Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quercus This is what I think of the Kong ascenders:
-The device itself is far to big and bulky |
Opinions are good, but I would encourage you to lay your dual Petzls on top of the dual Kongs as a true comaprison. There will be very little size difference.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quercus -I feel that Kong made a bad choice between a fool-proof design and a weight problem. |
You might want to weigh your dual set and the Kong dual set and compare the grammage. You state a weight problem.... do you know the weight of the two sets? If you're implying that 10 or 20 grams difference makes a difference, you may be called out on this. What exactly do you consider a weight problem?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quercus Therefore they left essential parts who would make the design tougher out. |
So, what would be your solution to that? Add more parts? What are your ideas on this? What 'parts' This is really important.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quercus -The design from Kong is simply not a unique design, but a modification handle that is riveted onto a small ascender that allready existed. The ones from petzl is not riveted, but a totally new device that is differently forged except from the cam section. |
Not unique. Agreed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quercus -If it were droploaded pretty good, the rivets could fail, and if that were the case, the device would break apart with one small part going up very very fast and the other bigger part to wich the climber is attached would drop instantly.Far too many rivets who could loosen trough the years and fail at one point in time. |
Rivets are used extensively in industry as a preferred means of permanent connection. I think this last part, Quercus, is pushing the criticism just a bit too far. You're describing a complete, catastrophic failure of the gear. You're also describing climbing above your tie-in point (a no-no) and a fall on ascenders from above the tie-in. Describing an unrecommended action of a climber, a rare fall (we all avoid falling, always) and then speculating on the performance of the gear in this rather unlikely situation, at this point is closer to fiction than reality. I'll take back this last statement if you can provide ONE SINGLE case of a catastrophic failure of a Kong Dual like what you surmised could happen.
I'm not stepping up on Kong's behalf. I just don't want guys thinking rivets are bad because of a one person's hypothetical example of something that
could maybe happen. Not sure this Quercus has experience in using the kong dual-handled.
I come from almost a decade of using the Kong Twins day in and day out, single and doubled, wet, dry, snow, 11, 12 and 13 mm lines. I got them the year they came out, and they're the same, original pair, quite possibly the oldest and most highly used pair of Kong Twins on the planet. The rivets are just fine. The ascenders perform identically to the day I bought them, consistently keeping the promise they offer.
There are not a lot of other dual-handled ascenders to choose from. I appreciate Quercus' effort in creating the dual Petzl, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to modify your gear. I do it regularly, but not everyone is mechanically inclined, or confident in doing this. I personally don't recommend altering your gear, but if you do, it's your baby.
So Quercus, now that you can't put a biner through your top holes, how are you keeping the rope from possibly escaping the ascender shell and how are you attaching your backup? Your modification to the Ascensions has erased this ability as we knew it.
Now THIS is a weight problem. Add to it a Silky, a chainsaw and a rack of slings on the other side and that's a rigging kit. The ascenders contribute some to this overall weight, but if a set of ascenders was incorporated, and they are 10 or 20 grams lighter than the previous, the climber will feel no appreciable difference. I just don't get the 'weight problem' comment.
