new climbing styles vs. old

[Tree Machine]

So hanging on hitch/ not moving is Zer0 Fall Forces; so Friction Forces must equal Gravity Forces.

Yup.

The duality of equal/ opposites assures balance in all things (physically and philosophically). The 1st physicists, were the philosophers; as 1 body of knowledge!

They were a lot of times the mathmaticians, too. An appllying the strictest, most precise methods available to quantify and measure everything in the physical world and beyond, they came under one classifying name category of professionals known as scientists.

The philosophers, as Spidey points out, were the standout dudes of their time. They had already DONE something so important as to warrant them the respect of being atop their culture's intellectual packing order. If the Philosopher had come up through the ranks of education and basically aces everything, at some point the 'thinker' must go beyond what is known and learn about the unknown.

Whatever new the scientist learns, it is shared with fellow scientists and scientists in the greater scientific community for review. If the new knowledge is beneficial to many, that information is moved to wider audiences. Transfer of knowledge defines 'teaching'. Scientists, by definition then, are teachers.


This may seem long-winded, and slightly off-topic, but it does apply to us, I've just forgotten how at the moment how.

 

[Tree Machine]

Oh, OUR main dude scientist. In the case of CLIMBING, our main dude scientist is not Dr. Alex Shigo. Tell em about Sir Isaac Newton, Schpidey.

 

[SRT-Tech]

The imbalance betwixt gravity forces and friction is motion; or:
Gravity Forces = Friction Forces + Fall Forces.

So hanging on hitch/ not moving is Zer0 Fall Forces; so Friction Forces must equal Gravity Forces.

The duality of equal/ opposites assures balance in all things (physically and philosophically). The 1st physicists, were the philosophers; as 1 body of knowledge!

Orrrr something like that; okay, okay....:taped:

pass the Advil...i gots me a migraine.......

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Hey SRT,

In time you'll understand Spydey-speak It makes sense once you program your tricorder

Being called an Old School Climber doesn't have a negative connotation but I question the definition. When I ascend I rarely use anything but SRT, one of three different systems depending on access height. At times I'll work the whole tree using SRT techniques. How is a tautline tied? When was the last time I used anything but a cord or mechanical device for a friction hitch, not the tail of my rope.

There are plenty of definitions of Old/New or Trad/Progressive but none are agreed upon. Being open to new ideas and techniques is a pivot point for me. At least consider the progression of our craft. We've all seen car mechanics that have fallen by the wayside because they stopped learning about their craft when carbs became electronically controlled.

 

[Tree Machine]

There is that nostalgia factor. I still use the distal just because it is a cool hitch and should be part of our repertoir. It can be used in this simple personal rigging scenario; an old school method used to set up a new school 11 mm SRT.

When I ascend I rarely use anything but SRT, one of three different systems depending on access height. At times I'll work the whole tree using SRT techniques. How is a tautline tied?

And I use ONLY SRT techniques; static line whether SRT or DRT, the rope is treated essentially the same, so swapping between single or double rope is instantaneous and requires no gear changeover. It goes more according to your mood, do you feel like climbing single or double. How was the bigshot? Poor trace?, go SRT. Good overall parallel rope set, go double. New school can decide in the moment on which, for whatever reason. Which will serve you best, given your conditions?

When was the last time I used anything but a cord or mechanical device for a friction hitch, not the tail of my rope.

You're describing a 2:1 splittail system, against a 2:1 use-the-tail-of-your-rope. That is old school against old school. Throw in a VT hitch and all asoorted accessories and you still have a fancied-up 2:1, friction in two places old school system.

2:1 systems also define old school. Again, friction is at the center of it. 2:1 is how it's been done for at least since the beginning of time. It's the next natural step above a Prussik, but 2:1 systems, for whatever advantage(s) they serve are obliterated by the fact that they are 2:1 mechanical advantage systems. I call it mechanical disadvantage.


In 2:1 systems you create a dynamic state with the rope: the rope you're on is in motion, moving over top a limb, and moving through the hitch. Friction is in two places, both somewhat inconsistent to each other depending on conditions, climber weight, texture of the bark at the tie-in point. THen we get into the wear and tear on the rope, and the ethicalness of whether or not to use a friction saver or a cambium saver and we don't have to go into the heaviness and bulkiness of 13 mm lines.

2:1 systems are archaic. They are living fossils. If there should be a clear line of distinction between schools it should be the 99.9% 2:1's to the .1% one-to-oners. Or call it if you like, dynamic system v. static system. New school climbs on 1:1. From purely the standpoint of physics, 1:1 systems require so much less energy overall.

