Funny Coment from the T-Buzz

"I haven't used a Blake's in years. Too Barbaric " Kentucky Sawyer.

Funny that is what most recreational new climbers learn at climbing school.

I use a knut and V.T.currently. I think we're talking about the same basic concept of climbing system. Only difference being you use a VT. .......

Yeah, the Blake’s Hitch. . .
Simple, reliable, and very predictable during use.

I guess I’m just a barbarian!

I saw that too, pretty funny. Well, arborist climbing isn't rec climbing, unless you're an arborist who's rec climbing.

My main issue with using split-tails whether closed hitch (VT, Schwabisch, Knut etc. etc.) or open (with Blakes) is that you're already at two 'biners when you start climbing and if you double crotch often like rec climbers do, you now have 4 biners to play with at your saddle delta. Add an adjustable lanyard and you have 6 biners at your delta. Even with 4 it's metal management madness.

Tie in traditional with a Blakes and you're off and climbing with one biner and no clanking hardware flopping all over the place. Double crotch for a traverse or swing and it's only two biners. Worried about burning the tail of the rope on long descents? Attach a Gri-Gri, Muenter Hitch or descender of choice and loosen up the Blakes, have a nice ride.

My main complaint with closed hitches is that they #$#!@#$ for getting off the ground for a branch ascent. Try it sometime. As you climb you're going to build up a lot of slack above the hitch until you get high enough for the weight of the rope to self tend the hitch. Adding a Pantin foot ascender helps to reduce that problem but it's yet another piece of hardware to pay attention to.

Of course I could convert at any moment if I can solve all of the above problems.

Sign me:
"Moss the Barbarian"

My most barbaric tree climbing glare:

Three issues in reply to moss’s post. . .

1. I agree with your carabiner-count comments.
2. It has been my experience that a Blake’s hitch will seldom loosen and “surprise” you with a quick decent after it’s been un-loaded and then re-loaded, (unlike the pro-hitches you mentioned).
3. From looking at your photo, I would say that your starting to look less like a REC climber and more like a production arborist.

Hmm… bad morning, eh? Spilled your coffee in the bucket truck and then left your cigarettes on the fender of the chipper?

Hey, just kidding,
Nice post!

I haven't climbed on a Blake in years. Well, except for the occasional double tie in. But I'll never bash the knot. Without a doubt it's the most reliable friction hitch in any climber's arsenal. Every climber should know it. After all if you're up a tree and you drop your eye and eye split tail, what are you going to do? Tie a Blake's, of course!

That sounds like a reasonable approach Leon, use an eye n' eye and then use the Blakes for double crotching. I am curious about the getting off the ground part with the eye n' eye hitch. If you're away from the trunk do you footlock the tail or "just" muscle up and manually tend the hitch when you can?

EJ... I'm way too slow to be an arborist. Plus it's very hard work for a semi-geezer like myself. The photo is a fake tough guy pose, I'm usually all cuddly and tree hugging when I'm climbing Except when I've just spent an hour trying to get a throwbag where I want it.
-moss

Well Sir, I have climbed with you and I’ve learned one thing. . .
You certainly don’t tire easily.
Additionally, your tenacity during (an almost impossible) throw bag retrieval is pretty impressive too!

Back on topic. . .
Controversial comments about a standardized thing like a Blake’s hitch are bound to stir up the message base. We all know that the Blake’s hitch is the workhorse of recreational tree climbing.

I (like most REC climbers) continually tinker with speed hitches that require a length of flame-proof 8mm cord, an extra biner, and a micro pulley. Its great stuff, but as you alluded to above, the Blake’s is pretty much a recreational standard.

Calling a Blake’s “barbaric” on an arborist’s message board might fly but on this forum we all would have to agree, it’s the standard for TCI-BTCC & beyond.

The Blake’s Hitch; a great training knot.
Almost idiot proof.
Certainly kid proof.
–Ej-

Ej, I'd say the Blake's hitch is more of a standard in the arborist world than is apparent if you're reading TreeBuzz. The "fancy hitches" are still considered pretty new fangled by a lot of old school tree workers.

Moss: when doing short ascents away from the trunk I use a pantin. This tends the slack from the hitch and helps me hike up the rope, since I suck at footlocking a single line. For short ascents up the trunk I will, as you said, just bodythrust up and take out slack every few thrusts while hanging from one arm. Once I'm high enough in the tree (i.e. enough rope weight below me) the hitch will sometimes self tend if I've got it tuned right and all I have to do is pull myself up hand over hand. For longer ascents I either footlock a doubled line or bust out the ascender and go SRT.

I always figured that the Blakes clearly outshined the eye and eye hitches for bodythrusting up a trunk, but after hearing complaints from some old timers I'm not so sure. When bodythrusting on a Blakes you have to hang briefly from your lower arm while advancing the hitch. This arm is bent and held fairly low down, which apparently puts a fair amount of stress on the tendons around the elbow. I have heard several tree workers who have been bodythrusting like this for many years complain that this can lead to chronic tendonitis. Of course, rec climbers aren't torturing their bodies like this so it's not really much of a worry.

here in sunny England most tree surgeons use a prussik loop. I like the prussik for work because it is the quickest method.But it does slip sometimes.For rec climbing I use the blakes 4 or 5 wrap.