joe into trees

Just to jump in here and say I hope all you guys from the old country can find a way to make it down for this.

 

We've run a few comps now using this format, and the reviews from competitors have been really positive.  It's fast, fun, and (believe it or not) actually a good spectator sport.  Plus the location we've managed to get access to is just awesome - river red gums are one of Australia's iconic trees.  And October in Australia is slightly more pleasant than October in the UK...

 

 

It's just like that here all the time in October.  Really, honest.  

Hi Mark, good to hear from you again. Do you mean, you're using SLWP for everything, so don't need a low-friction TIP, or that it's so easy to SRT to the top anyway to set your TIP if you're going to use MLWP?

 

First off, I think it's really good for SLWP anyway - use one side as a rescue line, the other as your WP line: you get the energy absorbing lanyard, the quick set from the ground w/ rescue line, easy to move TIPs etc.

 

Secondly, even with a quick SRT run to the top, I often prefer not to have to if I can avoid it. I am definitely older and lazier than I was, but I'm currently working in the tropics, where it's regularly 40 degrees and almost 100% humidity, so any energy saving is great.

 

Lastly, (and at risk of derailing the topic) I have yet to be convinced that SLWP is an improvement other than for specific problems. One of the things I've done quite regularly in the last few years, is run/host a climbing system comparison workshop, where we decide on metrics for comparison then break down a 'tree climbing problem' into its most basic steps - often the minor ergonomic / efficiency advantages possible through good use of a simple system. At its best, the workshop takes at least half a day to a full day, and is fully interactive, with different climbers demonstrating their solutions to the problem(s), and the group as a whole discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the solution. The results, of course, depend on the specific problem(s) you use to make the comparison, but it's not often in SLWP's favour, despite all the enthusiasm.

 

This argument has been done to death here and elsewhere online, however, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up again. I think forums are not the best place to have these discussions - in person with beer seems to work well! - and in any case that's a different topic. Just wanted to answer your question there...

Hi all

 

My first post on here in a long time. Hope you have all been well. Many apologies for the long wait between that video and these things hitting the market.

 

Just quickly, in reply to the many people who see this as too much fuss for not much gain: I've had one of these for a year now, and I mainly use it in the 'traditional' Rope Guide format, with the soft-eye SpliceAnchor sling. In that format, it is (in my opinion) the best low-friction TIP money can buy. The soft eye means it pulls out easily, but it still has the ART camming action, energy-absorbing lanyard, choking function, changeable parts etc etc.

 

However, when the right tree comes along - one with a good shot to the TIP, or the opportunity to start work low down without climbing all the way up there, it takes seconds to swap the device onto my old access line and install it from the ground. When set up like this, you get a rescue line and climbing line with a 1:1 load on the TIP all set up with one shot, plus it's almost impossible to get it stuck (I know I shouldn't say that... I will be punished for that comment the very next tree I climb), and it retrieves without dropping it. I would say I use it like this in approximately 1/3 of the trees I work in, most often in removals where I can start work from the ground up, or for any tree where I won't need to go to the top.

 

I know there are lots of ways to simulate this effect with in-line anchors and so forth, but this is the neatest way of doing it I've found. And it's quick, easy and safe as well. Way neater and less vulnerable than doing tree work tied off to a ground anchor, plus easy to change anchor points, go from tree to tree, etc etc. Lot of application for SLWP as well... though we didn't cover that much in the video.

Hi guys,

 

I'm just after some advice, in case any of you have run into this situation before.

 

Back in 2010 I came up with a different way of splicing the tether for an SRT system. Cobbled together with the Kong Futura and some other kit, this became the

. I wrote about it in this handout, then started making these kits for an Australian gear supplier and for my friends.

 

Now I find that Wesspur have brought out their own - quite frankly somewhat shoddy - knock-off version. I wrote to them to try and get them to - at least - attribute the design, and their first reply was fairly courteous:

 

Thanks for contacting us. I'm happy to discuss the matter further with you, and having learned that you were the originator, we would be happy to attribute the idea to you. I apologize if we have stepped on your toes - I am guessing that the proliferation of "Frog" climbing systems led the persons who put together our kit to believe that "MicroFrog" was a generic term.

 

We certainly would like to give credit where it is due, and we are open to suggestions for how you would like to move forward.

 

- Nathan Lough (Wesspur)

 

So far so good, right?

 

Unfortunately since then they have decided to completely ignore every single one of my emails, not even having the basic courtesy to send a reply.

 

So, long story over, any advice? Anyone been in this situation before and found a way to move forward? At the end of the day, it wasn't patented or anything - I mean, why bother, look at how the Faltheimer got ripped off by everyone - and it seems a shame to go down that road anyway. But is that the only answer?

