Has anyone tried Sherrill’s new Tree Frog Climbing System? This system has just been introduced to the tree climbing world in the 2005 Sherrill catalog. Five SRT systems were rated in the catalog, with Sherrill’s system holding the first place. They also rate it high for its compactness, having that two components that do not have to be removed (Panteen foot ascender and Croll chest ascender) if another climbing system is going to be used, like DRT (Blakes’s hitch etc.). This system uses a Foot cam, Chest cam, one handle ascender (larger CMI Expedition model) and cow tail tether. This system is bylined as “Designed for tree climbing activities.” I personally have no experience with this system yet.

Number two rated is a caver rope walker system – the Mitchell Climbing System. This rig features a cumbersome double roller chest block, two ascenders, two foot attachments, known to cavers as chicken loops. For gear heads that need lots of stuff, this would probably work very well. This system is bylined as “Frequently used in caving.”


Coming in at third place is the humble (and least expensive) New Tribe Frog System. This is the familiar system used by many tree climbers. The catalog subtitle says, “Important: A separate belay required but not shown.” I have personally never used or seen a belay during a SRT climb. I go up one rope. SRT= single rope technique. Anyone here use a belay on SRT? I have used this system for many years now, as well as other SRT systems. Am I missing something? Tie a bungi cord between the two ascenders and you have a faster self advancing system. This system is bylined as “Frequently used in caving.” Maybe so, but it has actually been a tree climbing staple for years. It’s used by the canopy researchers as well. I think the Sherrill catalog seriously misrepresents this system.

Coming in at fourth place is R.A.D (rope ascending and descending system) climbing system. It uses one ascender, micro pulley, and a Petzl ID (over sized Grigri). You can go up or down with this rig without switching systems. I call this system the Yoyo system. This is my favorite system for rescuing cats out of trees. I shoot a high line, anchor it at the base of the tree, and SRT up to bag the kitty. I use a Grigri instead of the larger ID to descend. It’s slow, but sure. That’s my take of this system from many years of using it. This system is bylined as “Frequently used for cargo inspections.” I think they are talking about container freight inspections in holds of ships. My cargo is a squirming, clawing, and biting feline! (Psssst- never hang a kitty bag next to your skin).

Coming in at fifth place is Rope Walker II Climbing system. This system has a single chest block roller, two ascenders, and a prusik backup tether. This system is super fast! At the caver “Cave In” gatherings where they compete, this system is the quickest. You can do 100 feet easily in less than 60 seconds. It’s also a lot of gear not easily taken off or packed while aloft as is so with the #2 rated Mitchell System. This system is bylined as “Best for long verticle [vertical] ascents.”

Treeman, Good summary on the Advanced Climbing Systems presented by Sherrills.
A friend caver gave me a system made by REI (no longer on sale) w/ three attachment points with 3 Gibbs Ascenders. One on the left foot, one right over the stomach and one on the right shoulder. It looks promising but it has such a complicated set of instructions and all the gear is not easy to attach to the climber that I have not been able to get it on a tree yet. Also, my trees are too short for these rig. (<60 ft tall).

I have tried the RAD systems as you describe it (Yo-yo) and it is easy to use and not very gear intensive specially coming down on the same gear w/o changing gears to come down. I also used the Frog System (New Tribe) w/ Ultrascenders and I had the same question about the additional belay requirement. I can see that if this FROG system were to fail in any way you will be S.O.L. and the additional belay would save your neck. Something similar to what they do in the ISA foot looping climbing competition! Those guys were doing 50 feet up in about 20 seconds competing here in Austin a couple of weeks ago.
Thanks for the update.

Possibly Sherrill is thinking about a floating prusik above the high ascender. I am not sure what they are talking about, as they were unable to show or explain what a “belay” might look like on the Frog System.

The problem with most ascenders is the potential for shock loading. Let’s say a branch broke out from the anchor point, sending the system down for a shock load. This can be a real threat in that high shots can loop over smaller branches and not be seen from the ground. Half way up the climb something breaks and you take a dive, hopefully short at that. It has happened to me several times. My dive was short, a couple of feet.

I know the teeth in CMI and Petzel ascenders can shred the rope pretty bad on a big shock load. This is due to the aggressive tooth design on these ascenders. I have yet to try the Russian ribbed cam design.


