing form, and there's nothing I can do to help you there. Kleimheist, distal, VT, it does not matter. 2:1 does you no favors on the way up. It is the way that sailors and early treemen on manila rope developed an ascent system because they didn't have proper mechanical gear to do it in 1:1 manner. Today, we do.

I would say, make the ascent as easy as possible. Change over to whatever descent method you wish, hitch or mechanical, and stay safe.

Tree Machine said:

Tennis shoes. Jeff, don't tease the readership. This is 101, they could believe you.


One can have the best footlocking boots, and the best footlocking rope and the best footlocking ascender, and 2:1 will STILL be somewhat less than half as efficient as 1:1, translated means somewhat more than twice as much motion.

Personally, I'm pretty highly skilled at footlocking, but if I try to ascend in 2:1 fashion, either with a hitch setup, or an ascender setup, I will suck. My ascent will be slow, tiresome and full of excess motion and effort. It becomes easier to air-hump. Footlocking is frustratingly hardly effective. Many just get used to this and it's just the way you go up a rope. Entire careers on this method. Our entire industry bases their climbing on this method. I'm so sorry. You're all doing it wrong.


Now some guys don't know the difference between 2:1 and 1:1. They learn 2:1 from whoever taught them and that's all you know. You try different hitches, but it's still all 2:1.

SRT is 1:1, but technically the most difficult to master, and poses limitations.

Twin line (DbRT) is by far the easiest to learn, easiest to master, simple and versatile. The problem is the proper gear has just not been developed and offered to our profession.

In 1:1 twin line, you can footlock barefoot. You are required to have dual ascenders, though, and honestly, there's not a definitive pair of THOSE out at this time. The new CMI's, with a couple of mods, are really, pretty good.

What I'm getting at is, tree care is hard work. Ascending can be hard work. If you choose to ascend 2:1 on a Blakes hitch with no friction saver, you are going to experience ascending a rope in its most difficult, energy-taxing form, and there's nothing I can do to help you there. Kleimheist, distal, VT, it does not matter. 2:1 does you no favors on the way up. It is the way that sailors and early treemen on manila rope developed an ascent system because they didn't have proper mechanical gear to do it in 1:1 manner. Today, we do.

I would say, make the ascent as easy as possible. Change over to whatever descent method you wish, hitch or mechanical, and stay safe.

Click to expand...

That was a good thought out post, I am just saying that foot-locking is faster then anything I have tried. When we had removals and trims on the same job, I had problems foot-locking until I brought a pair of hiking boots with a nice sole. After that, there was no way faster and easier way for me. Now we got prussiks and stuff, but, if can't foot-lock,check your footwear.
Jeff

Way true, Jeff. Quality mountain boots give you good footlocking ability+ankle support+waterproofness+the sole shank which provides protection and barrier from all the things we step on all day.

I'm in agreement, as there really is no disputing, footlocking is the way to go.

But for the guys who have good boots, and they're having trouble footlocking, it is not because of the footlocking itself, but that their 2:1 system is the issue.
Most guy just wouldn't know this unless they had footlocked on a 1:1 system as comparison.

The easiest way to do this comparison is on a dual ascender. Clamp the ascender on the twin line. Footlock up a couple strides footlocking the dual lines. This is a 1:1 system. Now stop. Isolate one of the two lines coming out of the dual ascender, follow it down, now footlock that one and that one alone. The other side will stay anchored and not move, and this is a 2:1 system. Try one, then try the other, the difference is immediate and very noticable, like, why would anyone do the 2:1? But if you've never done a twin line 1:1 you can suffer in the agony of 2:1 and never even know there's a way that's twice as efficient.

It's kinda hard to get it across in words. You have to see for yourself. It starts with just knowing that there are two doubled-rope techniques and SRT. Three. Most are only aware of two, and are afraid to move up to SRT. They are therefore sentenced to a career of 2:1 ascent and that sucks because tree work can be so much fun when you can dominate ascents with such ease, you'll be like, Tree Machine, thank you, man.