 

[Bakes5]

99.9999999999% of all climbing arborists are climbing 'old school'.

Can you even have 99.9999999999% That would mean there would have to be about 1,000,000,000,000 (Roughly translated...a thousand billion) climbing arborists out there (only one of which would be climbing new school)

You probably mean 99.9999% which is still probably a little high if you really think about it


Don't bother responding...I'm just messin

Later

Bakes

 

[SRT-Tech]

^ ah the heck with it...ima taking my vacation at the advil factory.....:hmm3grin2orange:

 

[Tom Dunlap]

TM,

Help me understand your New/Old split...

Would this be right...?

Old is anyone climbing on a traditional, DdRT system? No matter what the configuration is?

New is then SRT...?

If that's correct then I think that the number of New climbers is statistically insignificant.

BTW...when I climb trad I use a brand new Rope Guide, Blaze, distal using HRC, custom slack tender and have my Pantin on 95% of the time. Pretty complicated kit for an old school climber

 

[moss]

Hey SRT,

In time you'll understand Spydey-speak It makes sense once you program your tricorder

We're lucky to have TreeSpyder tapping into the outer (or inner) spheres of load physics and knot dynamics and bringing it to the light of day.

Just to add to the old school vs. new school conundrum you also have minimalist vs. maximalist. Get's complicated, have to start using charts and diagrams to map it all out.

I'm waiting for a revival movement of the pre-old school climbing techniques, kind of like the Civil War reenactment people.
-moss

 

[Tree Machine]

...when I climb trad I use a brand new Rope Guide, Blaze, distal using HRC, custom slack tender and have my Pantin on 95% of the time. Pretty complicated kit for an old school climber

I would say, yes, that is grossly overcomplicated, as well as being a 2:1 system. Why do 'progressive' climbers steer toward making things more complicated than they need to be? The poor noobs have such a hard time with these old school systems.

I will tell you why.

Because they're difficult, not difficult to learn, but difficult to use. You work within the limitations of the system and you get used to it and it becomes 'normal'. But normal is only normal within our ranks. It's not 'wrong' in any way, just harder than it has to be.

A 2:1 system makes it harder to footlock, for two reasons. These are physical reasons, not something I am making up.

First, on a 2:1, your feet are dealing with a single rope, even though we term it a doubled rope method. Single rope is harder to footlock than a doubled line, not so much for the experienced dude, well, actually is just is. Beginner or veteran, footlocking a single line is harder, and even more so the thinner the line gets. Otherwise Tommy wouldn't be needing a foot ascender (pantin).

Second is the 2:1 mechanical disadvantage. If you were hoisting a piano up the side of a building to a third floor window, a 2:1 system might work well for you. Or purely for a climber's descent, gravity itself helps overcome the 2:1 workings. But ascending on 2:1 ??? How innately frustrating is this? You full two meters of line past your feet and have ascended ONE METER. You spend twice the motion to get the same distance as a 1:1 system. Personally, I can't see how this is even acceptable. Adding in a critical friction note, your friction hitch is designed to create friction. It doesn't care if you're going up or down. Friction on the way up ADDS RESISTANCE, making the effects of gravity that much more difficut to work against. Just a little friction on a 2:1 on the way up and your ascent is misery. Advanced climbers know and understand this so they modify and tune their hitches, seek out new hi-tech fiber tress cords and split tails and modify the hitches with pulleys and slack tenders and dog clips and you diminish the friction somewhat on the way up, but you're still on a 2:1 system.


Please, someone, call me crazy if something here is not adding up.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

You're crazy... You and I are on different roads. Please don't take this reply as a rant or an attack. I'd rather discuss our different paths.

*I would say, yes, that is grossly overcomplicated, as well as being a 2:1 system.

No more than using this medium to communicate rather than snail mail to communicate. Each works but would we even consider having this discussion via snail mail?

Why do you consider it 'grossly overcomplicated'? Many of the climbers at the ITCC used similar, or more complicated, systems. This past year I saw many climbers using similar systems in chapter TCC. Even though we only see the climbers from the tip of the iceberg [compared to a complete view of the climbers in the industry] at comps, those climbers seem to be the ones dedicated to climbing as a life and choose to make that as easy on their bodies as possible.

*Why do 'progressive' climbers steer toward making things more complicated than they need to be?

