OK.....Let's Get Into The Meat Of SRT !!!!

[rahtreelimbs]

Carl, you ought to give DbRT a good try, just as I should give SRT a try! You may find DbRT not as limiting!

 

[Tree Machine]

...just my opinion here....

I always isolate a limb, regardless. That's a lot of the fun of setting a rope, or I guess at that point, it's a lot of the fun of working the shot line and bag.

Yes, the Kong ascender has a LOT of miles on it. Over 5 years of miles and it has never, ever failed. I've only recently begun backing it up with conviction

Yes, it's easier than tress cords because today, for the first time in my life, I actually used one up in the tree. I guess, technically, I wasn't 'using' it, but rather had it there to back up my pieces. I'm not even sure what I tied. I can now see some of the limitations, as well as benefits, first-hand.

Other benefits to SRT?? That would be comparing it to traditional DdRT. I don't use that system, so I'm not a really good person to ask.

SRT, in and of itself; isolated friction (just your device and the rope, no friction on the tree involved), ability to use conventional descenders, one line in front of your face instead of two. Less 'stuff' to deal with. VERY easy to learn the basic fundamentals. Expanding your climbing horizons beyond the norm. Purity.

I don't know. I still work off a doubled rope sometimes, even when I'm set up for SRT - add slack to the standing end, clip into the parallel lines and go. Being fluid between the systems, I think gives you more overall technical benefit than just doing 100% SRT. -TM-

 

[treehugger01]

How about when using DRT in place of a 3 wrap prusik buy that petzl device Tobe has. I rember thinking years about I would like to weld to shunts together to replace the prusik, petzl now has one.
How does it work? Any use the double rope shunt for accending in place of the 3 wrap prusik?
Great thread learning much thank you for your big kohuntas!
heh

 

[Lumberjack]

Re: ...just my opinion here....

Originally posted by Tree Machine
I don't know. I still work off a doubled rope sometimes, even when I'm set up for SRT - add slack to the standing end, clip into the parallel lines and go. Being fluid between the systems, I think gives you more overall technical benefit than just doing 100% SRT. -TM-

That is what I have been saying about the RADS.

Carl

 

[Lumberjack]

Originally posted by treehugger01
How about when using DRT in place of a 3 wrap prusik buy that petzl device Tobe has. I rember thinking years about I would like to weld to shunts together to replace the prusik, petzl now has one.
How does it work? Any use the double rope shunt for accending in place of the 3 wrap prusik?
Great thread learning much thank you for your big kohuntas!
heh

I guess you are talking about the footlocker? It would be as smooth as a regular ascender and easier to advance than a prusik.

Carl

 

[Tree Machine]

Ascenders and grabs

Technically the Petzl Footlocker is an ascender, but it might be better classified as a rope grab. Actually, a double rope grab with which you are able to ascend a doubled rope. The Petzl footlocker is slightly less smooth in that it's a bit more involved to on / off than a regular handled ascender.

The Footlocker is simply a microcender X 2. It's not actually two microcenders affixed to one another, but rather it's own unit that functions identically as if it were two microcenders.

The microcender, I think, has found it's greatest popularity on fliplines and lanyards. The main negative with regards to either of these devices is the removable spring pin, the complaint being that if it were accidentally disengaged, the axel pin could work it's way out and drop you like a hot potato. This can be overridden by replacing the axel pin with a bolt and a nylon insert lock nut. This makes the piece rather permanently installed, and putting it on and off a rope would involve tools and time. Either way, to put these devices on a rope (other than feeding the rope's ends through) requires the axel pin to be physically removed, allowing the cam to seperate from the shell (hence the reason for the little wire cable to keep the cam from falling to the ground.

Removing, inserting, replacing makes these less efficient than a handled ascender, which is like, Bam! and you're on.

Another difference is the contact face of the cams. On the microcender (and footlocker) the cam face has perpendicular ridges, whereas the Kong, CMI and Petzl handled ascenders have a toothed face; many say this could damage your ropes. After many hundreds of personal experiences with these ascenders, I say this is crap information, with the possible exception of a hard shock load.

Getting back to your idea, treehugger01, about welding two microcenders together, I did that 8 years ago with two CMI ascenders (a left and a right-handed), by pulling the cam pivot pin out, being real careful not to let the cam dislodge and have the spring pop. Insert a same-diameter bolt, twice the length of the pin you just removed. Repeat on the second ascender handle and put on a nylon insert lock nut. Then the bottom of the paired ascender handles needs to have a small hole drilled through them and a rivet installed. The dual handled ascender is now ready to go to work. It is identical now to the current mar-bar ascenders, only without the bar.

Problem with the CMI ascenders is there is a plastic cam-stay whose pivot will break. I've had this happen twice. This is a very dangerous situation as the rope can now easily come out of the shell. The Petzl ascender also has plastic parts, but seems much better designed and more durable, and I've never had one of these break. The Kong is an all-metal design. When I bought them 5 years ago at a TCI Expo, they told me I was one of the first to use dual-handled ascenders in the arborist industry. I pulled the CMI pair out of my backpack and told them I was into my third year with them. There was nothing I could offer them in way of improving their design, as they had totally hit the doggie on the noodle. Their design was impressive and I bought two sets. I still have one set, still unused.