I only share because I care.

Climbing old school on a blakes is a good technique to Know but you are going to want to move on to some type of split tail system pretty quick. You're climbing on what is called a closed system. A split tail/prussic/eye to eye is the way to go. Allows you to incorporate a dynamic system where you just unclip a carabiner and throw the running end of your line around different tie in points. Much faster and easier than having to untie and retie a blakes hitch every time you need to change TIP's. This will also reduce the need for redirects, although redirects come in very handy for positioning as Tree Machine has mentioned.

Search is your friend here. Lots of good info if you know the right key words to search for.

Tree Climber's Companion. Buy it, read it, live it.

Split tail is old school innovation on old school method. It is still 2:1. no matter how many dog leashes, micropulleys and friction savers you throw at it.

Footlocking up a traditional setup and going up something with a split tail is identical. They are both a 2:1 setup with all the inherent problems.


The lesson has always been, start with a system that is difficult, move up to something equally as difficult, but with more pieces so you can unclip from yourself instead of untie. I remember when the split tail came out. Everyone thought it was the craze. It was the same 2:1 system. Did the traditional system suck so bad that a tiny improvement to an otherwise unchanged system created a sort of new evolution in climbing method?.

Well, it did. And it still is. Except now we have high-tech tress cords, magnetic block friction savers and VT's and variants of VT's.
But guess what? It's still 2:1 and if you're having problems footlocking its because the 2:1 system + sit-back losses from your saddle. The inherent losses and inefficiencies makes ascending a real time-consuming, motion intensive effort. This is not my opinion. Anyone can experience the difference of 1:1 vs 2:1, but one has top first realize that the difference exists.

I'm going to exit now. I've had this rant a couple times a year for the last decade. I'm not wanting to crusade this, I just feel it important to paint a clear picture with accurate information so that guys who are trying to footlock don't feel it's something wrong with them, their method, or with their boots. It's just that a 2:1 closed system. You're not ascending so much as hoisting yourself. 2:1 is an advantage if you're hoisting a load, not if you ARE the load.

The most efficient way to ascend a 2:1 system is to do it upside-down, with your feet releasing the hitch and pull, pull, pull. You have no slack tending, which is, at the heart of it all, the very worst part of 2:1 climbing.. Pulling rope. And pulling rope. And pulling rope.


You guys know what I mean.

In a 2:1 system, the physics are that you have a 'mechanical advantage', and that is stated in the classical sense of ropes and pulleys and no assumed friction. Remember 7th grade science? We weren't paying attention, but they were teaching us this stuff. These are the bare basic fundamentals of motion.

In a 2:1 you are creating a big, elongated loop, that you slowly close as you are attached to the bottom of the loop. Pull enough rope through that split-tail hitch, and you WILL eventually close that loop. By the time you get to your 50 foot destination, you will have pulled 100 feet of rope. Welcome to 2:1 'mechanical advantage' LOL. Half the weight hoisted, twice the number of half-pull motions.

Ahh, I see myself horizontal, feet on the tree, facing upward, pulling, pulling, pulling, pulling, baby-stepping my way up. I can pull ~ 2 feet of rope at one try, but I only gain 1 foot in altitude. I am being robbed of 1/2 of my intended motions. WTF

What else do we do to overcome the inefficiencies of 2:1? Air hump. That's real professional and slow. Rock back, pull rope, hold rope with one hand, advance hitch with the other, sit upright, repeat. Yea, and over your career you get to do that a half a million times, fun.

Forget about footlocking. 2:1 and saddle sitback losses mean somewhat more than twice the motion is needed to get you up there. The 2:1 system is geared backwards for footlocking.

