Peter,
It's Charlie Brown who provided the above study not Bradley.

Since I took a turn onto SRT road several years ago I've thrashed my way through a lot of different systems. Some I haven't used because they don't fit my needs.

There are many roads on the SRT highway system. Its too bad that some people haven't traveled as many as us veteran SRT climbers have.

The concern with backing up SRT is a bit odd to me. For many years arbos have been footlocking a doubled rope using just a loop of cord. There have been accidents and near misses from this system but it has never been recommended to use a backup. Except during competition. Did anyone read about the accident that they had at one of the TCC? There is a good discussion on Treebuzz.com about it. No one got hurt but there were some anxious moments.

When I climb or ascend on my SRT system it is very safe. At ANY time during my climb I can be lowered out by someone on the ground. There are a couple of caveats. Those have been thrown back in my face with a very dismissive attitude. They say, yeah, well what if you have your lanyard on? Huh? In any case, a trad climber would still have to get their lanyard off or a rescue climber would go up. Doubling the load on the tie in point??? When has anyone ever climbed on any TIP with only a 2:1 safety factor? When I bounce test my TIP I put a large load on it.

In time, I hope to see SRT be an accepted and normal way of working in the trees. After all, arbos are the only ones in the working rope arena who work on a dynamic, as in moving, rope system. The rest of the rope workers move on the rope, the rope is stationary. What does that tell you?

This is my RADS system.

The Shunt has a DMM REvolver attached to the front eye. This eliminates a pulley and is very easy to clip in and out. Since the upper part of the RADS isn't there for support a non-locking biner is fine. On the back of the Shunt there is a 3mm cord that goes down to the saddle. This acts as a reverse slack tender. As the climber descends, the Shunt is released and slides down. The Shunt is always within arm's reach. To go up, just hoist away or footlock the tail. This is a 2:1 variation.

Using a handled ascender for the upper combined with a footloop makes it a very nice 1:1. The tradeoff is that the climber can't yo-yo climb.

Speaking of yo-yo, can I rant for a little bit here? If I get too loud, walk away but come back in a few minutes.

I learned about the RADS probably five years ago. It was introduced to the climbing world at a conferenec in Canada for rope rescue people. Mostly wilderness and mountaineering climbers. the name has been accepted in that arena. A while ago I starte to hear about a yo-yo system. I find out that it is the RADS. Why not keep the first, accepted name? Too often there gets to be a tomato/tomato theme going on. When climbers have talked about yo-yo climbing they mean a day when there is a lot of up and down movement. It describes an event not a climbing system. OK, the milkcrate is being put away now... at least for a while

There are many tools that can be used for the lower ascender. The I'd seems to be the best suited. The panic feature and the solid lock-off put it above the next group of tools. The Petzl ASAP is an interesting tool. I haven't had one in my hands to see if it would be a good choice.

How come I can only attach one pic at a time to a reply now?

Oooops! Sorry about my mix up. No offense to you either Bradley. Thanks for doing the homework Charlie.

Has anyone done a drop test on arborist rope using toothed ascenders? I am looking for exact information if possible. I am glad tests show promising for caving and rock climbing ropes.

Peter,

How's the storm?

Tim Walsh may have found out about toothed ascenders on arbo rope. I've never heard of any tests.

A very big concern with using handled ascenders, actually any rope tool, is that the rope fits the tool. If not, well, it could be nature weeding out the stupid. The approach radius on the cams is carefully designed to give a maximum grab at a given travel distance on the pivot.

Tom

Tom, Thanks for the pictures. I have used a similar system to the one from your pictures but instead using the Petzl Id y use a Gri-gri in the lower part of the system attached to the climber. (I use a Basic PETZL Ascender at the top part). I have been happy w/ this set up as shown to me by "Jim of the Panama Jungle" Thanks for taking the time for posting the info. This is one of the main ways I have learned new techniques. Seeing the pictures, reading here and a the Treebuzz site, understanding the info and practicing "low and slow" until I feel confident w/ the equipment and the technique involved. Keep up the good work!

I want to bring this thread back to topic. I still want to know if anyone has heard about “A separate belay required but not shown” with the New Tribe system as mentioned in the Sherrill 2005 catalog. Tom, you said you have never seen it used, right?

I looked up the Frog System in “On Rope”, the cavers bible on rope technique. The Frog System they describe in the book is different from the New Tribe system. Possibly Tobe Sherrill saw the description in “On Rope” and decided it was a good idea, but I do not see how it applies to the New Tribe system as practiced for over two decades.

I e-mailed Tobe on this subject and asked if his separate belay for the New Tribe system was a concept or a disclaimer statement. He wrote me back and said Petzl insisted on this kind of disclaimer statement with their R.A.D. system. I wrote back and reminded him that we were talking about the New Tribe system, not the R.A.D. System, and invited him again to share with the readers on this message board what he was talking about. I have not heard back from him yet.

