Kong Double Ascender

[glens]

I guess that's what I'd thought you meant.&nbsp; Do you understand that what I'm talking about is using much less cord (three wraps per rope) and <I>not capturing the middle with the carabiner</i>?&nbsp; Please don't dismiss it until you give it a try.

Glen

 

[NickfromWI]

Ok glens, now I got what you're saying. So you'd just clip the two eyes on the ends of the eye-eye sling. Ok, that makes sense, and might work, though I think that it will still be able to slide and move around a lot. But you're right...this shouldn't be dismissed until tried.

Ok, it's on the list.

love
nick

 

[glens]

Minimal slack is essential.

Glen

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Originally posted by TheTreeSpyder
You guys got me thinking how to get an easier lacing on the prusik grab. Here is another option/ strategie set that might give ~same grab, pull together, and be easier to lace.

By pattern, the long Frenchys could pull down into / or be dressed down into VT's without further alteration, 4 leg connection stronger (which you don't have to have here, and probably could hinder VT effect), 1 chord.

6.58k drawing using Glens drawing tip of saving first as .gif in MSPaint.

Grabbing just at eyes, and not center is what i meant by you didn't have to have 4 leg connection(grabbing at bight too), but it is stronger (grabbing at bight too, with soft angle at the bight).

 

[jkrueger]

I've used the double prussic with eyes and, correct me if I'm not getting it, don't see any reason for the 'center' connection. (???)

Jack

 

[NickfromWI]

Ok guys, I know it's been a few days, but I've been at the drawing board. Here's a few photos to show what I'm talking about...

So I tried out the style of prusik that Glen mentioned, which is similar to what I was showing, but except with a straight eye-eye prusik, no center eye or connection of any type. I only tried 2 different types of rope. One was a 1/4" Yalex ( 3/8th diameter after the splicing was done) and the other was a 6mm rock climbing cord. Hitches were tied on Fly rope (pictures show up clearer then an orange on orange rope).

So in both of these, and the version that the TreeSpyder suggested, they did advance up the rope easily, and they did lock up tight. But in both variations, I noticed something. After loading, they did NOT want to release their grip to continue ascending. It took a lot of finicking to "break" the prusik in the styles that Glen and Spydie suggest.

I know that if you use a different combination of rope you will get different results, and therein might be the key to making this work. Until then, I'm liking having the middle eye. It's like having two friction hitches similar to what we use for our standard climbing lines, but now working in unison, side-by-side.

Here's the pictures so you can see the knots I tied and tell me if this is in fact what you had in mind.

love
nick

 

[NickfromWI]

This is that same knot, but how it looks from the side.

 

[NickfromWI]

I found that by putting the ends of the sling around the back, giving a little extra twist to the works, things were a bit smoother, though not as smooth at what I found with the "V" prusik setup.

 

[NickfromWI]

And here's what that same knot looks like from the other side.

 

[NickfromWI]

Finally, here's what it looked like when I tied Spydies mid-connecting double-prusik that has no eye. Can we call that a "blind" mid connecting double prusik

 

[glens]

Hey Nick.

Thanks for trying!&nbsp; I didn't have any problems getting the hitch loosened by merely releasing the weight on the ends and pushing up on the whole thing.&nbsp; Like you said, it's got to be a combination of varying factors.&nbsp; One thing I didn't have was the slightly stiffer cord that the splices produce near the infeed to the hitch.&nbsp; But making the leads much longer would increase the chance that they wouldn't maintain the hitch in a good and usable condition.&nbsp; And using knots introduces bulkiness / inconvenience.

I'd tried the middle setup too, and didn't like it much.

I didn't have a bit of luck with that last configuration either.

How's my setup work with a single failed cam scenario as compared to your 3-point hitch?&nbsp; The chances of both sides of the hitch ever being required simultaneously have got to be astronomically low.&nbsp; I feel the real need here is for good performance on single-snatches.

Thanks again.

Glen

 

[Chucky]

Nick:

"So in both of these, and the version that the TreeSpyder suggested, they did advance up the rope easily, and they did lock up tight. But in both variations, I noticed something. After loading, they did NOT want to release their grip to continue ascending. It took a lot of finicking to "break" the prusik in the styles that Glen and Spydie suggest."