Now there are many good climbers, there are great climbers, and they all use 2:1 systems, because that's all our profession has ever had since the beginning of time. They endure the inherent losses and inefficiencies. They tend as much slack as the next guy. They just have learned how to pull rope faster. And 2:1 ascent for them sucks just as bad as it does for you. Footlocking, they get 50% or less efficiency, just like you.


I see a trend of climbers ascending mechanically 1:1, (because the word is getting out) and descending on friction hitch, 2:1 like they're used to You flipline in once you are to the top and during your short rest, change over. The 1:1 ascent means.... this is important, worthy of a drumroll..... 1:1 ascent means no more slack tending! WhaT? (earth shakes)


Yes, no slack tending. No pulling rope. No closed-loop system. No getting robbed of half of your effort. No hoisting yourself. No rope moving, thus no friction saver because no friction at the tie-in, period, just you moving on the rope, and on the tree. It is amazing how much more tree climbing and tree care you can do when you eliminate rope pulling & slack tending. And when you attempt to advance that two feet, you get the two feet. That's what I'm trying to share. Just the scientific fundamentals of these climbing systems. I'm not making it up, and I'm certainly not the first to say it.

On top of all I've shared above, you should check out this thread. It's sort of typical of the 2:1/friction hitch learning curve to be at this place at some time or another.

Well said TM...!

Let's guide the newbie through his evolution from old school to newer school...

Would you not say however, that in the absence of someone to show and teach SRT...working his way from the closed system to a split tail blakes, then on to the better hitches with slack tenders would be a safe way for him to progress?
Or am I stuck in the fact that 2:1 was how I was taught...would a newbie who was shown 1:1 from the very beginning have no problem with the technique (all things being equal as far as ability)

Thanks for all the help, and info guys. I would love to learn a SRT, ill just have to do some research when I have the time. The split tail thing though, I've actually thought about that, not realizing it was an actual method. Now that you have informed me of this, I'm sure its going to help out a ton already. Also setting the the line as high as possible will be possible for me with a split tail. I didn't before, because I couldn't figure out, how i would get past branches that are below my TIP, between the two ropes. Also, I have that book (little white one) and, I've, for the most part, read through it. I've went over everything that relates to my method of climbing, am I missing something in the book though?


The only question I have now is the same as Bermie, should I learn on a DdRT, and move "up" to a SRT?

also, what are some of these slack tending hitches?

I really appreciate all the help.

Bermie said:

Well said TM...!

Would you not say however, that in the absence of someone to show and teach SRT...working his way from the closed system to a split tail blakes, then on to the better hitches with slack tenders would be a safe way for him to progress?

Click to expand...

No, not really. I would start someone on the easiest there. Make the ability to learn footlocking easy. Get some confidence going and skip this long, painful learning curve. Start easy, THEN go to a 2:1 closed-loop system and see how hard it is to ascend with and how difficult footlocking will be, then you will probably want to come back to 1:1 DbRT. Why? because 1:1 twin ascent is joyously easy.

So why doesn't everybody do it?

Bermie said:

Or am I stuck in the fact that 2:1 was how I was taught...would a newbie who was shown 1:1 from the very beginning have no problem with the technique (all things being equal as far as ability)

Click to expand...

Bingo. We learn a certain way, get comfortable with it, may or may not be aware of the limitations the system places on us and we climb the way we're taught. We modify however we can to make it better, but still live within the constraints of the system. We climb, essentially, on the system everyone else around us climbs on. 2:1 DdRT

All the other climbing disciplines mock us.

I was never taught by a tree climber the DdRT technique. I forced myself to learn it a couple years in. I was just getting through the kleimheist, distal, blakes, french prussik phase when the split-tail method was announced. Then I went through all the hitches on split tail. I kept trying to find what I was doing wrong. I had been a pretty good early climber, now I am having all kinds of issues, and slack tending and rope feeding that wouldn't quit and friction that was sucking the life out of my climbs.

I only lasted a few seasons 2:1. I couldn't progress. It was like I was running in quicksand. So I went back to what I started with, a real rudimentary setup that I later learned is used by competitive arborists in footlock competitions; twin line ascent using only a prussik. I'd fly to the top, fashion a munter on the biggest steel triple lock available and figure out a tie-off. Crude, but effective. 1:1 DbRT at it's bare minimum, but I became a better climber, much faster with less motion, less slack tending and 100% control of the friction in one place, rather than two.

I wanted to continue the ease of 1:1 twin line ascent, but on prussik you can't stop and rest, or do tree work on the way up; the prussik will lock up. To control both sides of the twin line, it seemed that you would need an ascender on each side. I bought a left and right CMI, and mechanically configured them together through one common axel and riveted the bodies together. This is 15 or 16 years ago. I trashed them after much use, better than a year, then the plastic components on the ascenders broke and failed, so I retired them.

Then Kong came out with their dual. I climbed on those for like a decade. I kept going back to 2:1 now and then to see if there was something maybe that I was missing. Arboristsite was invented somewhere along the line and I got to glimpse more deeply into our professional community and who was using what, and why. ALL 2:1 DdRT, with a tiny, tiny smattering of SRT, much like today.

So Bermie, the answer to your question, we are all so dug into the 2:1 system that its simply hard to see outside of it. SRT seems like it's expensive and requires lots of rigging, but that's simply not true. Only the bravest, or so it is said, venture that direction. Whatever. You need a handled ascender to go up, and a friction controller to go down, that is all.

1:1 twin line is even simpler and easier than either DdRT or SRT; no rigging, no anchoring, no friction savers, no hitches, no tying, setting, dressing, weighting, redressing. No slack tending. No rope pulling. No hoisting yourself.
Just attach and go. Some of the dually redundant dual ascenders really let you skip over some of the hard stuff. You can always go back and learn a more difficult 2:1 method , but I would start easy. Dual ascenders are almost like cheating, but there is no form of cheating here, just getting into the canopy safely and with as little physical effort and motion as possible.

You still need to learn how to climb the tree, but I really think there's an advantage to learning an easy rope ascent method first. Let the climber then decide, afer experiencing both, how he (or she) wants to go.

Right now, as it is, you learn the hard way and can climb the rest of your career using essentially the same 2:1 system. I acknowledge the risk in saying this, that veterans of 20 or 30 years will not see eye-to-eye with me. They been climbing on a distel hitch for 27 years and it's always gotten them up and around the tree.

I have no argument against that.

would not bother teaching a begining climber 2:1. cant figure out how TM does his twin rope climbing but I am %100 SRT. SRT is not more gear intensive, it just all around makes more sense. To me anyway.

No secret, I use the dual ascenders. Downward adjustability / short descent is now an option on twin line, so I work off them until there is no more ascent to be done, then take 10 seconds and swap for a descent device that handles each side together, or independently.

I climb a lot of SRT, just leave one side of the dual unused. Same dual-sided descent piece can be used SRT, just leave one side unused.

Anchor one leg of the system to you, the other leg through one side of the descent piece, then you have 2:1 DdRT descent. The only thing I WON'T do is 2:1 ascent, I mean I can, but... so twin or SRT for going up, but twin is just plain easier. I've climbed both for many years, I'm pretty clear what works most effectively, and why. However, I'm a long way from knowing everything. Nor do I claim any expertise, what I use now may not be what I use 2 months from now. I'm always looking for better and will change in a heartbeat.

For all practical and functional purposes 1:1 twin and 1:1 SRT are incredibly similar in almost all respects. Learn one, the other will come very naturally.

I use what I use because it's so far the best system I have worked with that will allow the climber to exercise all three rope techniques, interchangably, often within the same climb. I use whichever technique is the most advantageous in the moment. This may be important only to me, I don't know. I just like mixing it up and exercising different rope techniques without having a gob of gear to do it with. It's really very minimal gear, given all the options it opens up, duals and a friction piece, caribiners.... that's about it.