Rope techniques acronyms and confusions

That's great, Ugo. I'm no speed demon either!

yoyoman wrote:

treeman wrote: ....It's all in how it is discussed. Take Moss for an example. There is no way I would muzzle Moss with all of his new tricks.

Treeman

Teeman I agree, there is no one quite as articulate and talented/experienced as Moss, he can stay impartial and sort out the pros and cons of concepts and explain it to the rest of us. Someone needs to figure out how to clone him so you can have moss and mossy1 and mossy2 etc. so the rest of us don't have to struggle for hours tying to get some thoughts out there.

See you soon Peter, I have to bring the tree boat back that Erika used on our redwood/dougfir.

AJ must be rolling over in his TreeBoat by now!

Ahhhh. . . yes, the battle of acronyms! This has been a "hot"topic in the profession circles lately. There are no easy answers, just one coast will call Liquidambar styraciflua a sweet gum, so another coast will insist on liquid amber!

As a writer, climber and student of the rope I love these colloquialisms. As I professional arboricultural trainer they get annoying!

However, let me share some insight I have gleaned over the years as trainer and climber.

From a practical and safety standpoint what differentiates one tree climbing system from the next. (other than the acronyms that is!)

Really it is the dynamics of the climber moving on rope and how these forces are transferred to the tree or anchor. A doubled rope system is still one line, but behaves different from a "SRT" system constructed of the same one line, but configured differently.

When describing systems, when employing them or inventing them, the climber must know the dynamics and how they interact between the climb, the tree and the climber. By accurately describing a system with 1:1 that requires a switch to 2:1 for descent, is accurate and to the point. Also, I am assured that the climber understands, at least in part, the intricacies involved, the benefits and the limitations and we share a common knowledge of these.

For the reason above, I feel it more accurate to start the conversations on climbing systems from a "dynamic s" standpoint be it 1:1, 2:1 or 3:1 or whatever, then take if from there. How many lines employed, how many anchors. . . .

Make sense?

Tony

Treedude22 wrote: ...."dynamic s" standpoint be it 1:1, 2:1 or 3:1 or whatever, then take if from there. How many lines employed, how many anchors. . . .

Make sense?

Tony

So is that 1:1 on a double rope (two ropes or the same rope) or is it 1:1 single rope or is that 2:1 on a doubled single rope?????

.......and 1:1 on a double rope is becoming a popular technique using using two ascenders beyond what used to be only foot lock pursik competition.

So I think the saga will continue and we will continue to make it more difficult than it really is.
If I'm ever not sure what a person is talking about I will clarify.

yoyoman,

Something like that. My point was more when describing a system refer to the dynamic involved as opposed to an unqualified mix of alphabet soup.

For instance using a Hitch Hiker would be climbing 1:1 on an single leg of rope. Foot locking the old fashioned way would be 1;1 on a single line doubled on itself.

I agree we will continue to make it more difficult than it is, but now we have new tools to communicate with! We should be as clear as possible.

Tony

Acronyms are all the rage, especially in this digital age. But for those who think, How best to get up in the tree? We set a line most easily.

Anyway, Folks may find this business all a little confusing, but if it makes them stop and think, that's a good thing.

Legacy often rules terminology long after any logical connection is gone. For example in modern typography the term "leading" *(pronounced "ledding")is used to describe the vertical distance between lines of text. The term refers to the practice of setting type with individual wood or metal letters, to adjust vertical space thin pieces of lead were inserted between the horizontal rows of letters. In digital typography there is no lead or physical letters, yet the vertical spacing is called leading to this day.

We can wish to adjust language and terminology to make it more logical and connected to current technique but language usage is not as malleable as we might hope. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Remember Esperanto? Solved a lot of theoretical problems for communicating across language and cultural barriers. Worthy attempt but failed miserably.

I'm not a fan of trying to resolve terminology across various rope related disciplines. Each discipline (caving, alpine, industrial, rock, tree, etc.) requires very specific terms and definitions. If you try to universalize terms across disciplines you lose the nuance required to communicate simply and effectively within a specific discipline.

In tree climbing I have no problem with using DRT to describe doubling a rope and climbing 2:1 with a friction hitch or device on the leg of the rope that is "moving". Likewise I have no issue with SRT to describe climbing 1:1 on an anchored rope. If a tree climber uses two ropes to create parallel 1:1 systems I would simply call it two 1:1 SRT systems.
-AJ

Nice post, Moss!



Inevitably problems arise when a governing body such as ANSI or OSHA, or the insurance industry comes along and lays down the law.