SnakeTail, the solution to life!

 

Great quote. Works both ways - we could make another vid featuring 101 ways to commit suicide with a SnakeTail. Perhaps that would be harder to see the funny side of.

 

Anyway, for those of you with better things to do than watch me do cartwheels in drag (yeah right) we are working on a 'directors cut' which will be released on the ART Channel in the next week or so, covering only the legitimate uses without any of the extraneous crap.

 

Take care all

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvSAlOREe-8&list=UU2TSFy9wbZLR5jfeW6gWrGg&index=1]101 uses for the ART SnakeTail - YouTube[/ame]

 

Hi guys,

 

the video above is as the forum title suggests, an almost painfully long attempt to cover every possible use for ART's soon-to-be-released SnakeTail system. There are probably about 30 - 40 legit in-tree uses interspersed with some more creative attempts.

 

The system will be on sale soon - the only thing left to do is write the manual, which (given that the uses for the system include flagging down helicopters, bedroom play and cross-dressing) might take some time. We don't have a price yet.

 

If you've got a box of eggs and a tolerant girlfriend, you can use the friction loop as a target to practice the BigShot...

 

(I was going to put this in the video forum where it probably belongs, but then I figured that it was advertising new climbing kit so maybe it ought to be here? )

We broke a (nominally) 50t rope setup so I guess the strength loss must have been > 50%?

 

Unless of course our estimation of peak load is way off. Which it probably is.

 

Also: our reliance on using the elongation of the rope to slow the piece was negatively affected by our setup. 7-8m of elongation before break actually worked out at approx 3m by the time it was doubled and we lost possible elongation due to friction (between the log and the possible-extending section of cordage). Watching the vid, it looks like all of the possible elongation has taken place already by the moment of peak force (when the change in velocity of the snatched timber is highest - right when it broke in fact!).

Well, I'm pleased to report that Codz has added a healthy baby girl to his growing family...

 

Back on to the original video, however...

 

you only had one line in the video, that's what I'm going one.

 

Perhaps a more constructive way of having this discussion is, as RC0 suggests, to try and come up with better setups using the hardware available.

 

Obviously, if we wanted it to work, the simplest solution would be to take a smaller piece. Next up, use a bigger rope, or somehow get hold of a 40mm rigging block that we didn't mind throwing away afterward.

 

However, what we managed to source was:

120m of 40mm Aquatec 3-strand rope (approx 25t break, 7-8% elastic elongation at break)

1 90t shackle

10 40t shackles

we also had the usual 100m lengths of 12t (18mm) - 18t (20mm) dbl braid and matching pulleys.

 

The piece we snatched was a fraction under 5t, and the rigging point was at about 35m in height. There was a convenient stub right there (OK, we left it deliberately) on which to take a wrap for natural-crotch rigging.

 

Re. previous suggestions to double the rope - we didn't have enough to double through the entire system, and it wouldn't have worked well either - it was hard enough with one rope not to end up with rope-on-rope anywhere. RC0's suggestion (double rope and rig normally) might well have worked - we'd have run out of rope before the ground but we could have taken the hit on our 3-strand and joined it to the dbl-braid after we took wraps on the trees. We'd still have strength loss - 35% is the assumed loss for a clove hitch I believe - I wonder what the strength loss at our shackle ended up being? We broke a (nominally) 50t rope setup so I guess the strength loss must have been > 50%?

I'm sorry, but I've got to jump in and back Codza on this one. Right at the start of this thread, Stephen Blair and Scotspine called it as they saw it, and described us in some pretty unflattering terms. Looks like they saw the 3-strand rope, the natural crotching and the wraps on trees, and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Fair enough, and Codz has just been giving it back exactly as he got it. If they couldn't work out what was happening in that video, and why (even though it's at least half explained), that's nothing to be ashamed of, but jumping in and name calling, and then not apologising when you realise that you might have misunderestimated... (to use that classic Bushism)

 

However, your friends comments, a word did come to mind....starts with w, ends with r. Didn't say it but I thought it.

 

To me, that comment crosses the line. Not sure how you thought it would be productive. Everyone's entitled to their opinion I guess, and now this thread has been quite thoroughly derailed, so I reckon I'm going to leave this here.

Hey guys

 

There's no need for anyone to get worked up about this. No one likes being told they don't know what they're doing, so it's not surprising that comments like...

 

that rope was never gonna hold that timber, there would've been near 25 ton of weight as it hit the rigging, it fell a good 12 feet before it locked up then the rope snapped. Factor in weakening effect of the bend radius of the loaded rope as well and the 25 ton breaking strength is severely diminished.