So who has tried the Tree Frog System? Anyone yet? There have been no reviews to my knowledge on this system. Certainly an interesting concept, but without a track record as of yet.

I am still trying to understand Sherrill’s stance on “Important: A separate belay required but not shown” (page 33 in 2005 catalog) and his added comment, “an editor asked if I was trying to scare people away from buying certain systems. I replied that I feel a certain responsibility in providing shoppers with detailed and hands-on experience (negative or positive) about each product's performance. Anything else would be just fluff designed to sell anything to anybody.”

If there is an added belay missing, why isn't the extra piece shown, explained, or sold? Also, if you look on page 95 of the 2005 catalog, you will see the New Tribe Frog Climbing system that Sherrill criticizes in use- with no separate belay piece shown. I view this as contradictory to Sherrill's editorial statement of the system. Am I off base here? Where is this mysterious separate belay so touted as needed?

Let’s play devils advocate. Sherrills’s Tree Frog system uses one CMI ascender, a Petzl chest ascender (Croll), and a Petzl Panteen foot ascender. A high branch that the SRT rope is looped over breaks, sending climber down to be stopped by the next lower branch. The CMI ascender shreds the climbing rope. Anything below the CMI ascender is toast- too damaged for functional use.

Look at the picture on p. 32 of Sherrill's new catalog. The back up belay for the Tree Frog System is attached to the CMI ascender, making it inoperative and useless. The chest ascender is below the CMI ascender, making it useless. The foot ascender is below the CMI ascender, making it useless. The foot stirrup is attached to the CMI ascender, making it useless as well. Everything revolves around the one lone CMI ascender. I would imagine the CMI people still use the aggressive tooth design like used with the smaller Ultra CMI ascenders. This is a guess on my part because I have not seen this newly designed Expedition ascender model.

A suggestion: How about putting the belay prusik loop ABOVE the lonely CMI ascender, as seen with the Mitchell system or the Rope Walker II system where the prusik is above the chest roller block (pictured in yellow in Sherrills’s catalog)? This would be alot safer than the current pictured set-up.

Comments please.

Treeman,
First, I have been using a similar system to Sherrill's,(except w/o a Croll) along with Tom Dunlap which is efficient, compact and safe. We use a Pantin on foot, a Yates rocker at waist and a microcender at top. See attachment.

You bring up a very highly debatable issue among "working arborists", which differ from "rec. climbers", and that is, whether to use a self belay both on ascent and descent, and more importantly, what type of device to use. In your "devil's advocate scenario" it seems you have made the case for working arborists, although with a dif.example, in that many are now wanting to use a self belay even on ascent in order to be safer. And because of many accidents they are dropping the use of handled ascenders "like leaves from a tree" and going to more rope friendly cammed devices without teeth or for those who won't give up the handled ascenders, they are getting them modified to protect the cam. See:
http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php? Cat=0&Number=26541&an=0&page=0&gonew=1#UNREAD
However, the accidents are not primarily from the example you sited--small braking branches above the TIP, but rather from small objects in the tree getting into the cam or from a climber thumbing the cam during a panic, or jamming it under a limb. As you can see also, Kong has even actually come up with a modification to prevent the rope from coming out of the cam housing with the use of an optional carabiner.
I believe that Sherrill is criticizing the use of all systems w/o a self belay and leaving the choice of what device to use and where to put it up to the individual. Again, because of what working arborists are encountering with handled ascenders failing, like you yourself have emphasized, and because of the accidents mounting, they are probably giving Sherrill and others input to come up with safer systems, but at the same time are not so eqpt. intensive, hence the statement by Sherrill about the compactness of the system. However, because of liability etc, Sherrill may not want to say what or where to use a self belay device.
As far as the Prussik, this has been rejected totally by cavers and other long vertical groups, because during panic one grabs the knot which causes it to release more. See http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/Misc/RappelSafetyPost.html
Also the Prussik can seize on the rope.
So then we(treeclimbers) are left with toothless cam devices as the safer choice.
Why are so many rec. climbers then still using handled ascenders, especially at the topmost position of their systems, considering what working arborists are encountering as causing the failures and as you yourself has suggested.
I believe that the accident statistics of handled ascenders actually shredding or severing the rope is quite rare because it would take quite a huge shock load for them to be severed and arborists rarely get into such a situation, like perhaps climbing above the anchor, like rock climbers.
However, the accidents are mounting because of the other reasons stated above and the arborists and suppliers are responding with the input of other climbing disciplines(i.e.cavers) and regulatory orgs. requiring certain safety practices.(i.e. always having at least a two point safety contact with the rope at or above the waist at all times, whether ascending or descending).
Just my two cents from doing a lot of research with other arborists to find a safe ascent and descent system. (i.e.You can ascend and descend with the Yates rocker attached below a rappel device.)
CharlieB.

P.S. For clarification, the above picture is of Tom Dunlap's ascent system who has sent it to me and given many of us great guidance.
CharlieB.

Also, if you look on page 95 of the 2005 catalog, you will see the New Tribe Frog Climbing system that Sherrill criticizes in use- with no separate belay piece shown.

I think that the picture on page 95 is there just because it is a "Cool "Picture and not intended to show the proper use of equipment. Is that Genevie w/ one of her students?? Just wondering.

Yep. The woman without the face showing is Genevieve Sumers, the most famous and well known woman recreational tree climber. Too bad her face was not showing. She was the instructor bringing the other woman up (with smiling face) in the photograph.

Hi everybody,

I've been climbing SRT exclusively, always using the New Tribe ascender system, for (gulp!) 20 years. In all that time, I've been in touch with working arborists, recreational tree climbers, and canopy researchers of all stripes and from all over the globe. Now is the first time I've heard reports of trouble with cam ascender systems, and these reports are coming from the arborist community whose requirements are the highest and most complex of all tree climbers.

I completely support effective safety practices for tree climbers and everyone who leaves the security of the ground. That said, I also appreciate the difference between professional safety standards such as those that employed arborists must follow, and reasonable safety measures that recreational climbers can choose. I want to report that in the 20 years that I have worked with New Tribe and tuned in to the rec climbing world, never have I heard of an accident involving ascenders. We are confident that with a secure top-rope anchor in the tree, the stresses of inching up a rope using cam ascenders are well within the safety rating of the equipment being used. We can see no point in adding a separate belay. The most magnificent tree climbs ever made for science or for personal fulfillment have been safely accomplished with ascenders rigged in a system just like New Tribe's, without additional safety provisions. Sophie says, do what makes you comfortable. A pair of ascenders with good straps is adequate. Use more safety rigging if you like.

I'd also like to say that we never called New Tribe's system "frog." I think that's a hold-over from caving, where a similar approach was used by cavers who knotted webbing onto their ascenders so they could climb out of pits. A similar solution was pioneered by early canopy researchers in the 1970s, using knotted webbing. When we looked at the needs of tree climbers in the mid-1980s, Tom Ness contrived the elegant sewn-webbing arrangement of straps and stirrups that you see today in New Tribe ascenders. It was developed specifically for climbing trees, as an evolution of the former methods.

I really don't see anything out there that would be easier or safer to use for SRT ascent, or more convenient for getting around in a tree, or more economical, than the simple New Tribe ascender setup. You wouldn't expect me to say anything else, now, would you? Yet it's so plainly true...

You might not think New Tribe ascenders were so good if you believed the cartoon of a climber using them that appears in Sherrill's catalog. That character doesn't have a sense of his own "body english." Any real human who wanted to make vertical progress would align his/her body with the rope, and move straight up. In the cartoon, the "climber" is hanging for dear life by his hands on the ascender, while his feet kick out in front of him in the stirrups. Silly. All you have to do is tuck your heels under your butt and stand straight up in those stirrups. Then you sit down into your saddle. Then you stand up again. Nothing to it. Just raise one ascender when your weight is on the other one and you're there before you know it. You can even rest along the way if you want to.

By the way, Genevieve Summers is as cool as they come. Of course Sherrill wants to showcase a woman or two climbing a giant tree. Regardless of what Sherrill says about belays with ascenders, nothing could be more eloquent than this photo of two gals confidently climbing a great arboreal friend.

My friend John at Tree Climbing Japan uses this guideline for choosing gear:
[align=center]The Three D's
1-It's not difficult
2-It's not dangerous
3-It's not damaging[/align]

Using that razor for cutting through the confusion, TCJ is happy to choose New Tribe ascenders for their SRT climbs. So are a lot of other folks, for a long time now.

I urge everyone to be careful and discriminating when choosing your safety gear for tree climbing. We climb for the joy of it. There is no joy in accidents or injuries. So take your time, ask around, and choose for yourself.

Happy and safe with the trees,

Sophia

The shock loading scenario I am bring up is a “what if” subject. I personally have not shredded a rope from a high limb break out. I have, however, dropped a few times a few feet with no rope injury. But this has brought me to wonder, because I have experienced intense danger on high wilderness climbs where I could not clearly see what my rope was looped over to discover 125 feet up that my anchor was not as secure as it seemed- with a fast as lightning “swing over to the nearest branch” move for a backup tie in and heavy heart poundings. This is a danger that cavers would probably not encounter, unless their anchor point failed and in that case they would be dead meat.

Climbing above my anchor point while on SRT? I would never do that and do not think an experienced climber would take that risk either.

I am still trying to figure out what this “additional belay” really is with the New Tribe system as mentioned in Sherrill’s 2005 catalog. Is this additional belay a concept or disclaimer statement? What do I not know? So I am asking again. What is this additional belay Sherrill has deemed as “Important” in his catalog? I have never used one or seen one in all of my climbing days using the New Tribe System.

The picture of gals climbing big wood is dramatic. I can see why it was chosen to announce a recreational catalog. If gals can do it, so can guys! And guys follow the gals. It is plain good marketing savvy. But where are those additional belays?

Do I ask too much by asking for clarification of technique?

It would seem that a telephone call to Sherrill is the only way you will be able to determine if their belay comments are legal or practical in nature.

Additionally, the post from Sophia @ New Tribe was quite reassuring. Their climbing system is fine as-is.

I would assume that if one needed yet more security than two ascenders connected to your saddle (as in the New Tribe system), you could always place a smooth jawed microcender above the topmost ultrascender and connect it to your saddle with a loop runner. (Seems a bit silly though, like a seat belt on a motorcycle, eh?)

I’ll go a step further Electrojake. I’ll e-mail Tobe directly and ask him to explain the needed belay to us here. I hope he or one of his technical people will be able to explain to all of us here what he has in mind to make the New Tribe System work safer and/or better. I am only guessing at this point what he is thinking about.

Peter,

Do I ask too much by asking for clarification of technique?

Here, here! I second Electrojake's reponse. Only Sherrill can answer that.
Is it possible that they were thinking more about marketing rather than technique?-- so that, by implying any possible criticism no matter how small of other systems, it would make their system appear to be more attractive to potential customers? I hope not. But negative marketing like this has been known to be done by some companies.
So thanks for letting Sherrill know. We anxiously await their response.
Also, if you, Peter or anyone is interested, there is a great research study done a few years back, which many caving and climbing experts refer to at: http://www.losalamos.org/climb/xRopes.pdf
Especially read pages 4, 5 & 6 dealing with load factor, UIAA limits and Fall Factors 0, 1, & 2.
Also I'd like to refer you to page 31 of the book "On Rope" dealing with fall factors and rope/equipment.
Bottom line is good news for handled ascender advocates, because according to these studies, a climber would have to experience or exceed a Fall Factor II type fall (falling the length of the rope from above the anchor point then continuing to fall the length of the rope below the anchor point), before the load factor becomes even near the realm of rope failure, but not even then would the rope fail according to UIAA limits.
So the point is, way before the load factor threatens a rope, the human body would sustain lethal injuries or death.
So the example of a climber who fell from being at the anchor point, to the full length of rope below it(Factor I Fall) and did not sustain the full 15g's, which is the max. the body can take, while the handled jumars only cut the outer sheath and slid 1.5ft fusing the core for 2ft and still survived w/o injury, should gives us all some re-assurance.
The re-assurance is this, that way before handled ascenders would sever the rope, we would all by physically destroyed by the fall.
So the lesson is stay below your anchor points and try not to have slack in the line.
So, Peter, I'm sure your example of small braking limbs a few feet above your true anchor point is and would always be much less than even a Factor I fall. So take courage.
Also, for those working arborists, who have been plagued with terrible mishaps, all we can do is "protect our cams".
My two cents.
Charlie Brown

Thanks for your input. It is most useful. I printed out the study paper and will read it in its entirety.