Loler UK

You'd guess wrong. The lines used for rigging in arb are 100% polyester and are not really designed with dynamic loading in mind, Polydyne is the most absorbing with it's nylon core but nylon looses strength when wet and the stretch leads to so much sag during normal rigging operations that it can graze/ take out fences. As far as pre tensioning lines that will be shock loaded this is a big NO NO, the split second for which they are unloaded does not give them time to recover, a minimum of 3 mins and preferably longer should be left between subjecting lines to high dynamic loads like when snatching etc. a 'hand tight' vector pull is all that's needed: pull your wraps hand tinght, then 'strum' the line pulling it out 90 degrees from it's direction of travel and work your new tension around the bollard as you pay it back in, this method can achieve a 3:1 MA when done effectively, in theory it could achieve far more but the reality doesn't let us see the true physics at work. A Manufacturer that shall remain nameless once ruched a set of tests for BSEN1891 not giving the rope the full 3 mins recovery time that it was aloud for the dynamic performance test, confident it wouldn't require the full recovery time only to find the cell read over 6KN, oop's (the first drop on virgin line will have only generated 2-3KN, the forces really do increase rapidly when not enough time is given to dynamic recovery)

£65/ kit for an initial examination and £46 for a repeat examination, kit limit's do apply but are relatively generous

I live in Dursley and can get out to you this week if you like? Will be doing several lolers in the cheltenham area next week too

It is the scaffold knot (single fisherman's is another knot entirely not to be confused with this) Tail length is hotly disputed by some, I, like Martyn will fail anything below 2x so advise people to tie, dress then use both arms to set the knot by standing on wraps of the opposite/ a sling attached to the opposite end, once this process is completed i advise people to have a minimum of 3 diameters so there is a little wiggle/ interpretation room. I must stress this is the guidance i give out for the tail length on double fisherman's and scaffold knots tied with class 1 fibre cordage, appropriate lengths for other knots and cordage may vary

none any time soon, we struggle to run the advanced rigging course in the UK, we need a minimum of 6 participants and cost is £160+vat/ participant. It's easier for us to find sufficient interest to run this sort of course abroad where there is more demand even though the cost has to be increased to cover flights etc. Marc is right, it should be kept simple, see the attached doc for an explanation of the forces created by the angles and how the vector forces really aren't the most relevant bit the DIRECTION of the load (vector) we should be seeing little imaginary arrows before we cut, not measuring angles, just bisecting them with our eyes. isloading.docx PS you need to click enable editing to make the arrows line up on word, here it is as a pdf:loading.pdf

wow, it was less the angles creating double loading (looks like 1.4) but the MOMENT you created (lever) due to the resulting direction of force on the stem that failed. Timber is much stronger in compression, 2nd to that 100kg on a 1m lever creates 980.665Nm of torque (lets just say 100Nm of torque) that same 100kg log/ force is on a 7m lever, that's 7x the moment (torque, lever whatever you choose to call it) the angle of a redirect does effect the anchor force but in trees our primary consideration should be the resultant DIRECTION of force. We did a demo a few years ago where we had a modular tree made of broom handles slotted into angled steel tubes and showed how some typical arb redirect placements in fact weakened an anchor point (often bending it in the opposite direction to that it would have been but increasing the "lever effect" or moment. see page 22 of the VTO lit posted above. had your point on the failed section been 5 or so meters lower BOTH anchors would have been stronger despite the theoretical increase if you only consider the deflection angle