 

As a workshop it was totally pointless as an advert for an arb equipment supplier it would make me doubt their judgement when it came to asking for advice re rigging.

 

It was a waste of a good opportunity to display some proper negative blocking using proper arb rigging gear.

 

or Mr Blair's input:

 

It just showed they didn't know what they were doing.

 

The minute I saw that big shackle I thought, there goes half their rope strength, and then tying it round all those trees ha ha!!

 

...will end up in argument. I try to be careful on here to avoid criticising other people's work, until I really understand why stuff has been done. In the comment above, you suggest that there was around 25ton weight as it took up. Leaving aside the fact we should be using force not weight, we were using doubled 25t rope so if you assume that we lost half strength for the bend radius we were still almost on the money... I still believe it was close. Guess you had to be there, see the aftermath and examine the gear. And it didn't 'fall about 12 feet' - the rope was installed fairly taut. What you see is the PLANNED extension in the rope (see my previous comments in response to Stephen Blair's misunderstanding). Obviously it didn't work - but a large group of experienced tree workers thought we had a fair shot at it.

 

Re. your later comments, however, it's hard not to be slightly offended. There are many reasons we set things up like that, not 'proper negative blocking using proper arb rigging gear' and I can explain all of them in excruciating detail.

 

It's interesting that most of the people who specialise in this sort of large tree work tend to end up ditching the 'proper arb rigging gear' and working with heavy 3-strand and natural crotching where possible. When I moved up to the hills I made the mistake of sneering at them - now I understand why they work like that. Just check out Graeme McMahon's videos on YouTube - there is a time and a place for shiny rigging pulleys and a time and a place for 40mm 3-strand! What we were demonstrating in this workshop - and one of the things I will be covering in my presentation to the Arb-Australia conference in April - is being able to recognise the difference between them.

 

RC0, I mentioned before that I kind of agreed with your criticism that it had little scientific or practical worth. A significant proportion of my work is removing trees like this as a contract climber - even if it hadn't taken us half a day to set up that snatch, you'd never do it on a job site. Surely, however, there is a place for having a crack at something like this when the (rare) opportunity presents itself?

 

Anyway, I'm not on here to make enemies, and to be honest I find these online disagreements kind of exhausting, except where they are backed up by reasoned argument, and result in some sort of worthwhile conclusion. So, again, apologies to anyone who didn't like the video, and we'll try to get it right next time.

Hi guys

 

Thanks for all the constructive criticism. I was planning to post this here - just been way too busy this last week - along with an explanation of the setup that might have answered some of the points raised.

 

Why the shackle?

 

Given the setup we were using (cradle rigging), and trying to minimise the drop distance, the pulley/shackle stood a good chance of being crushed between the falling log and the tree. 40mm rigging pulleys are too expensive for this purpose. In retrospect, we should have used 2 shackles to increase the bend radius.

 

Why cradle rigged?

 

It doubles the rope to the dropped log. Sure, we lost strength at the bend on the shackle, but probably still ended up better than a straight (single line) rig.

 

Why pay out loads of rope and wrap round trees?

 

No friction device exists (or is affordable) that could handle those loads. So, we paid out 100m of rope, and used the extension in the cordage (7-8% elastic elongation at break) to compensate for not being able to let it run. That part kind of worked - if you watch the video, the log (kind of) runs for a bit before the rope breaks.

 

what was the point?

 

We didn't achieve any breakthroughs in science or rigging, that's for sure. But it was fun, and interesting to talk about (ie, why we did everything the way we did, and what went wrong - covered in far more detail at the workshop than here online). Plus, we rarely get the opportunity to test stuff like this - if it can be dropped, it gets dropped, and if it has to be rigged, we make sure it works, as the man says.

 

I'm sorry some of you took this the wrong way. We were mainly playing, and the video was pretty firmly tongue-in-cheek. I guess that kind of humour is easy to miss online.

have you ever broken a stitched section when climbing? either on purpose or a slip? trying to get an idea how much a fall 4kn would be.

 

Hi Kevin

 

To be honest, I reckon you'd have to be doing something really badly to rip one out. The drop test in the video was our third or fourth attempt to cause a ripout - we started by dropping a 60kg log about 2 metres... then 4 metres... but the system had too many dynamic elements: we used a dynamic climbing rope running through a pulley suspended by a second rigging line, etc etc.

 

To get it to break, we had to use static line (which we should have done at the beginning) and drop a 120kg log quite a long way.

 

None of that is the remotest bit scientific (guessed log weight by Scott and me not being able to pick it up) but the conclusion I arrived at is that you'd never tear a section in day-to-day climbing: you'd pretty much have to break your TIP and fall onto a lower branch.