But isn't the objective of the hitch to merely act as a backup, should one of the ascender cams fail? It seems you would only have to worry about "grip lock" of the hitch if one of the cams did indeed fail, and that would be only under extraordinary circumstances. In which case, you could either figure eight or munter hitch down to the ground.

I don't see the point in searching for a hitch that would allow an easy release from the ropes if the whole point of its being is as a backup. Of course, it would be nice if such a hitch existed, but, I think it would be unnecessarily complicated, thus defeating the purpose of efficient climbing.

It seems to me that the best backup to the double ascender is the simplest, easiest-to-tie hitch, that slides easy up the ropes, and always grips the rope should an ascender cam fail, regardless of it's "griplock" on the ropes.

And I agree with Glen, the chances of both cams failing at once are so extraordinarily unlikely as to be considered as nil.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

I haven't followed this thread to closely. Like I said earlier, it seems like an overcomplicated solution to a problem.

But...the solutions being tossed around seem to be based on a backup above the ascenders. When I was first working through backups for SRT I decided that I wanted my backup as far from the upper ascender as possible. To me it seemed like an event that might cause the upper to fail would be prety unlikely to effect the backup if it was far away. That's why I used a Microcender for my lower backup at first. Now I use an ISC Rocker. The action seems to be the best suited for the task.

Why not use a pair of Microcenders connected to the front D? Or something similar. There's probably a way to gang two Rockers together. they tail along just fine for me. Another plus is that when I get to a landing station, the upper always leaves a little slack. I can tug my rope up and the Rocker comes up just like a slack tender under a climbing hitch.

In the rare occasions that I need to down-climb a rope I follow a procedure that reduces my risks in a risky situation. Thumbing the cam of an ascender is very dangerous. If something were to happen while the cam is open the climber is likely to take a groundfall. When I thumb I take one hand and grab the back of my belt. Then I can only thumb one cam at a time. there is NO chance that both cams will be open at the same time.

Tom

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Here's a pic of my SRT ascender setup with Microcender and Rocker.

 

[Chucky]

Tom,

I think because this thread has grown so long, it's been easy to lose sight of what the thread was about originally. It's about climbing DdRT with a Kong double ascender, and finding a good backup hitch, should one of the cams of the double ascender fail. It's not about using two ascenders with a backup hitch on SRT.

However, thanks very much for that post, because I'm trying to learn SRT technique, and I'm looking for a good setup that is easy and efficient. I especially like how you've made the webbing adjustable. I never thought of that!

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Chuciky,

I haven't missed the core of the thread. I'm just looking at a back-up in another position. Why focus only on an upper backup?

 

[glens]

Tom,

One could hardly get anything more simple, inexpensive, and trustworthy than a foot of cord and a carabiner.&nbsp; The whole purpose for having it immediately above the ascender pack is so its presence is the most unobtrusive.

You mentioned desiring your backup be in a different location than whatever it may have been that caused the failure of the primary.&nbsp; I guess that's a legitimate concern but I wouldn't have thought of it.&nbsp; All this time I've been envisioning an internal component failure causing the need for backup; not an outside force.&nbsp; Also, I suppose there's the remote chance a piece of shrapnel from a massive internal failure could interfere with the backup when immediately above the ascender, but that would be much less of a concern with a coil of cord than it would for another mechanical device.

I feel the focus on the immediately-upper position is merited for the reasons mentioned in the first paragraph above.

Glen

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Going back to the double prusik -1 cord strategy. You could use a longer cord; and grab center again. Then, throw a hitch around each respective host under the bar of the Frenchy coils. With each eye before connecting; to achieve Double-Distel(or Schwab, depending on turn direction in relation to Frenchy coils) Mounts for less siezing closed? Allowing the hitch to grip host, and reduce load to each Frenchy, keeping it more in it's powerband for easiest use.

Then, evolve to dropping center again?

i'd think Tom knows more about these strategies than the rest of us from spearheading the SRT research and having addressed this problem for the last couple of years. i think he is the one that has us looking to backup the ascendor any, from the research and trials. Taking every off the wall, crazy, whacko, over thought, repetitive idea sent to him; i, of course, just heard that; and have no 1st hand knowledge of such happenings.....

Or, something like that,

:alien: