Dr Storricks new tree devices

Ekka · 20th May 2007, 10:18 PM

So what's wrong with the lockjack?

Looks small enough, can decend, drag it along with you sort of, and self advances.

What's it like on SRT? Smooth/Jerky?

George Hayduke · 21st May 2007, 04:59 AM

LJ doesn't work on SRT

Tree Machine · 21st May 2007, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hayduke

TM's j-hook gizmo is just the hook from a flat webbing strap. Interesting concept.

That's exactly what it was. I thought I'd bought it like that from a hardware store for whatever purpose, but you're right, George, I cut the failed end of a ratchet strap off, and since I don't throw metal away, it resurfaces years later , I look at it and go, "Huh,... 13 mm can fit through there..." and before you know it, new possibilities open up. I thought this was a very interesting configuration and actually works well as far as a cheap, raw, unaltered piece of metal goes. The key feature here is how the hook and biner and rope balance so perfectly. How could this be improved?

Tree Machine · 21st May 2007, 06:11 AM

I'm not asking for this to be our next device, just stirring the creative juices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

Any tool used by arbos should function like a hitch. In other words, if the climber lets go it will lock off. That is the muscle memory that exists in tree climbers. This is different than most of the rest of the rope world where the climber self belays.

RIGHT! It's sort of like the hitch tells you what to do, where you have to tell a belay device what you want done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

The idea of using a swedge type rope grab is clever for an ascender. That might be a place to start from. Having a mechanism to allow the wedges to open and allow a controlled descent is the key. The last criteria is to allow it to be installed/removed midline.

George, there are a lot of other criteria, and swedge needs to show how it can handle dual parallel line. Ascenders have already been created and exist in many forms. They can be gotten in Titanium, if you wish, though I recommend Dual-handled that way you can go Doubled or Single rope, whichever your mood.

Please take the 'ascent' part out of this device. This is a personal belay-rappell device, pinpoint accurate work positioning tool that controls precisely the friction on rope. Swift slack tending is far more important overall than ascent. Leave the ascent to the ascenders, it accounts for only a fraction of the time in the canopy and you can slap them on, in an instant, without even removing your friction device if you need to bust a vertical maneuver while during the climb. Generally speaking, though, you climb the tree and tend slack as you go. The new device needs to do this very, very well.

The thought here is, if we can focus our collective energies on creating the top end in in accurate, versatile, bombproof friction control, rather than look for the Uni-tool (up-down), we don't compete with Unicender and our simplicity can more easily be distilled down to a least common denominator.

Our device is a down and around tool. It's what you do probably 95% of the time aloft. Focus on the 'down and around' abilities of the piece, the complete domination of the entire friction spectrum of going from stop to slow, and back to stop.

Ekka · 15th June 2007, 05:47 AM

Hey TM

This project is dying.

Stop mucking about and tell us what the heck you climb SRT with?

Tree Machine · 15th June 2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

Stop mucking about and tell us what the heck you climb SRT with?

It changes from time to time. The sixth month of this year is almost over, so in a couple weeks I'll be moving on to a different device. There are really a lot of simple devices that can do SRT, but my interest is is in a device that goes traditional 2:1 doubled rope, 1:1 doubled rope and SRT interchangably.

There are select devices out there that do this, but the ones I've used are for 11 mm rope. I feel its important that the device accomodate 13 mm too. Tree climbers, especially the larger guys, prefer 13 mm and for good reason. 13 mm gives a more secure feel, especially if that's what you're accustomed to. I came from the 11 mm world and spent my first couple years as a treeguy on those smaller ropes. On my first 13 mm rope I found it bulky, heavy and slow, but after another year or so I learned what a friction hitch was, and then I started to get it; I understood why treeguys like these bigger lines. I've still never warmed up to the friction hitch, but I've seen some really good climbers who've adjusted well to the limitations of a friction hitch system and I understand totally where they're coming from. Moving from a smaller rope up to a bigger diameter rope, I think, is easier than going from a bigger down to a smaller rope. Going from a 13 mm/friction hitch system to 11 mm, device-based climbing, this simply won't fly. An ideal device needs to cover the spectrum so guys can explore new rope techniques and different rope diameters all with the same, familiar device.

So, in understanding the differences and the preferences and why, it's clear that the only way any friction device can earn the respect of tree climbers is for it to handle 13 mm rope. However, if it ONLY handles 13 mm, then the 11 mm crowd is discluded. If the device only does SRT, that discludes most of the tree climbing world. If it only does traditional doubled rope, then it's really no more useful than a friction hitch.

DdRT, DbRT and SRT, 11 mm, 13 mm and everything in between is what the device needs to do.

So, in answering your question, Ekka, about what I use to climb SRT, I could go through my box and pull a half dozen pieces I've used, some of which are pictured above. We could walk through Dr Gary's display boards and choose many dozens more. But a piece that will go DdRT, DbRt, SRT, 11, 12 and 13 mm now that I don't think has been attempted. The reason why not??? Devices are built for 11 mm for the most part. 11 mm disciplines don't use 13 mm rope and therefore don't build the pieces for 13 mm. 13 mm users (treemen) don't generally use friction devices so with rare exception haven't explored and innovated pieces for our discipline.

Only the tiny fractional minority of guys who use both 11, 12 and 13 mm ropes and climb 1:1 parallel doubled rope (both ends on the ground, no motion at the tie-in point) would even try this (welcome to my world). That's because if you can ascend and descend a doubled line where each side does not move relative to each other, then that style of doubled rope technique (1:1) works identically to single rope technique, only there's 2X as much friction. If you lock off one of the two sides, then the ropes move in opposition relative to one another and you have 2:1 DdRT, same as with a friction hitch, only without the hitch.