Define 'need'...

*The poor noobs have such a hard time with these old school systems.

Noobs as in new climbers? I've taught people to climb and integrated higher performance tools along the way. No one learns by using natural crotch climbing or not using a split tail. I have taught people to enter climbing a few steps from the most basic techniques. They understand the simplicity of basic rope climbing without having to start their education there. Instead of having to unlearn how to ride a bike with training wheels my Dad worked right next to me for a little while and I could ride a bike by myself.

...*but difficult to use.

Define difficult...remember, incremental teaching. Walking stairs is difficult for an infant but not you and I.


*But normal is only normal within our ranks.

We are talking to fellow arbos not 'civilians' right? Right now I'm watching a show on TV about wrecking buildings. Three brothers who operate wrecking balls to smash buildings are knocking an apple off the top of a traffic cone. The ball weighs 13 tons. They did it but that's not normal for me

*First, on a 2:1, your feet are dealing with a single rope, even though we term it a doubled rope method.

You're missing the nomenclature. A traditional climbing system is DdRT or Doubled Rope Technique since the climbing rope is 'doubled' or draped over the limb. There is an active thread discussing nomenclature on t r e e b u z z

Jepson calls what you're describing 'footlocking the tail' I believe.

*Single rope is harder to footlock than a doubled line

At first...but I've seen climbers make the transition to SRT and the learning curve is short and shallow. In a very short time they are FLing SRT as good as they did previously on a doubled rope.

*Otherwise Tommy [who are you talking down to?] wouldn't be needing a foot ascender (pantin).

If you're talking to me...I wear the P[antin] to make my life easier and not to wear out my joints. Using the P to ascend takes much less energy but the most important reason is that I use the P so that I limit the amount of time that I have to footlock. FLing is not a good ergonmically. The way that it puts stresses on most of the joints in the body will catch up to people over time. It already has for some of the climbers that I know who have been FLing for years. Talk with a physical therapist or better yet, have them look at how you ascend a rope by FLing and see what they say. The ones that I've talked with have all rolled their eyes and suggested that I make an appointment with them to start rehab.

*Second is the 2:1 mechanical disadvantage.

I only footlock the tail of my rope for short, in-tree, ascents. By planning my climbing route carefully I can descend via a 'controlled fall' instead of having too much yo yo climbing.

*Please, someone, call me crazy if something here is not adding up.

We need to climb together some time so that we understand each other's system better. Do you think that I use DdRT for my primary ascent? That would be seriously old school. Do I climb without using some kind of false crotch? Occasionally, if that's the best means at the moment.

A while ago another poster on one of the arbo forums defined old/new trad/progressive. They said that a progressive, my term, has a full, up to date, complement of skills and techniques. They pick the best for each scenario.

 

[Ryan Cafferky]

Very well said Tom.

Versatility and open mindedness is the best way to stay at the forefront of this business. Knowing how to use the newest techniques and when to actually use them is the key to being a "new school" climber.

There are times when the true SRT system works well and there are times when it doesn't. I would like to see the system you are using so we all can learn it and put it in our bag of tricks.

My SRT system for decending is usually a Gri gri but occasionally I will use an I'D. They are both wonderful for that because they can easily switch from down to up but I don't feel they are the most efficient for every tree.

 

[xtremetrees]

If you consider yourself "new school" you are throwballing every removal you do. Thats high speed technique. Hooa! safety pratice as well.

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

i think that just by its definition, progressive techniques are a subjective and timely set of strategies. What is new, in one part of the globe, is old in another, what works for one- is hard for another, what is new to an individual his neighbor has been writing about for 5+ years; what is new and progressive today, will be the building blocks of what is new and progressive tomorrow etc. i've always looked to mountain/rescue for 40 year old, tried and true strategies for brand knew tree strategies, myself.

Progressive is cutting edge, leading into the unknown; generally by feel and heart; knowing there must be a better place; than the present plateau. What one man, or group adds to the pile constituting that present plateau in their passing; not the end statemeant of finality to the science. But some other's beginning, as they have now been handed the relay baton.

In total; Height of climb X 1xWeight of climber = height of climb x 2 x climber's weight/2; same amount of work units; but friction adding some to the second total(there is no perpetual motion machine; thus every force exchange must incur the cost of a force loss). But, that might be best choice, depending on other variables; like power range of climber, distance that power must be exerted/ maintained over, rope stretch SRT; harder to stay inline/ unleveraged in SRT etc. vs. amount of friction.