I am being a bulldog here. If someone makes a strong statement about a product and defends themselves in their publication about their stance, I would expect they are ready to defend their position to the public as well in a forum discussion such as one here. I know one of Sherrill’s marketing people has read this thread because I saw their name show up in the visitor box a few days ago. Sean, could you or Tobe please reply to this thread here? We want to know what you are talking about.

Peter,

To be perfectly honest, I my eye never even saw that line.

It is curious. There has to be a reason for including the tagline but I can't understand any reason why a seperate line would be needed for any ascent system more than another.

If backups are needed for ascent then backups should be required for any part of the climb. And I don't want to go down that road. It is unnecessary.

NT's system has a proven track record. Any dual ascender system is safer than what most climbers use.

In looking at the Sherrill catalog once again on pages 32-33, I noticed that the systems without the disclaimer "A separate belay required but not shown" all have a separate prussik knot above the topmost device or a progress capturing Croll in the case of the #1-Sherrill Frog Sys., whereas those systems with the disclaimer do not have any knot or belay device like the Croll in those systems.
Could this perhaps be the necessary belay device that they're pointing out or lacking and therefore the reason Petzl insisted on the disclaimer and especially since their products were involved???
Even the ropewalker has a prussik above the chest roller which is very unusual. Even in the caving arena this is never done anymore since the prussik has long been rejected by long vertical groups because when in a panic it is human nature to grab tighter on to the rope and if you grab tighter on a prussik knot it releases more and down you go.(Read Storrick's site for further info.on the rejected prussik).
The point is if Sherrill went through the trouble of putting a prussik above every system, eventhough not usually done in reality, then why not show a prussik above the other systems as well?
We anxiously await Sherrill's response!

**This post was written by Tobe Sherrill. I am posting it on his behalf. -Sean**

Last week Peter asked me to chime in on his discussion board about the “separate belay” needed for the New Tribe Frog system (my name for this Texas System assembled by New Tribe) in our 2005 arborist catalog. Besides just having returned from a much needed vacation, I’ve been buried with regular work over the past week (including employee duties, publishing another catalog and now a second hurricane) and simply too fried at the end of the day to answer to this (as well as a few other) request. After being accused today of “blowing off his topic” I’m putting all else aside to answer Peter’s thread.

There's nothing "exclusive" about the Tree Frog. As mentioned in the catalog this was merely a preference due to the fact that 2 out of 3 components of the system may be worn throughout the climb and then re-engaged quickly for further ascending. We make no more profit on the Tree Frog than we do on other systems or components there of, so being determined to make less off of the 4th cheapest system has only one advantage for Sherrill. I find that leading customers to preferred products (be them mine or other’s) helps build trust when the experience matches the recommendation.

As for a separate belay (of the consumer’s choice), I was simply following Petzl’s published lead on the R.A.D., a similar system of only one ascender (I’D in their case) at or above the waist. I’m not sure why all the flack over this issue when the same sort of quote often accompanies even a figure 8.

The Tree Frog is a redundant system (having 2 ascenders, at and above the harness attachment), the Texas system (New Tribe Frog) is "technically" not. Although with that noted, I don’t disagree about the necessity for a separate belay (now there’s a line to read between).

5th post starting “Let’s play devil’s advocate”
Requested comment - The Cow’s Tail tether is relaxed by several inches during an ascent, shortened only to assist in the change-over. In case of a fall, it’s not possible for one human leg to counter the 2,500 lbs. of force required for the CMI ascender to tear rope, this leaves the waist-level Croll to initiate fall arrest, possibly severing the rope. That leaves the upper (handled) ascender biting second. Please confirm Master Instructor.

The drawing of the New Tribe Frog climber in the reclined position was admittedly BAD and has been redrawn for a catalog due out in October. It was drawn from an even poorer photograph.

Thanks for listening, best to all.

Tobe Sherrill

Thanks for the comments. There is lots to injest there.

Tobe, Thanks for taking the time to respond to this gear issue. I see that sometimes we get a little testy but it is all in good spirit and with the hope of learning from others with more knowledge. Thanks for making good gear available at reasonable prices to this community. The catalog is a main source of education to me and many others in the RTC Community. Keep up the good work. and we are looking forward to your next company catalog in Nov.

I am waiting for others to reply. Do you understand what Tobe has described? Were the issues addressed? I want others to respond with their thoughts.

Comments please.

After reading Tobes response several times, I'm still in the dark about the Back Up Belay required on New Tribes system?
What is this Back Up belay it and where would it go?
Perhaps a picture or least a drawing for us laymans out here.
I've been climbing around the world on New Tribes ascenders and have seen some scary climbing techniques that others are using. Im very grateful to be using a simple, secure and safe system. ( the three S's)
But, if I am in danger please inform myself and the hundreds of others that are climbing this way.