 

Yes, you're dead right about the RIG. Petzl say "one hand on lever and one on rope".

 

Adam, I guess you might be able to use knots instead of hardware, but I reckon you'd loose a lot of the benefit - not sure knots would slide along the line in the event of a fall... and if they did, it would probably be a bad thing?

 

OneLab, ART do make a similar product - the LightAnchor - which uses a ring that retrieves on the ART ball. Scott Forrest pointed out that the cambium saver setup would be better done by setting up the SnakeAnchor the other way round to how I did in the video, and retrieving it with a clip below the carabiner... if that makes sense? That way it's the ring which pulls out over the union, and you could use the retrieval ball?

[ame]

[/ame]

 

Hi guys, thought I'd post the link to a product video we've been making. Do you guys use the SnakeAnchor much? How have you found it?

 

It'd be good to hear any reviews or criticism.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAheIiPFbOM&list=UU2TSFy9wbZLR5jfeW6gWrGg&index=1&feature=plcp]climbing the biggest eucalypt in the world - YouTube[/ame]

 

The tree is an enormous Eucalyptus regnans in the upper Florentine Valley, Tasmania. Although it's a mere 87m in height, it has an intact crown from about 35m or so, and twin leaders with a vast canopy spread. It is also the largest (by volume) eucalypt ever measured - and may be the largest angiosperm in the world.

 

Canopy scientists Prof. Steve Sillett and Dr. Bob van Pelt (and team, most of whom managed to avoid the camera!) are engaged in an ambitious, long term project to study how giant trees grow and change over time. Here, they were carefully preparing an exact 3D map of the entire canopy of this vast and beautiful tree.

 

Hope you enjoy the movie...

I am expressing frustration that you have not seen a fast smooth work climb srt. Thats all.

 

Kevin, if that's really all then let's leave this here. You are not going to convince me about how smooth SRWP is by arguing about the Rope Wrench approval process, and this is not the venue for it either. Let's agree to disagree for the moment, post a video in a new thread, send me a link, and I'll come and eat my serve of humble pie.

 

Moggy, hey bro. Congrats on all your recent comps - hear you're doing very well indeed. I liked the Sam Cooper vid as well. It reminds me of a newsreel video of superman or of UFOs: if you squint real hard you occasionally see what might be movement in the tree...

 

...is it a bird? No!

 

...is it a plane? No!

 

...is it... SRWPERMAN?? YES!!

 

Time for another fancy-dress comp maybe?

Guess I misunderstood then, sorry. I thought by comments like [we] "look at any comp without SRT and say "yeah well asterix"" that you were in some way discounting the results from the recent ITCC. If all you meant is that you didn't learn anything from the top climbers from around the world who took part, and you found it boring, then most of my previous post was completely irrelevant.

 

I wonder if the OP has got lost in all this discussion between SWRP and DDRT and is wondering if it was worth posting in the first place.

 

Dead right, and I'd leave it here - most threads on arborist forums around the world are already filled with moaning about the RW not being approved, which is all that this has turned out to be.

 

I used to be on the Technical Advisory Committee; I left after qualifying to climb at the last ITCC, as I thought it would be a conflict of interest to continue to have oversight on competitors' techniques. Whilst I sat on that committee, it would have been inappropriate to have engaged in this relentless online bickering - although to be honest it feels futile now. However, it does mean that I know that the reason the RW was not allowed at the recent ITCC was not due to fears about it being a bad influence or any rubbish like that. Insufficient test data was submitted by the closing date for consideration - Kevin, you and I both know that, regardless of how you choose to represent it elsewhere.

 

Yes, there is an argument that no technical oversight need take place. As a competition organiser, I have seen home-made (ie, hand-sewn) 'Grizzly' splices, the wrong splices in cordage, as well as a huge variety of incorrect gear assemblies and equipment. At the ITCC level, there was more concern about cutting-edge configurations and systems - things exactly like the RW, or (previously) the f8-revolver - which might be assembled by very competent climbers, who nevertheless suffer from the tendency of creative, focused inventors to overlook things which they see as tangential to their creations. As such, a committee was assembled, composed of people deemed expert in these topics, from ISA chapters aroud the world. For me, sitting on that committee meant monthly conference calls, often between 6am - 8am, which (as a contract climber) as you can imagine was extremely difficult. The reading material and 'homework' for these calls took up valuable time from the rest of my life, in addition to other volunteer commitments.

 

Kevin, you finally bothered to submit some moderately complete test data after the closing date for consideration, and you are blaming the committee for not approving the RW?? I salute you for the innovation of the rope wrench - it is a brilliant idea, and looks to change the face of climbing, one way or another - but I can't help but feel that your continual, ongoing efforts to drag down everyone with oversight on the approval process is not a pleasant sight. By the time you include the various committees, the TAC and other persons involved along the way, you have upwards of 20 internationally respected climbers and experts, who - based on the data submitted by the cutoff date - arrived at a consensus decision to not approve the RW for the 2012 ITCC.