As to crossing philosophy to physics; each is just trying to understand the Nature of things. Our imagery of wise olde martial art monks contains this also i think; understanding philosophy through motion and back again. Same as early philosophers and physicists being the same person. Positive/ Negative Charges, Male/ Female sexes, Yin/Yang philosophies etc. all in their fields being the duality of equal and opposites expressed in physics promising balance in all.

i've quipped before that with trees being the largest, stiffest, tallest, heaviest, but elastic; with long lives etc.; that the first physicists must have done tree werk. Tom came back about Newton and the apple; Sir Isaac Newton being the the most influential physicist ever, whose discoveries are what we base all machines on(from 5 base machines trading manipulations of distance and force); and Einstein followed well. Sir Francis Bacon that i quote in sig, probably the first quotable as we know it.

 

[Climb020]

Tree Machine, it isn't that mine or other climbers systems are over complicated it is just that we are use to it and others that don't understand think it is complicated. Anything that you don't know is complicated wouldn't it be? Maybe you can change complicated to safe. I have hurd of guys, as well as myself, that will backk up their back up.

I climbed today a little old school and I couldn't stand it. I needed 2 tie in points and only have 1 prussik cord on me for my VT so I had to use the tail from my rope to make a blakes. I kept trying to do it with one hand but I didn't have a slack tender. What a PITA. I feel sorry for the guys that climb old school. Half of the guys I have worked with I have gotten to change into newer climbing knots and such. They see that in their older age they would rather doing it as easy as possible.

Would love to get a bunch of guys/gals that climb old and new school and see what can be learned from both.

Also for those that rec. climb like myself and Tom what style do you use? The reason I ask is cause they are just doing it for fun so the less work the do the more fun it will be. So most likely they found what works the best just on climbing. Well I will give one vote for new school.

 

[Tree Machine]

*I would say, yes, that is grossly overcomplicated, as well as being a 2:1 system.

You're crazy... You and I are on different roads.

No more than using this medium to communicate rather than snail mail to communicate. Each works but would we even consider having this discussion via snail mail?

I know. We could talk about the bike with training wheels vs the 21 speed mountain bike and a LOT of other analogies.

Why do you consider it 'grossly overcomplicated'? Many of the climbers at the ITCC used similar, or more complicated, systems. This past year I saw many climbers using similar systems in chapter TCC. At comps, those climbers seem to be the ones dedicated to climbing as a life and choose to make that as easy on their bodies as possible.

I'm all about that last part. All about it. Why do I see your system as grossly overcomplicated?

Originally Posted by Tom Dunlap
"...when I climb trad I use a brand new Rope Guide, Blaze, distal using HRC, custom slack tender and have my Pantin on 95% of the time."

TM: Grossly overcomplicated because of the rope guide, the distal and the Pantin. In STATIC rope systems, the rope doesn't pass over anything. It just sits on top and doesn't move. It puts downward pressure, but there is essentially no friction. No friction, no really TRUE need for a rope guide and the extra steps in dealing with setting that. Pantin complicates as it is needed more to keep weight off your distal so it won't bind down, and the DISTAL because it thoroughly sucks on SRT, is not fit for Static doubled DRT and binds rather hard if you decide to take a rest on rope during your ascent (which should be done as needed and without reserve).

*Why do 'progressive' climbers steer toward making things more complicated than they need to be?

Originally Posted by Tom Dunlap: Define 'need'...

TM: Seems like a need. 12 years of watching the tree climber community with intent and seeing systems become more complicated in attempting to make things easier.

TM *The poor noobs have such a hard time with these old school systems.

Tom: Noobs as in new climbers?

TM: Yes

Tom: I've taught people to climb and integrated higher performance tools along the way. No one learns by using natural crotch climbing or not using a split tail.

TM: Old school methods. Not saying anything bad about them. Not using natural crotch methods? I'll bet you've somehow complicated that process.

Tom: I have taught people to enter climbing a few steps from the most basic techniques. They understand the simplicity of basic rope climbing without having to start their education there.

But you are teching them 2:1 systems with friction in two distinct and different zones, even on ascent??? With Pantin?

TM: ...*but difficult to use.

Originally Posted by Tom Dunlap: Define difficult...remember, incremental teaching. Walking stairs is difficult for an infant but not you and I.

TM: Another opportunity for endless analogies. Difficult compared to using simple, metal devices, like ascenders and a basic piece with which to control friction. The overall friction hitch thing is just more difficult, I know these systems BOTH, and use both when the solution calls for it. But friction hitches during ascent... , the last time I did that was in '96 as a demo to a group in showing how many 'normal' arborists do it. To actually ascend and climb on that sort of system throws too many limitations and obstacles. The stuff 'normal' arborists climb on is something I would use as a last resort, or 2:1 on descent only.


TM: *But normal is only normal within our ranks.

Originally Posted by Tom Dunlap: We are talking to fellow arbos not 'civilians' right?

Yes, I'm specifically talking about arborists, treemen, treeguys, Tree Surgeons, tree climbers and professional climbers having come from an Arborist / tree climbing background. Any other aerial discipline does not use friction hitches, nor footlocking.

TM: *First, on a 2:1, your feet are dealing with a single rope, even though we term it a doubled rope method.

Originally Posted by Tom Dunlap:Jepson calls what you're describing 'footlocking the tail' I believe.

TM: Yes, that is what I'm describing. Footlocking the tail, a doubled rope system where only one of the two ropes passes your feet. This is true of the traditional DRT system. However, I ascend up a doubled rope notably different; both ends of the line are on the ground. Which then is the tail? Are they both tails? Is there a different name for it if you're footlocking and both lengths of rope beneath you are identical in length and staying that way?


Originally Posted by Tom Dunlap: You're missing the nomenclature. A traditional climbing system is DdRT or Doubled Rope Technique since the climbing rope is 'doubled' or draped over the limb. There is an active thread discussing nomenclature on t r e e b u z z

TM: I'll have to stop in. Traditional doubled rope technique as you post above, DdRT is where the rope is draped over the limb or crotch. Well DbRT (a static system) is non traditional and the rope is also draped over the limb.


TM: *Single rope is harder to footlock than a doubled line.

Originally Posted by Tom Dunlap: At first...but I've seen climbers make the transition to SRT and the learning curve is short and shallow. In a very short time they are FLing SRT as good as they did previously on a doubled rope.


TM: I agree. And footlocking a single rope or a doubled rope should be interchangable and done with ease. A skilled climber will know and be able to practice both. However, a doubled rope passing between through a pair of footlocking feet is just easier. There's rope on rope friction and twice as much rope on boot friction; much easier to learn on. For pro's, as you imply, it doesn't really make much difference. Depends mostly on footwear at that point.

 

[Tree Machine]

continued...

TM: *Otherwise you wouldn't be needing a foot ascender (pantin).

Tom: ...I wear the P[antin] to make my life easier and not to wear out my joints. Using the P to ascend takes much less energy but the most important reason is that I use the P so that I limit the amount of time that I have to footlock. FLing is not a good ergonmically. The way that it puts stresses on most of the joints in the body will catch up to people over time. It already has for some of the climbers that I know who have been FLing for years. Talk with a physical therapist or better yet, have them look at how you ascend a rope by FLing and see what they say.

TM: I had 16 weeks of physical therapy last year from an injury having nothing to do with climbing, however the resultant broken leg could affect my tree ascents for the rest of my life. Months later, one of my first jobs was for (you guessed it) my physical therapist. We had talked long and strong in therapy over those initial weeks about footlocking and he was there to witness the first ascents. This was an area of great concern, but there was no problem whatsoever, nor is there now (thankfully). Why? because, as you say Tom, you want to spend as little time footlocking as possible.

TM *Second is the 2:1 mechanical disadvantage.

TM: Which means you get to spend twice as much time footlocking upward to get to the same point. This is the point entirely. The Pantin is simply there to keep you from having a 'miss' and losing your momentum and weighting and binding your hitch. It achieves the SAME END RESULT as footlocking, it just does it in a different manner. You can stand on the pantin to rest instead of sitting back in your harness and resting properly. Tom, you understand the dynamics. I'm surprised you're defending it.

Tom: I only footlock the tail of my rope for short, in-tree, ascents. By planning my climbing route carefully I can descend via a 'controlled fall' instead of having too much yo yo climbing.

TM; Me too, as well as probably most of us.

*Please, someone, call me crazy if something here is not adding up.

We need to climb together some time so that we understand each other's system better. Do you think that I use DdRT for my primary ascent? That would be seriously old school. Do I climb without using some kind of false crotch? Occasionally, if that's the best means at the moment.

TM: Tom, I understand your system(s) and rope guides and friction savers and hitches, pantins, split tails, pulleys, slack tending and all the other 2:1 accesories, extras, to make a comparatively difficult system more complex. I've been keeping an eye on these arbo systems (And caving, rock climbing, military, firefighting and S.W.A.T.) for a long time. In fact, you're closer than most anyone I know to truly climbing new school, but you keep falling back on the hitch system and 2:1 methods even though I know you've used every new hi-priced device out there. It's because thats how most (arbo's) are approaching things so that's where we gravitate toward. Nothing wrong with this. It's just that if we're looking for a simpler, more straight-forward system, the means already exist. It's breaking out of the 2:1, friction-in-two-places, mindset.

Originally Posted by Tom Dunlap: A while ago another poster on one of the arbo forums defined old/new trad/progressive. They said that a progressive, my term, has a full, up to date, complement of skills and techniques.

TM: Full and up to date could then mean if even a small group has what they consider full and 'up to date', all the rest of the arbo climbing community, without those full and up-to-date methods then is not progressive?

I think we all use a blend. But just because I'm not setting an access line and running my lifeline off the access line, does that mean I'm still in the dark ages?? I do study what's out there and I keep coming back to "Why do they make it more and more complicated? A noob would look at some of these 'progressive' entry sytems and the complexity would boggle the mind. They will shake their heads and go back to their trusted Blakes or Distal because it was what they learned, what they know, what they're comfortable with. That is OK. Old school is tried and true, trusty and comfy. But that comes with intrinsic limitations.


My bottom line is, there are systems out there that are simpler, just as safe, as easy to learn, easier to use, less complicated, more boiled down, less parts, less steps in the process. Doesn't have to be ergonomicaly incorrect. Can be much more swift.

I'd love to climb with you, Tom, but you'll need to show me progressive techniques in 1:1 methods for me to be at all impressed. Show me some ways of handling friction I haven't seen. I come to TCIA shows. I watch climbing videos. I visit the forum sites and enter into discussion. I occasionally watch local tree climbers climb. I'm always open to seeing a better way. The split tail was innovative when it came about, as well as the VT but little else has happened in 2:1 methods since, and even less in SRT, though I applaud your work, and the others who've contributed to the tide of SRT. Special commending goes to those who've tried SRT with a friction hitch; to this I say 'old school SRT'. It may be possible, but why even go there? Why make it harder than it has to be?

 

[Tree Machine]

TreeCo, I am a small fish in a puddle. I'm nobody. I don't mingle with other tree guys here locally. I just do my work. The only arborist community I know is online here and in Europe.


But as far as the bigger pond, yea. It exists. Some fish are bigger or faster than others, but they all pretty much swim in the same school.



I am really appreciating that no one is taking my contributions here as criticisms toward traditional tree climbing. I've been carrying this stuff around for a long time. Years ago at Arboristsite this conversation would get shot down because climbers so vehemently and passionately defended their hitch systems. It was almost like I was an outsider trying to infiltrate and pollute some sacred space. I would just shut up and go back to work.

Now, at least, there seems to be some willingness to at least listen. That in and of itself is progressive in my book. You don't need to climb with methods used by other aerial disciplines, but it does help to understand them.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

All right...it's taken some typing but we have things defined and clear now.

It seems like your split for new/old is SRT or DdRT. Is that true? If so, then I can see how you feel like close to no one is 'new'.

Personally, when I ascend I use SRT. The Frog system is my current fav. In some trees I leave the chest ascender and Pantin on for the whole climb. The handle ascender w/foot loop get stashed.

I've spent some time trying to find a hitch that will work for ascent and descent on SRT. This is a challenge. After using a number of hitches with different cords I've come to the conclusion that another road needs traveling.

To get the right friction/slide characteristics there will either be a tool that resembles the Unicender [google it....] or a combination of rope and hardware. Something along the lines of these examples:

http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/VerticalHome.shtml

FWIW...if I teach students who will go out into the industry they start using a FC from Day 1. They use a split tail with an closed friction hitch. After a while I go backwards and teach them how to climb with only a rope, no snap or biner to attach to their saddle. Very little time is spent here, this is more a look back but don't stare sort of lesson. They do need to know how to climb if all they have is a rope.

If I've had an employee who will only climb with me I start them on SRT ascent then switch to DdRT for descent/work. When we work together I have the luxury of setting up the teachable moments.

 

[046]

Tom, could you kindly post pictures of your current setup? SRT and double

Treemachine, could you kindly post picture of your current SRT system?

I highly respect both of your opinions...

Thanks for sharing,