The point of this thread is to create the piece that will do all this, ideally in a form that you can fit in the palm of your hand.

If humans can build a space shuttle, or a global internet system, I think it is highly feasable we could come up with a simple, lightweight piece that could accomodate all three tree climbing rope techniques.

Agree.....disagree???

jim1nz · 17th June 2007, 06:31 AM

Agree...But

Can we design a device that does everything???

Also im having second thoughts about climbing/ work positioning on a SRT system. Is it ergonomic for a climber to be working all day on a SRT system? How can you advance on it effeciently and effectively? What if you dont know how to footlock? What about the small position adjustments?

What about redirecting??? You cant even retreve a natural crotch redirect because you dont have a running system.

Safety aspects - loading on the anchor points, rescues...

You have to throw ball your final roping point from the ground! You cant change it with out ground assistance or by pulling your rope all the way throught the fork that was origionally used when your at the top of the tree then back over the final branch required.

Thoughts? Sorry to be negative but we souuld bet it all out there.

Tim Craig · 17th June 2007, 02:32 PM

Good points Jim, I worry about the rope being tied off at the base of the tree for the whole job, what if a groundie accidently cuts it when he is cutting round the base?

Maybe it can only be applied to certain pruning jobs?

If the rope is tied off at the base of the tree there is a added risk of cutting through it further up on the stem.

I don't think you'd be footlocking a single line maybe frogging with a croll and pantin for ascending

Tree Machine · 17th June 2007, 07:54 PM

Those are great questions! Let me start with Tim's excellent summary,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Craig

Maybe it can only be applied to certain pruning jobs?

BINGO! We're not inventing an SRT device. We're shooting for a device that will go SRT when we want to, like when it's taking you awhile to swing your shotbag and trace your line back. I personally love this part, but if I can't get the bag and line back down following the identical, parallel path it went up with, like in 30 seconds or a minute, I just drop the bag straight down, anchor to the trunk and go up SRT.

Personally, I like the 1:1 doubled line, or DbRt, where a dual-handled ascender is slapped on, set your security, and head up. Ascending SRT is identical in all respects to this, except there is a single line rather than a doubled. The rope does not move at the crotch, so there is no friction there, no need for friction savers. Nor is there any anchoring to the base of the tree with the 1:1 DRT. Nor is there any anchoring of one end of the rope to you, no tying anything. For those who think this is some complicated system, it's quite the opposite. It's as simple, quick, boiled-down and direct as it gets, with a minimum of gear.

Jim NZ: Can we design a device that does everything???

'everything', meaning descending 1:1 doubled, 2:1 doubled and 1:1 SRT?
I am HIGHLY CONFIDENT this can happen.

Let's say the friction device handles the 1:1 parallel doubled rope and the 1:1 single rope identically. The learning curve is rather short because when you 'get it' with one, you've already gotten it with the other.

Now to go DdRT, like you're used to, instead of having both ends of the rope on the ground, you pull one end up, anchor it to your saddle, as you're used to, and with the standing end, run it through the device as you would for SRT as described above. In other words, you use an SRT configuration to descend 2:1 DdRT. Counter-intuitive, I know, but that's what it is. At this point, though, the rope is in motion over the tie-in point. This is OK, I guess, but if you climb back up a ways, you have to pull twice as much slack back through the device and it will take you twice as long as the other two methods. This IS what you're used to, though, with a 2:1 friction hitch system.

Tree Machine · 17th June 2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Craig

I don't think you'd be footlocking a single line......

When you ascend and footlock, using a traditional 2:1 friction hitch system, how many lines are you locking with your feet?

answer: 1

The difference between using a 2:1 DdRT friction hitch system, and that of SRT is that with the 2:1 doubled you have to footlock twice as much rope to get the same gain. That's all. It's exactly the same motions.

If you had two identical hills next to one another, and two men who were equally as fast as one another on equal ground and they were going to race to the top of their respective hills, who would win? Wait, there's one more thing.... One hill is soft sand, the other is paved all the way to the top.

On the sand hill, because of the inefficiency of running up a slope of sand, this runner needs to take two steps for every one that the pavement runner takes.

If they both run at the same rate, the pavement runner will make it up in half the time as the sand runner, OR the pavement runner can trot at half speed and they'll get there at the same time. Either way, the sand hill guy is going to be more wiped when he gets there.

2:1 ascent vs 1:1 ascent is analogous to this hill example. Additionally, in 2:1 your friction hitch offers friction on your way up, or locks up when you weight it. More additionally, the rope offers friction on the crotch at the tie-in point on every single centimeter of your ascent (we sink friction savers to combat this problem).

2:1 is really doing it the hard way. Its no surprise a lot of guys have a hard time footlocking on this system. I think you'd actually find SRT on an ascender much, much easier, like running up a paved hill, rather than a soft sand hill. It's frustrating to many to footlock a length, and only gain a half a length in ascent.

Tree Machine · 17th June 2007, 08:52 PM

If you have a dual-ascender on a doubled rope, if you footlock only one of the 2 lines, the rope will feed through only that one side of the ascender, resulting in 2:1 ascent with some motion and friction at the crotch. If you footlock BOTH lines, you have a 1:1 ascent, no friction at the tie-in crotch. You can have it either way, at any given moment during the ascent. The option and versatility is nice, but you'll probably elect to grip both ropes with your feet, push yourself up one length and gain one length in altitude. 1:1 is not hard to get used to. Footlocking two lines (IMHO) is easier than footlocking a single. The benefits should come real clear, most immediately to most climbers

.....but that's ascent on an ascender.

The device we're attempting to describe does not do ascent (or at least not very well). It is for descent and pinpoint accurate work positioning and efficient, 1:1 slack tending.

Tree Machine · 17th June 2007, 09:25 PM

Quote: