Negative rigging friction location

[AHPP]

A hot take for a Sunday afternoon: Why not put the portawrap at the cut?
 

Pros:

Climber can control it, either immediately or after the catch. 
You save an expensive pulley/ring/thimble/safebloc. 
You only need half the length of fat rope. You could alternate ends. It wouldn’t hockle. 
Your top strop only needs to be half as strong.
Climber can set the friction (pro and con - he’s probably choosing the piece size but he can’t see it in as good context as groundsman - he can still ask for an opinion though).

Rigger can be anywhere. 
 

Cons:

A tiny bit more weight for the climber to manipulate.

MUCH less rope in the system to absorb shock. A pro when you want to catch a piece dead though. As long as you’re mindful of how big the piece is. 
 

Aware not a new argument but have we thought about it recently? I’m seeing more pros than cons. 

 

 

 

 

[Mark J]

27 minutes ago, AHPP said:

A hot take for a Sunday afternoon: Why not put the portawrap at the cut?
 

Pros:

Climber can control it, either immediately or after the catch. 
You save an expensive pulley/ring/thimble/safebloc. 
You only need half the length of fat rope. You could alternate ends. It wouldn’t hockle. 
Your top strop only needs to be half as strong.
Climber can set the friction (pro and con - he’s probably choosing the piece size but he can’t see it in as good context as groundsman - he can still ask for an opinion though).

Rigger can be anywhere. 
 

Cons:

A tiny bit more weight for the climber to manipulate.

MUCH less rope in the system to absorb shock. A pro when you want to catch a piece dead though. As long as you’re mindful of how big the piece is. 
 

Aware not a new argument but have we thought about it recently? I’m seeing more pros than cons. 

 

 

 

 

Could do it. 

Things like this do the same job but more expensive: 

I preferred to have a groundie who could run lines when I climbed commercially.  
 

Edited 6 hours ago by Mark J

[Mick Dempsey]

Seems like negative rigging is too dynamic a situation to have the climber in charge of the descent of the piece, if you’re talking about chunking down sections of trunk.

 

I am a big fan of the climber doing the lowering in many circumstances, however that would not be one of them.

[AHPP]

Broadly concur. Groundsman can still do it. It’s just the device is next to the climber rather than next to him. 

[Rich Rule]

There is a lot to do.

 

Whilst I agree in a lot of the pro’s.  The biggest con for me and the reason it isn’t more widely used as a technique.

 

eg.  Too dangerous.

 

A top is going to fly the rigging is connected.  You are in the vinegar strokes of the back cut, it started to go or trips a bit early.  You have to apply chain breakl, stow the saw wherever, all the time racing the clock as the top goes over.  Grabbing a rope and then commencing to try and lower it smoothly and not shock loading the tree.

 

I believe it is doable at a push and only experience would make it a smooth operation.

 

As for getting it tested and approved for commercial use in the industry.  I believe there would be too many factors and the HSE would be against it being used.

 

Not that people wouldn’t use it.

 

So that leads to the question, what would be the point in R and D, manufacturing and production if you are barely going to sell any units?