Hitch minding...

I never see a hitch minding pulley set up like this...

Instead the pulley is always installed on the carabiner with the VT (or whatever). This leaves a lot of apparent slack in the hitch. Will it work either way? (Ok, ignore the fact that the snap and the small carabiner would actually need to be reversed)

I ALWAYS see hitch minding pullys set up this way if they are pictured with a blakes hitch.
But you're right. I've always wondered about the excessive \"play\" in the VT system when the pully is on the same carabiner as the eye to eye.

I have come to notice that a lot of the systems I see, especially for SFL seem like the climber would never sit down in the harness to rest. Not at all like \"Carl Style\" in which my weight hits the harness all the time.

A plain and simple prusik knot would be fine for SFL if you never load it. If you do load it, prusik or kleimheist seem to require quite a bit of breaking and loosening every time.

I don't have a pulley yet though, or an eye to eye. (my A.R.T. Positioner experience makes me think I really want to give the VT a chance.) So I haven't been able to play with all this yet.

Carl

Typically a VT or similar knot doesn't require tending during ascent. It should have very little play and be attached as close to the harness as possible. The hitch just rides up the rope as you ascend. If you use a foot grab like a Pantin the hitch is immediately self tending a few feet off the ground. When you get a little higher up the weight of the rope tends the hitch if you don't use a foot grab. I see no advantage to using a VT or similar hitch if you're going to put it on an extension or tether as shown in the photo, might as well use a Blake's, it' s easier to push by hand or tend as shown in the photo. Did you try this setup? It looks like the legs of the hitch will bind the pulley.

The reason that the pulley is usually attached to the same biner holding the hitch cord (on a VT or similar) is that the pulley position facilitates pulling slack out of the system (by pulling the tail of the climbing rope away from the climber) while returning from a limb walk or any situation in a tree when you've created slack and want to tighten it up quickly with one hand. It is not used this way for ascending (except for a short push up). That is the only reason for the pulley to be in the system.
-moss

moss wrote:
Did you try this setup? It looks like the legs of the hitch will bind the pulley.

No, I merely edited a posted photo where the pulley and brass snap were located on the large carabiner. It is just the length and apparent looseness of the VT style hitches that gets my attention.

Here's a way to attach a VT* or similar closed split tail hitch to an NT Tengu harness so there is very little slop in the system. The closed split tail and pulley is attached to the blue carabiner, the working end of the rope is attached with a carabiner to the pear screwlink. The hitch is completely self-tending, rides on the down rope as you ascend and grabs when you sit back on it. The system requires that you single or double footlock the tail or use a Pantin, or use a footloop ascender (mechanical or rope). For even less play when I'm sitting back I'll flick the hitch up a couple of inches with an upward swipe of the hand.

Test low and slow with any new system that you try.

*VT is a bit sketchy, you have to \"manage\" it more than most. The Knut, XT, Distel etc. are more reliable.



View on Flickr page

-moss

moss wrote: Here's a way to attach a VT* or similar closed split tail hitch to an NT Tengu harness so there is very little slop in the system. The closed split tail and pulley is attached to the blue carabiner

I am still too unfamiliar with different climbing s tyles to understand why some people keep their hitches at their waist while others put the hitch at a large distance or even out of reach.

Davej wrote:

I am still too unfamiliar with different climbing s tyles to understand why some people keep their hitches at their waist while others put the hitch at a large distance or even out of reach.

For SFL the hitch is often put just out of reach, that's because the climber never descends with the hitch, they only push it up as they ascend static doubled rope.

For a Blakes Hitch in DRT, you must have the hitch within reach or you can't pull the hitch to descend. Some climbers like the hitch has high as possible, but still able to reach the top of the hitch. They grab the down rope with both hands below the hitch. Other climbers (like me) like it about half the length of their reach. For ascent I grab one hand above the hitch, one hand below and push the hitch up with my lower hand as I'm pulling down rope with my upper hand (and my feet). It is easier to keep your body more vertical on the rope and focus load on your legs using the \"one hand above, one hand below\" method.

For closed split tail climbing (VT etc.) you want the hitch as close to your harness as possible. Some climbers put a tether on the biner holding the hitch so they can pull under the hitch for body thrust climbing, once they've reached a branch they move the biner/hitch back to a position close to the harness.
-moss

Hopefully nobody is putting their hitch completely out of reach!

Yes indeed, there are many different climbing techniques. I find the reason for this is more because there are many kinds of trees. Being an arborist, I climb many different kinds of trees, and use a variety of techniques based on the work I need to do, and the type of tree I am ascending.

About half the time I am climbing up the tree on a Blake's hitch. Body thrusting is easiest on a tree with a good trunk, and nice crown, with your Blake's hitch further away from you, so you are getting maximum gain per thrust. For tree type picture a Sugar Maple, or maybe a pin oak. Trees in parks have forms like this. I'll use this setup for a deadwood removal, where i am not moving around the crown too much. Limb walking around the crown is not as much fun with the blake's hitch so far away, and you need two hands to keep your slack out of your system.

Other trees are much more spreading, or maybe the side I want to work leans toward me, so putting my feet on the trunk to ascend is not possible. Then I use a VT and a pantin, and it rocks. The VT close to the body (with pulley naturally) is the ideal setup for crown exploration, and allows one-handed hitch minding. If I am spending all day in a tree, I'll be up there in a VT, even if I ascended using a Blake's setup. For tree types, picture an Elm, or maybe trees in close proximity to each other without much of crown. Using a pantin on the first type of tree to ascend, though, is an exercise in frustration.

I've never used any SRT systems, I don't really see the need for the heights I go up.

moonfarm wrote:

Body thrusting is easiest on a tree with a good trunk, and nice crown, with your Blake's hitch further away from you, so you are getting maximum gain per thrust.

An efficient alternate to body thrusting for climbing close to the trunk is put one foot on the running end with a Pantin, the other on the trunk to balance. You can use a VT or Blake's with this method. Basically the same as the \"modified body thrust\" shown on page 41 of Jepson's TRee Climbers Companion. A foot loop attached to the running end with a prusik or ascender does the same but requires tending by hand to move up.
-moss