Just keep smashing the physio in the meantime, it makes a massive difference. One of my Circus friends split both his meniscus on separate occasions, he had access to private health care and his mum is a theatre nurse (ortho). he ha done operated on to clean up the tear and one not, in both cases he went physio mad seeing as he is a professional performer and tours the globe performing. the un-operated knee is now far better than the operated despite the fact it was the more recent injury. He assures me that the day he stops training 5 days a week will be the day it gets worse. Not knowing where the tear is or how extensive i'd not like to guess how beneficial the op will be but either way smaaaash the physio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi, i've been on quite a journey with my knee and am lucky to live with and know many medical professionals so before i answer i just wanted to ask a few things: What surgery did the previous posters have? to walk out the same day as having some of your hamstrings removed and grafted onto your knee sounds like nothing short of a miracle!? equally miracle like if you had a new groove ground into your femur Guss what treatment options did the surgeon suggest/ discuss with you? different procedures have their pros/ cons but as far as further damage goes most of the latest research concludes their is no benefit in early intervention for most types of knee surgery but every case is different. My first bad dislocation showed i had no femoral groove, torn meniscus, cartilage and ligament damage, i was booked in for a follow up consultation after 6-9 months of Physio to see if I could strengthen what remained and to allow my body to dissolve the loose cartilage by it's self. I hit the physio hard every day and within 3-4 months i was what would usually be considered fully recovered (if i were an office worker) but the pain was always there up&down and certain activities/ moovements were still off the cards 9 months later with 1-2 hours EVERY DAY doing physio bar the odd rest day when i'd pushed it too far it was decided we'd continue without an operation seeing as i was skiing at a pretty high level without excessive pain and with an exceptional ROM, but did had to limit any sessions on the jumps, airbag etc 18 months later i was fully recovered with only occasional pain after extreme exertion/ impact. 24 months later i had a 70mph skiing accident and did some more damage, i'm 3 months on from that now and my recent MRI showed a very large chunk of cartilage missing, allot of fluid, including a cyst in the back of my knee, one ligament in 2 pieces and 2 more with +50% tears. the nature of this 2nd injury has been very different, last time i couldn't operate a clutch and had to buy an automatic van, this time i can operate a clutch but there are many MANY more things that i could do 3 months in last time but cant do now, the pain this time is allot worse and still wakes me every night. I was very hopeful my recovery would be like last time, let the body so it's thing and heal naturally which went very well but this time the consultants think i will need some extensive surgery, grafting my hamstring on, relocating the patella lower down and cleaning out the muck. They did say they have seen cases of pro footballers being back to full playing strength after 6-9 months of post op rehab. I have the option to carry on limping around to see what the body does by its-self over these next 9 months then re-MRI and decide which procedures would still be beneficial or to be rushed through sooner. So long as i don't severely re-dislocate it the chances of causing further damage is slim but once i have the op i will not be operating a clutch for 4-8 weeks and wont be climbing for 4+ months so timing will be key. My advice would be to divulge all your thinking and situation to your consultant and see what they advise, if it's just a arthroscopy to clean up, get a better view and not graft anything then your recovery will likely be days/ weeks. Good luck with it all and hope you have a speedy recovery

That block certainly neatens up an English reeve, I do love a job that requires one. Setting up and operating one makes a great training exercise, especially on a smart winch, students can practice flipping between the track reeve and control lines and all the while having to communicate far more than during conventional rigging techniques.

Three are a few papers here and there on hitches slipping/ not slipping in an overload situation yes. Many of them centre on the use of prussics as 'load limiters' on track lines and all of the latest research suggests not (Ie they do not reliably slip and can be pulled until either line or prussic breaks) Furthermore i'm happy to confirm that in my own research this has been confirmed. I have pulled many friction hitch based Ddrt systems (and srt ones) to destruction without the need for a stopper knot under the hitch. The hitches have gripped under both dynamic and static loads until the systems weakest component has broke. in these tests some hitches have neither consistently gripped or slipped despite efforts to tie, dress and set them to exacting standards. In some other testing in which i've been involved in on certain mechanical devices we've found they (rather surprisingly to me) are also not always consistent in their slippage either. The norm which they are sometimes tested to allows for them to slip at low loads but does not require it, in some a stopper knot is allowed to be placed under the device to achieve a break strain. Even in devices where slippage is a component of the norm to which they are certified other workplace variables altered results significantly wear is a major factor as was rope weight, wet line, line diameter and even brands of line of the same diameter certified to the same norm. As such i would not personally presume the ZZ will slip at a predictable load under work-site conditions on a variety of lines moreover i would not presume that in the event of an overload/fall the force would be shared by an un-engaged wrench. If this didn't cause an immediate problem/ failure i'd certainly say it had implications for the longevity/ wear of the device, repeated loads like this would exacerbate this prognosis.