 

Option 1: All of these people are ignorant, cut-off-from-the-real-world 'suits', whose vested interests and pie-grubbied fingers prevented them from making the right decision

 

Option 2: Not enough test data was submitted

 

A small group of very vocal people have done a great job on the various online forums of convincing themselves - and probably lots of other climbers along with them - that Option 1 is the case. I've reached the point where I'm getting a bit sick of letting them get away with that convenient fiction - especially knowing that a committee of smart, engaged, talented climbers and technicians - who volunteer their time when other people are just sitting around posting on forums - are having their names dragged through the mud over this.

 

But yes, Taupotreeman, we've wandered a long way from the original post, back into overly familiar territory. I generally stay well away from these debates (same old people with the same old comments every time) but it gets a bit much when you can't even express an opinion - in an SJ thread - without it ending up in an argument about RW approval at the ITCC.

 

Kevin, I'm sorry you're not going to be in Toronto. There's a very high chance I won't be either though, so it makes a lot more sense to make a video than to rely on meeting up! Plus, that way everyone gets to watch it. I watched your video of Sam Cooper's work climb but unfortunately, other than the video description below the clip, it was impossible to work out what was happening at all. I wasn't even sure if there was a climber in shot for most of the video! Maybe something a little bit clearer than that?

Kevin, there's no need to get so worked up. After all,

 

I havent seen a video ever though of any work climb that did it any justice.

 

surely that's just what Matt and I said? I'm fairly sure that making such a video would be a deal easier than me flying to Charlotte. Skip, thank you for jumping in to protect Kevin, but I'm sure he can look after himself. Compared to the comprehensive character assassination carried out on the volunteer members of the Technical Advisory Committee, I'm playing very nice.

 

As for this issue about SRWP not being allowed at the ITCC, which this thread (like so many before) seems to have been digressed into.... perhaps we should start by reminding ourselves that in fact SRWP WAS allowed at the ITCC - Jared Abrojena won the aerial rescue very nicely on his Rig.

 

I find it hard to answer all of your different posts Kevin. Some of your points

(set up by ddrt climbers)

are really interesting, and are going to be even more so in the future, when techs have the option of setting up a work climb which 'favours' DdRT or one which 'favours' SRWP.

 

But some of the things you say

All these comps going on right now without srt dont mean a danged thing.

are almost not worth replying to. No tree climbing competition can tell you who the best climber is - as an experienced competitor you know this already. I know (from working with him) that Scott Forrest is a better climber than me. Finishing ahead of him in this last comp makes no difference to that. The ISA/ITCC format competitions feature events (speed climb, footlock) which have nothing to do with how I climb for work, and the comp has nothing like spur-climbing or rigging at all. All the competition can do is tell you who did best on that particular day, in those particular trees, with those particular judges... and according to those particular rules. (At the end of the day, as you know, the last ITCC prelims were decided almost completely by the throwline.) If I designed a tree climbing comp from scratch, it might look completely different, and have completely different winners.

 

So, if you want to take part in ISA/ITCC comps, those are the rules you play by. One of those rules is that, as of the last couple of years, a committee of experts assembled from around the world has oversight on equipment and techniques. Maybe you would have beaten Beddes if the RW had been allowed (for your sake, after all this online whinging, I really hope that the comps are all won by SRWP climbers once the RW/HH etc are approved!) or maybe not, but it wasn't and that's the end of the story in terms of history. It's no different to someone saying that they would have done better if there wasn't a footlock or if the throwline was only 20 points. It's a shame that, instead of having fun and playing nice, and taking part in the competition on those terms, you have spent your time undercutting the value of the competition and the character of its organisers.

 

Anyway, back to the point in hand. I touched off this minor tempest by commenting (in an SJ thread) that I wasn't sold on SRWP, and hadn't seen what I would describe as a smooth, continuous SRWP work climb. I understand what you're saying - that I might have done if the RW had been allowed at the ITCC - and you may well be right. To really convince me, the climb (or video of a climb) would have to feature those elements which SRWP (in my experience at least) struggles with: really tricky limb-walks, and repeated short ascents.

 

You're welcome to take part in the upcoming Victorian TCC Kevin, if you fancy the trip over. When is Charlotte?

All these comps going on right now without srt dont mean a danged thing.

 

Seriously Kevin?

 

To be honest, I feel a bit like someone with a magic lamp. All I've gotta do is say the slightest disparaging thing about SRWP, no matter how careful I am to point out that it's just my opinion, and KAPOW! Kevin Bingham appears. Kevin, I don't think I've mentioned SRWP anywhere, on any forum, without you replying within three or four posts. Hats off to your dedication!

 

Yes, I know, I haven't spent the required 6 months of training on SRWP, plus my vested interests get in the way of my thinking straight, and sometimes I lie awake at night terrified that there's an SRWP climber under the bed... but maybe I also have a little point in there somewhere?

 

Imagine a climber with two branches to go out on and weight reduce before carrying on through the tree. Both are long and skinny: challenging branch walks, and the one he's standing on is 2m lower than the other.

 

There are a myriad ways to do this, but at heart, SRWP offers a choice between doing the branch walks by installing a 3:1 (or whatever) at some point (energy efficient; discontinuous, reduces flow) or not (smooth but not energy efficient when coming in at the tips). Equally, the 2m ascent can be done with ascenders/pantin/footlocking etc (to various degrees energy efficient but discontinuous) or without (much harder work than DdRT.)

 

(Sure someone will point out that you can install a redirect in the top branch and do the lower one off that... yes... then you've got to pull out the redirect before carrying on through the tree)

 

These are not controversial points, nor hard to understand. Are we not allowed to criticize SRWP at all? I find it hard to believe that it is faster, smoother, more energy efficient, more continuous, has no problems at all and may also be the solution to world hunger and global warming. Cynical I know.

 

This started off as an SJ thread. As you guys may know, I'm an SJ fan, but I'd be the first to admit to some of the drawbacks, and I have regularly stated that the SJ is not for everyone, nor for every style of climbing. What's so surprising about saying the same thing about SRWP?

 

I've been to comps where a significant proportion of climbers were on SRWP, and I look forward to more in the future. I'm quite confident that more and more devices and techniques will meet with approval and become part of the competition scene. Kevin, I think I would find what you said easier to believe if it were more balanced: at the last ITCC masters, depending on the order one did the tree, one station would have been much easier on SRWP (no need to install a midline), one or two about the same, and one more difficult (tricky plumb-bob without 3:1 or similar), plus the possible issue with moving high points whilst leaving a rescue line, depending on how you did it. Surely that is as clear to you as it is to me? And some work climbs would really suit SRWP, some not so much, some definitely suit DdRT. I've been to two comps where SRWP was allowed... and neither the work climb nor the masters were won on it. This proves nothing, just like stories about other comps where the opposite was true.

 

As for the fluency and smoothness thing... like Matt said, how hard is it to post a video?

Thanks guys for the compliments, even when we're disagreeing!

 

It's funny how SRWP climbers think that people who aren't keen, must not have tried it. I've climbed on the Unicender and the Rope Wrench - I've even had a crack at a competition work climb on the wrench. I understand how they work: I'm not speaking from complete ignorance here. I get the advantages of ascending SRT as well - you guys may have seen this.

 

So, why am I still on DdRT? Is it just because I'm a stuck-in the mud, traditional, old-school climber?

 

SirNick2, you mention having seen the Spiderjackery videos. That kind of tree - and that kind of climbing - is a big part of the reason why I love this job. You could get round that tree - and visit those stations - just fine on SRWP. I'd even believe that it might just about be possible to get as fast... though I'm tempted to think not. But the various ascents would have to be done on-rope (unless you're prepared to do even more work with your arms, and you're built like PopEye) instead of on-tree, which means attaching hardware.

 

Continuity, for me, means working through that tree, and many like it, without having to dick about with my system. Yes, I almost always do major ascents on SRT, back up the access line, which stays in all of the time in most trees. Yes, this means adding hardware, and is discontinuous. Yes, it takes longer than SRT-ing up a SRWP line. In general, I find that the advantages of continuity and 'flow' with DdRT outweigh the disadvantages... but that's only a personal opinion, and evey climber has their own style.

 

One of these days, someone's going to post a video of a super-smooth SRWP work-climb (or play climb), and make it look so flowing and easy that I'll have to eat my hat... If I do, I'll be sure to post a video of that as well!

Hey Kane,

 

If you've got the Dyneema kit, then as Sirnick2 says, an Ultra-o works great for the lower carabiner - just use a good corner trap or similar to stop the SJ and metal ring migrating around the corner of the 'biner.

 

I'm using an oval Petzl ball-lock turned upside down as my lower carabiner.

 

And in my opinion, as far as SRWP goes... don't believe the hype. It has it's place, and in the right tree (when compared with unassisted body-thrusting, which is hardly a fair comparison) is certainly a huge energy-saver, but I've yet to say anyone climbing SRWP achieve the fluency and continuity that is possible with DdRT. Just my opinion - the next ten years will be the judge - but I see SRWP much more as one piece of kit in a climber's toolbag, rather than the answer to every tree. We shall see.

 

Joe

ARTs answer: No

 

My answer: works pretty dam well.

 

I might jump in at the deep end in this discussion. As Ian says, it works, but there are a whole load more issues than this when regulating 'what is allowed' in a comp.

 

(1) The RW is tagged 'not for life support', which is based on the assumption that, at any point, you could cut the tether and things would be OK. If you cut through the tether whilst doing a fast descent with your LJ in the open position, you'd start travelling very fast - even faster than the same situation with a hitch. How long it took you to work out that you needed to let go of the handle would determine whether you took a nasty jolt, cut through your line, or went all the way to the ground. Track record from hitch-on-a-static-line accidents in arb, caving and rescue indicates that people usually don't talk themselves into letting go before they hit the deck.

 

So, based on (1), you might allow it if the RW tether was bomb-proof, and the whole system was treated as a complete, integral work-positioning system, with the RW part of your life support system.

 

(2) Regardless of CE numbers or any other regulatory code, the LJ has not been tested for SRT, and is not approved for that configuration by the manufacturer. If there was an accident at a competition, I would not want to be the guy who gave it the thumbs up, but I really would not want to be the guy hoping for some sort of compensation or support (or, in the worst case, insurance payout) when I couldn't climb for a few months. Or more.

 

Sure, this is also true of hitches: I mean, we have a load of text saying we're not allowed to work position using hitches on a static (ie, not-running) line, so the default position following RW failure would be the same there, but at least it's less black-and-white, and the RW or tether would have to fail before you were completely exposed.

 

If you can talk the tech into letting you do it, good for you, but I'd say be careful. Take a look at the Kong ring accident in the US: the ring was used exactly as intended, and there was already an enormous battle to get any recognition or recompense. Would be even more complicated if you were doing something completely outside the manufacturer's recommendations.

 

Anyway, sorry to be a killjoy, and good luck at the competition Jake.

 

Joe

Just wondering what the difference are between the older version and the 2.1 are?

So, every new iteration of Spiderjack operates on exactly the same principle, and almost all of the parts are completely interchangeable. I'm currently climbing on a miscegenated mongrel of an SJ, with parts from the SJ1, SJ2 and the body from the SJ2.1... plus the new mods...

 

SJ2 went black, and replaced the old four-bolt system with the new side-plate held in by just two bolts.

 

SJ2.1 added the replaceable pin, low down on the device... the top SJ in the pic above is an SJ2.1, you can see the pin at the bottom left of the device.

 

Ps think my problem is putting the old cam back in instead of the new one..possibly

 

Go team!

Hey guys,

 

I know that it's sometimes difficult to decide which part of the phone book to advertise in; to help y'all out I have prepared this handy quiz. Please click on the image below to open the PDF. Curious to know how you all score...

 

 

Cheers,

 

Joe

Oh you've started something now Harris, I hope you feel bad when the bones start snapping!!

 

Me? All I did was suggest that a real man isn't afraid to go hurtling into the ground at a horrific speed. Surely that is a founding principle of modern arboriculture? In fact I can prove, scientificallally, that impact velocity is directly proportional to testicular volume.

 

Chicks dig blisters.

A doubled line descent has to burn through twice as much rope as the SRT set up.

 

Hi Kev, guys,

 

That got me thinking for most of the day: Kev's dead right of course but I think it’s only half of the story. I haven’t seen anyone do a fast, long descent with a RW or unicender (I know you can go quickly with a figure-8) so I’m speaking from ignorance a bit, but I do know that with the SJ you can get something so close to free-fall as to make almost no difference. The limiting factor is only your body’s instinctive fear of rapid falling and the potential for a sudden (bone-shaking) stop.

 

Nevertheless, this imaginary race-to-the-ground brings up all sorts of interesting points about DdRT in relation to SRT climbing.

 

Straight fall

 

First off, if you imagine that there’s no risk of a sudden stop, and the climbers are just racing straight into the ground as fast as possible, it just comes down to who can get the necessary amount of cordage through their system quick enough, which is in turn decided by who can get the least amount of friction in the system. The maths of coefficients of friction are really complicated when it comes to climbing systems, as most are multiple relationships which are affected by how much weight the climber has in each part of the system. In a (theoretical) situation where a climber had his SJ fully opened with no use of the block, there would be next-to-no force on the running (prussic) side of the line. Consequently, the friction at the pulley would be very low. To test how this works, try pulling down on a line running over a high-quality pulley – almost no resistance. Now try hoisting a lighter climber into the air when he’s hooked up to one end of that line, and you’re pulling down on the other – almost impossible, usually takes a couple of people.

