Kong Double Ascender

[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.

 

[Chucky]

Burnham said: "Jack, to me it looks like Chucky is using a pair of CMI ascenders, not the Kong Double...that's why the hole on top is different.

Is that right, Chucky?"

Yes, since I don't yet have the Kong double ascender, I had to test the double prussic hitch with two CMI ascenders by "failing" the cam of each ascender to see the effect on the hitch. It's in effect the same thing as using the Kong double ascender when one cam fails.

And the "Nelson hitch" and "Nick Knot" -- the symmetry of of the knot is just sweet. And the independence of coming up with it is reminiscent of Darwin-Wallace.

Jack, it's the symmetry of the individual knots around each of the two ropes that's important, not the overall symmetry of the entire knot. Yes, Dan's and Nick's knots are symmetrical in overall appearance, but what's important is the symmetry of each knot on the individual rope.

Most important is Dan's caution that these knots are NOT PROVEN, and should not be used in climbing until they're extensively tested and proven to be safe, even as a backup knot.

What I was hoping for, is for you folks to tweak the setup for its most efficient use with the Kong double ascender.

BTW, -TM-, you really crack me up! (As well as teach me a lot!)

 

[Tree Machine]

History is being made

You guys have so amazed me. We come out with a problem, and no established solution. Now we have four winners, four killer hitches that will back up two independent, parallel lines. You guys,,,



I think



I am going



to

weep....

 

[MasterBlaster]

Dam!

And this is all I've got!

 

[Chucky]

Face it, even an ol' dinosaur hitch like the one Butch uses ain't gonna slow down an experienced and accomplished climber. No matter how modern and sophisticated the equipment, it's the climber, not the equipment.

What did Thoreau say? Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.

 

[Tree Machine]

You guys ARE great minds

Today I picked the biggest, baddest, kickest assest tree I had on the schedule to field-test your hard work and creativity. I called GlenS to come out and witness and do a climb with me.

We had some big fun reveling in the pure effectiveness of the double Chucky. Even though the prussik loop was too long, the ascender tended the knot beautifully, like it wasn't even there. But fail a side, and bam, you stop.

Chucky, you get an A on the project.

The rest of you, Nelson, Nick, Spidey you're a buncha closet geniuses. You inspire me.

 

[glens]

But it was a Modified Chucky, wasn't it?  The photo will explain, maybe.

Glen

 

[Chucky]

I don't know what to say to that, TM. Coming from you and GlenS, I'm truly and genuinely honored. But I still say it was all inspired by Nick.

 

[glens]

Hey, Chucky.  I can get into a tree pretty good, but once there I'm a relative neophyte.

I was playing around with some of the stuff, and the Modified Chucky (if TM posts the picture [if there is one -- that camera was awful finicky]) does not work.  Luckily the modification was my idea so I can take full blame.

I did, however, come across a very simple setup which seems to have great promise.  Not having a digicam I'll have to resort to the old-fashioned word picture.

The cord length for this needs to provide for minimum slack in order to remain effective.  In my informal tests with no actual ascenders, it would appear a fairly flexible cord would work better than a stiffer one.
<ol><li>Stand facing the two hanging strands of rope.<li>Holding the cord by the ends, let it hang in a loop between you and the ropes<li>Pass the ends around the outside of the ropes and back toward you between them above its bight.<li>Repeat for a total of three times.<li>Drop the ends downward towards you over their bight and attach them to the ascender(s).</ol>
Good luck.

Glen

 

[jkrueger]

So many good things you guys. And Glens yours too.

I've not had the time to work out what everyone has submitted. I'll be working with Big John tomorrow and since I'm the old guy with the clip board on this, , I'll work in some K testing.

I'm sure BJ will have his great usual input.

Think we need to set up some testing protocal, and be able to have some kind of stats, what do you think? (for ANSI )

Jack

 

[Tom Dunlap]

What is the concern about ANSI? Is there a perception that there's an ANSI regulation that deals with ascenders or backing them up?

I've promoted backing up ascenders or using two attachments for ascending for many years. Not because ANSI but from reading "On Rope" and several books on search and rescue. In those disciplines they attach twice.

Tom

 

[Tom Dunlap]

If you're looking for a secure back-up on doubled ropes you could look at the Shunt. Or better yet, put two Rockers together. They have proven track records. In my SRT setup I have a Rocker clipped to my saddle D. It tails along nicely. Much quicker than making two hitches.

For you guys that are in pursuit of the mythical DdRT backup, I have a question. Why not just go SRT? The only reason for DdRT is that you haven't learned to footlock on a single. Think back to how hard it was to footlock in the beginning. How long did it take to get as good as you are now? Making the step to SRT will be much quicker because you understand the fundamentals. Once you get over the learning curve you'll wonder why you didn't go SRT a long time ago. I'm not just saying that from my personal bias. I've talked to many climbers who made the conversion and agree.

Tom






Tom

 

[glens]

Originally posted by Tom Dunlap
For you guys that are in pursuit of the mythical DdRT backup, I have a question. Why not just go SRT? The only reason for DdRT is that you haven't learned to footlock on a single.

Hi Tom.&nbsp; It's more a case of searching for the dual-ascenders-on-DdRT backup.

I don't use ascenders but have an interest because, well, I find it interesting.&nbsp; I have learned to footlock on a single rope.&nbsp; In fact, that's the <i>way</i> I learned and don't have a problem with it other than the friction hitch biting down so darn hard when weighted.&nbsp; I've gone to using doubled-rope because on it, the hitch works "normally".&nbsp; I've tried a number of differernt hitch configurations and am open to suggestion.&nbsp; I haven't bought a bunch of hardware because I don't know yet if this is something I want to invest that much in.

Glen

 

[Tree Machine]

Hello Glen.

Thanks fir the input, Tom, on those things. Especially the SRT. However, for the sake of not veering into your and my favorite method (SRT), let's stay with doubled rope technique ascent on the KONG Dual Ascenders. Backing them up.

Backing up these ascenders is CRITICAL. The difference between backed up ascenders, vs not backed up ascenders is huge in the confidence you have in the tree. Now, instead of getting up to the first limb, changing over to monkey mode I can just stay on the ascenders awhile. WHY? Because if it feels sensible to do that, I will do that. As long as you're working a level, or going up, you're golden. Switch over to descent mode for the way down, or for long limbwalking.

Why do we do this Tom? Because it is the ultra-simple, quick and easy, failproof, fully backed up, Chuckified bombproof setup. It's Chuckified, y'know what that means, ? like the Mother Ship just got whacked with a bottle of Champagne.

Esss Eye Emm Pee Ell Eeee Can I be any clearer? Ascenders are reliable, predictable devices that do what they do well, so much more effective than any hitch and the durable suckers will last and serve you 5-10 years

Eeee Zeee
Footlocking up a doubled rope is decidedly easier than up one single line, as in SRT (however, SRT rocks and we love it (shameless SRT plug)).

Chucky has given the arborist world permission to work off ascenders. Does every body get it? You're now allowed to explore a style uniquely new to most everybody. We're asking no one to change their climbing method, just putting out there that you can now work safely off dual ascenders. Embrace your liberty of choice.

The results are in: A Double Chuck works. A Nelson Nick Knot works. Spidey's Double French works. Spidey says even a simple prussik works. Our duty now is to test out some various fiber, various diameters ( I vote 8 mm) and various lengths. Keep trying different stuff until we find an 'industry standard', something that has all the best properties.

I'm going to do a stretch exercise on the behalf of all of us. I am going to put together a digital upgrade of the ascenders, pointing out what we need to accomplish regarding the captive backup with the caribiner through the top. I'm going to offer it up to you Chaps first. After we dissect it together, and we're aligned that it is a submittable idea, we will submit it to Italy. This is our duty.