there was me thinking i wrote "it's probably fair to say it can never be 'known'" in relation to prototype testing........... Some said it was utter twaddle that a karabiner could be 'level loaded' in a real life situation. Then someone fell form exactly that off a lowering rack The more aftermath of a serious accident i'm partied to the more 'mushy' perhaps I've become. Seeing someone (usually so jovial in disposition) who hasn't slept for over a month with their ash grey skin and weight loss kinda brings it home. Especially when better equipment selection/ reading/ understanding instructions could have prevented I life changing accident. Climb safe. fast typing + dislexeea = pour spelling My experience of Petzl and field testing their equipment is obviously subjective, but probably not twaddle. I'd find it hard to level any major criticism in their direction in those respects, they do much better than most as far as responsibly developing/ innovating equipment goes. their statements on application and compatibility over the years have been pretty balanced IMO. There are major differences in the pictured configurations pictured and they will perform very differently in terms of static strength, dynamic strength, dynamic performance and practical performance. I really do think it's great that people are willing to risk their lives to further innovation, so long as it's a conscious decision that is

You mean the anchor might take double the load? are ropes are all tested in a single configuration, not doubled. All ropes certified under 1891 are split into 2 categories: class A & class B but that has nothing to do with doubled vs single line application. In fact, not even the anchor will be subject to double the load. Although the IMA may suggest a 2.0 MA at the anchor the TMA and AMA is far, far from it. Furthermore you have the active & semi active lengths of rope to consider. Its fair to say that the higher loads generated by climbers are dynamic ones. A single rope (even without the added semi-active rope of a base anchor) may absorb much more force in a fall than a doubled one as the force isn't halved/ strand so it can elongate more, absorbing the impact. I think there's allot to go through to bring you up to speed here and, although i'd actively encourage anyone to start reading up i appreciate that this information is not so readily available, summarised in one place, so perhaps it's best to wait for the paper being written on srwp in the UK to be published (maybe next year) and read out from there?

Politics Is certainly not really the reason for this. When petzel release warnings/ statements about configuration/ application it's not some marketing ploy and they also go to great ends to word them in a fastidious manor. As well as it may appear to function allot of people that use this setup repeatably load the setup such that the ZZ takes 100% (/nigh on) of the load and this could have serious consequences for the device, it's longevity and safety of the user. In arb most climbers are frequently exposing their systems in a 'fall arrest' scenario, as an industry we haven't really faced up to this fact yet. Many of our systems can withstand fall arrest forces and (many/ some) may even preform relatively well in this situation and (I beleive) its due to this we see very few injuries/ accidents where this 'incorrect application of equipment' is a significant factor. Some of the recent additions of arb climbing gear although developed to WP and ascender/ descender standards will have been developed with this exposure in mind, some have (by chance) covered this base and some won't have at all. Does anyone on here know how well the pictured systems would preform if they were subjected to these 'highly possible' scenarios? From a mechanical performance perspective I'd guess that some of these pictured config's will perform much better than others. Lolering as many firms kit as I do i get to see & hear quite allot of 'anecdotal' accident reports of accidents/ near misses which may well have gone unreported and un-publicised, sometimes it's due to 'experimental' configurations like this. I'm not necessarily saying don't climb on these systems just be sure you're making informed decisions and are happy to accept the potential consequences (in this instance potential irreparable equipment damage not covered by warranty or even a fall) Also consider the guys on site and how that might effect them, are they happy to whiteness and be involved in these consequences? Trailing/ developing gear for/with major manufacturers you can be sure/ see that they've done serious amounts of testing before putting safet critical gear out to be field tested. Furthermore you typically have a written contract which may include insurance. The contract may also carry warnings about ensuring you are permitted to use such 'prototype' equipment within your workplace and go on to further details regarding people you work with to sign non-disclosure/ agree not to take photos etc. Just be sure you're happy with the potential consequences, anyone can whap something together and witness that it 'holds/ functions'. To know what it's limits are or for how long it will function is not always know, quite often disregarded but it's probably fair to say it can never be 'known', certainly not without extensive field tests. Its true that not everything can be done in a lab/ on a test bench but IMO its best to start off with the mechanics & physics & on to labs/ test benches before handing it over for 'animal' testing by us arborists

It's a well known scam that's run for decades, the older version would be to send a fraudulent cheque which your bank would clear, then 10-14 days later your bank would "unclear" the cheque informing you it was a fraudulent one but you'd have already western unioned the cleared funds. Used to target people selling cars and would even have the cars collected, nasty business. The beauty with paypal is that if you withdraw that money to your account they cant pursue you for the money and they will have to refund the victim that the fraudster took the money from, poor paypal......