 

Net resistance for the SJ climber: very small amount of friction over pulley. For the two hitch climbers (one on SRT and one on DdRT) everything comes down to how much they are able to get their hitches to lose all contact with the line. Assuming that there is even a small amount of contact, everything changes a lot. As Kev points out, the DdRT climber has to get 2 metres of rope through his system for every metre that the SRT climber does, but if there’s no contact at all this doesn’t matter, and it just comes down to a question of whether there is more friction in a pulley (with no weight on one side of the rope) or a rope wrench... with the climber’s full weight on it. In this case, I would guess that the RW would slow the guy down more, and the DdRT climber would hit the ground first.

 

The truth is however that you can’t get a hitch completely free of the rope. This friction, however slight, reduces the friction of the RW but increases the friction at the DdRT pulley... and the two metres of rope running through the DdRT climber’s hitch for every metre of descent starts to become a problem. In both cases, I think the relationship follows half of a proportional sine curve, however in the case of the RW the relationship of friction-at-hitch to friction-at-RW would be inversely proportional, within limits.

 

Result of all this, is that I think that with properly configured systems, set up as if you were going to keep climbing, but then racing (from say 15 metres) straight into the ground, the SJ climber ought to deck out first.

 

The easy way to run this race, if we give the hitches the benefit of the doubt and say that it's possible to open them up so well that there's no contact with the line at all, would be to take two 80kg weights up a tree, tie one to a rope running through a pulley, and one to a RW with no prussik attached. If you drop them both, which would hit first?

 

Controlled fall

 

The really interesting bit is that you just can’t make yourself fall that fast. I’m curious to try, maybe with a dynamic belay line and using dynamic rope or a series of energy-absorbers at the high point. The important race is really one in which each climber has to bring themselves smoothly down to the ground. This is where I reckon that a lot of the current discussion on the forces/speeds of SRT climbing really fall short. In DdRT, at rest, half of your weight is on the spliced/termination side of the line, and only half is on your friction adjustor. As you ‘open up’ the adjustor (and descend) the net weight supported by the system is decreased... up to the point where you are falling, and there is almost no weight on your high point. (I would be very interested to be able to work out whether it is ever possible to get more than half of your weight onto the spliced side of the line whilst descending... does anyone know?) The force applied here is proportional to the friction between the adjustor and the line, with the upper limit of 50% of your weight (multiplied by any shock force) and the lower limit defined by how little friction you can achieve between the adjustor and the line.

 

In SRT climbing, the friction adjustor (whether that is a figure-8, unicender, RW-and-hitch etc) has to deal with 100% of your weight. The force applied is still proportional to the friction between the adjustor and the line, with the upper limit of 100% of your weight (again, x any shock loading) and the lower limit defined by how little friction you can get between the adjustor and the line.

 

(OK, I’m cheating by using weight as a force, but it’s easier and this is complicated enough)

 

A lot of the internet discussion of SRT vs DdRT seems to miss the fact that, although twice as much rope is passing through the DdRT adjustor, the force being applied to it (which in turn affects friction) is halved. To check this out, try ‘loosening’ the klemheist on a footlock prussic, then dropping it down a line. Once in a while, it falls all the way to the bottom. Try it again with a weight on it (no, not a climber... they do all sorts of things like scream and grab at the line which make for bad science) and it will bite much more quickly.

 

In a controlled fall, all of the climbers are trying to apply a steady amount of friction, enough to keep them at a speed where if they are suddenly brought up short (twist in the rope, fingers slip off the adjustor) the resulting stop won’t be too brutal... and they are also trying to avoid the heat-destruction of their hands, cordage or devices! The SRT climber has to let 15 metres of rope through his device, but that device is experiencing the full load of the climber. In the case of a figure-8, this works fine, and you can go zipping down then come to a neat stop, and (so long as you get the thing off your rope before it burns through!) there’s no harm done. So, in this race, my money would probably be on the guy using the figure-8.

 

Between the other ones, I really don’t know. I would guess that the friction taken by the metal of the RW would probably mean that the RW climber could save his hitch much better than the DdRT hitch climber, and that he could therefore get down quicker, all other things being equal. Rope passing over a pulley, under tension, from the prussic to the spliced side of the line as the climber descended would benefit from the coefficient of friction at the pulley, but the faster the climber went the less this would be.

 

My guess would be that the finishing order in this race would be determined more by how reckless the climbers in question were than anything else, but if you assume that all of the climbers were able to really ‘open up’ their gear, then the limiting factor would be collateral heat-damage to the equipment rather than anything else.

 

I look forward to the videos of this competition, but do be careful!