 

[Chucky]

"Stand facing the two hanging strands of rope.
Holding the cord by the ends, let it hang in a loop between you and the ropes

Pass the ends around the outside of the ropes and back toward you between them above its bight.

Repeat for a total of three times.

Drop the ends downward towards you over their bight and attach them to the ascender(s)."[


Glen, that was a great description, but even better, the knot was set extremely fast -- and it worked. They both grabbed and held fast.

To make it even faster would be a matter of grapevining (double fisherman's looping) the ends of the rope and slipping them over a biner through the top of the ascender(s).

Tree Machine mentioned there's a problem fitting a carabiner in the Kong double ascender in this setup. I wonder how this can be overcome (other than filing)?

(Have you considered giving up this nonsense and pursuing a career in technical writing?)

 

[Tree Machine]

So as not to get into a bicker debate about ANSI, what if we proceed, with the intent of sharing this info with ANSI. Also would like to submit to "The Tree Climber's Companion" for addition into the next edition. That would kinda be up to you, collectively, on whether to do that.

In this next shot I was getting ready to go up into this huge hackberry. I had a brand new rope, and was going to try an entirely new way (for me) to abseil. The job was really technical, high and over top a house and the days weather was perfect. It was 3 in the afternoon and my hair was on fire. I was in a new gear mood and I would be up there for sunset.

This pic shows the described 'Glen Hitch'. I climbed with it for 3 hours, and it works. We must add this to the running list of Ways to Back up a Double Ascender.

 

[BigJohn]

To answer your question Tom one reason I prefer to double line is in some ocassions I don't want to rely on someone to untie my rope from the base of the tree or have a good shot with my rope placed perfectly and want to just footlock up a ways and hop off and start clearing out the bottom. I do find single line footlocking just as easy as double. I know to tie a slip knot at the base that can be untied from aloft but how safe can that really be with peopel dragging brush on the ground who are unaware of where they are. Both ways are great like anything have their time and place.

 

[glens]

Attachment: glen\'s hitch backup.jpg

Jim, that hitch is the one I described as the "Modified Chucky".&nbsp; I toyed with it here today and it does not work in all cases.&nbsp; The one I later described tying seems to work in every way, so long as it is not tied with stout cord and too much slack.

Glen

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
Did I cross over to a reverse dimension?
Tom doesn't think ANSI has a major roll in safety in our industry? Perhaps he feels there are only a few tree climbers ascending ropes, so let 'em crash until there are statistics to warrent a standard?
Stars are crashing in my universe right now....

Four people that I know personally, not via the web or third hand, have had slips [falls] from ascenders "failing". Knock on wood [my head] I've never had a failure though. There are plenty of other rumors about ascender accidents too. Backing up ascents should be mandatory as far as I'm concerned.

ANSI has nothing to say about ascender use much less backing them up. Sometimes ANSI moves too slow. Sometimes in strange directions. I talked with a friend who sits on the Z133 committee who said that there was discussion about taking out the "half inch rope exception." I wonder where that idea came from.

The reason I asked about ANSI is that there have been some referances to it and I would like to know why. Just for information not to hijack the thread.

Seeing the inovation with some new hitches is interesting. Have you looked on Storrick's site for other ascender hitches? There might be a configuration that could be modified to DdRT.

The Nomex/Technora cord from New England Ropes and sold by Bishop is a real nice cord for SRT hitches. If a hitch bites too hard on SRT add some more round turns.

Tom

 

[roachy]

I think those backups are great but I have to agree with Tom .I did a vary similar setup years ago but could never get past the added friction the hitches cause ,it just seemed as if you will be fighting the hitch as you ascend.
My version was using two VTs and two Jumar ascenders .My only reason for trying this was for a rescue I could ascend up dis ingage one cam and use that vt as my climbing hitch and get right to buisness.Now since I use Srt almost exclusively its just an afterthought.
Still cant get over you guys thinking double rope is less difficult than single when footlocking hmmmmm.No two climbers are the same ,thats what makes it all good.