There will always be a risk factor in the vertical professions, but when statistics start mounting up, insurance companies will say, something must be done about this.

This is the point where those who work in the professions, the climbers, have to be proactive and lead the discussion about proper techniques and the language used to describe them.

Everyone in the field, especially those who are running a business, be it tree care, recreational climbing, tower climbing or whatever, needs to be especially vigilant, because one man's DRT could be another man's SRT, and a company's insurance or license to practice could be at stake. As my wife has reminded me many times, "I am NOT your Momma!"

Moss,

I agree. Funny how language develops.

I still maintain that we must be as accurate as possible, especially in online discussions. The days of having to travel to a training course, a TCC or some other tree climbing related event to learn new technique are thankfully past!

There is a lot and some very good info available from many sources. However, there is also a good bit of trash put there. Climbers playing with forces/techniques/equipment is some poor to down right dangerous ways.

Often I run in to climbers who have "learned" something from one of these many sources. Most often the technique is sound, but sometimes just one thing is off, one interface unconsidered. It is these details that can have dire consequences not to mention undue struggle. Especially, if tree climbing is closer to hobby than profession. Just trying to apply my professional background for the most benefit of others hanging from ropes in the canopy.

Describing systems as a relationship of forces in a certain configuration gives much clarity and understanding. Come up with all the fancy names and acronyms. I love it, but do not rely on them too heavily, look at the foundations and describe those!

Tony

Tony

Hey there Tony!

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but as a new climber (just over 1 year of experience, and yesterday marked climb #55) and as a new reviewer and facilitator, I'm wondering how your math adds up?

Summarizing:
Good information is readily available. I agree.
Good bit of trash is out there. I totally agree.
Some climbers are playing with things in poor/dangerous ways. I agree.
Some climbers implement good techniques in incomplete ways which can be dangerous (or at least inefficient). I agree.
Hobby-recreational climbers (as opposed to professionals) are particularly vulnerable to the dangers of learning online or via YouTube. I agree, especially since new hobby climbers are often independent and enthusiastic people who learn everything via the internet, and since every technique they encounter is new to them, they don't really distinguish between tried-and-true techniques vs advanced or even experimental techniques.

And so... my real question for you is how does that all add up to the (thankful?) end of traveling to in-person classes or climbing events?

I'm on the ground floor of a local climbing club, and I've got my eye on becoming an instructor, both are in an effort to cut down on the travel-factor for students to learn the basics, and for advanced climbers to learn from each other. In my wildest dream, it will be EASIER for an enthusiastic person to climb with their local club and/or take a local class than it will be to learn on their own via YouTube. (Well, in my WILDEST dream, active "local clubs" will be conveniently scattered throughout the country and the world.) So I agree that travel and expense are a bummer, but I would like to see more group climbs, not see them become a thing of the past. If you're a professional climber in addition to being a recreational climber, I hope more people can climb with you in person! (Including me, if I'm in your neck of the woods!)

Sincerely,
-Dennis

Dennis,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

To answer directly, I just caution all climbers, recreation or pro, to understand the basics, the forces inherent in any system they close to use and not to get wrapped up in, or confused by names, labels and/or acronyms.

When evaluating your climbing, pay particular attention to interfaces between hardware, cordages, and tools. This is where as a professional I see the most common problems.

Experiment? Absolutely, but make design/configuration decisions based on sound usage and technique. Even good gear can be used terribly wrong!

When it comes to online sources, fall back to the tried and true research technique of obtaining three separate, reliable sources before giving credibility.

That's all. Just be careful and thoughtful. The wonderful part is that tree climbers represent a small community, full of knowledge and experience.

Tony

I'm glad you are participating in the community here on the boards. Your profile says you are a very experienced climber, an arborist, and a trainer. If you ever decide to combine being a trainer and an experienced climber, you might make a great instructor, or club organizer! That's my vote.

Tree-D wrote: I'm glad you are participating in the community here on the boards. Your profile says you are a very experienced climber, an arborist, and a trainer. If you ever decide to combine being a trainer and an experienced climber, you might make a great instructor, or club organizer! That's my vote.

Done deal! I spend the bulk of my time training climbers and tree workers, but on professional, not recreational level. As for organizing a club, well I do need some time off! However, let me know when and where and I will make an effort to attend a good recreational climb. Albeit, I may get to the top and wonder where the work is Just poking!

Tony

hahahaha. I know what you mean about getting to the top and wondering what to do next! I have friends who get to the first branch and are perfectly happy to sit down and melt into the tree. I'm always looking for the next anchor or the next thing to do!