The only improvement they've made since then is that they added glow-in-the-dark handles. IMHO, the Kongs are the safest, most effective dual handle ascender on the market. -TM-

 

[Lumberjack]

TM, or others. I got a question about footlocking. Is it easier to FL up a DRT than a SRT? I can FL up SRT, but I perfer to use the Pantin, and haven't tried to FL up DRT. I was just wondering.


Carl

 

[Tree Machine]

It depends; If you are footlocking DdRT in a conventional sense, the working end of the rope is attached to you. The rope goes up, over your TIP, and the standing end goes to the ground. In footlocking up, your feet are footlocking a single rope, even though there is a doubled rope at your hands and face level (did I get that right? I don't have personal experience with that, only seen it done). Using a Pantin on the single rope is cool if you're not so inclined to footlock it. However, if you use a Pantin, I think it would be next to impossible to footlock without completely disengaging the piece. For the Pantin to work most effectively, the rope below you needs to be tensioned, either by a groundie pulling it, or tying on your chainsaw to keep the rope straight and tight - unless you use stiff static rope, then that's less of an issue.

That would make conventional DdRT almost identical to footlocking SRT, except for the speed with which you go up (SRT being faster).

If you're ascending up a doubled rope, where both ends are on the ground, the Pantin is not an option, and footlocking, I find just a hair easier since there's two ropes to grab with your feet, rather than the one, which requires a little tighter, more concentrated foot grip on the rope.

The photo attached is my wife's vertical caving rig, basically an EZ in / EZ out foot harness attached above to a Petzl ascender; this is for SRT only. The upper ascender here is not shown, just the lower part of the unit. -TM-

 

[Lumberjack]

I was talking about DRT (Double Rope Technique). I know that DbRT is easier because you are only doin half your weight. I kinda figured that DRT would be easier for the reasons you stated.

Thanks
Carl

 

[rahtreelimbs]

Once I set my rope, in the crotch I plan to work from or not, I tie my VT and either body thrust or footlock the tail. The micropulley will auto-advance the hitch on the footlock. On a body thrust I have someone on the ground belay/tend my hitch. In my mind this is one advantage of the way that I do DbRT. I use the same setup for everything. I don't have anything to change out!

 

[Lumberjack]

True, you don't have to change out. I am working (thinking) about how to be able to FL under the i'D. However one big drawback (IMO, no offense) is it is half as fast.


Carl

 

[rahtreelimbs]

Super speed on an entry into a tree is something that I don't concern myself with! On a decent length footlock or body thrust I wind up taking a break on the way up anyhow. I can make up the small time lost by being efficent on my work in the tree. No need to get winded before you even start the work!

 

[Tree Machine]

Lumberjack, Double Rope Technique, designated DbRT, means you are using two ropes. DdRT means doubled rope technique, using one rope, though going up using the two parallel lines.

There is conventional DdRT (doubled rope technique) which looks like image 1, and as described above just before "did I get that right?".

The other way, also DdRT, is described in the second-to-last sentence of my response above, and shown in the second image below. Don't confuse double rope technique with doubled rope technique. It IS possible to employ both these techniques at once. -TM-

 

[Lumberjack]

I didn't want to confuse the question by saying DbRT, because that would lead me to think about the trad setup were only one end of the rope reaches the ground. That was the reason I said DRT, that way it would be clear that both ends (of 2 different ropes) would be touching the ground.

 

[Tree Machine]

We need to get the nomenclature straightened out

both ends (of 2 different ropes) would be touching the ground.

You mean both ends of the same rope, yes? Both ends of two different ropes = 4 ends.

I'm not bashing you. This is a confusing point, since doubled rope technique can happen in two distinct and different ways. -TM-

 

[Lumberjack]

Re: We need to get the nomenclature straightened out

Originally posted by Tree Machine
You mean both ends of the same rope, yes? Both ends of two different ropes = 4 ends.

I'm not bashing you. This is a confusing point, since doubled rope technique can happen in two distinct and different ways. -TM-

No no no. You answered my ? with your 1st response.

I was refering to 1 rope, doubled over a limb, with both ends touching the ground, or a secure FL. I didn't want to say DbRT because that would lead most people to think about FL the tail (the 2:1 setup).

Anyways, I know the difference of the 2, I just didn't know how to portray what I was saying.

Get it know?

Guess I over thought.


Carl

 

[rahtreelimbs]

Just to clear my end up. What I was referring to on my two last posts was the traditional DRT with the left end clipped to the saddle and the other side operated by the climbing hitch. One end on the ground.

 

[rahtreelimbs]

Carl, what are you referring to when you state: the 2:1 setup?

 

[Lumberjack]

Originally posted by Rich Hoffman
Carl, what are you referring to when you state: the 2:1 setup?

Your setup, DbRT. SRT setup is 1:1.

2:1 on left, 1:1 on right.

 

[rahtreelimbs]

Carl, are you thinking 2:1.......... like a gear ratio of sorts?