|
|
|
|
socaliforniaclimber
Nov 24, 2002, 2:41 AM
Post #1 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 76
|
Ok, I know the last time I had mentioned using a single tibloc to ascend it stirred up a lot of controversy. There were some very rude comments made for those who disagreed with this method; however, some assisted me in reaching my objective in getting the best constructive critisism. Ultimately I have reached a system I am very confident in and have rigorously tested.
Sorry for the drawn out prelude.
1) Set up a normal t.r. with the exception of placing a figure eight knot at the middle portion of the rope.
2) After t.r.'ing rappel down with the belay of your choice.
3) clip two locking carabiners into your harness.
4) Using two tiblocs, clip one tibloc into the right side of the rope and one tibloc into the left side.
5) Test the system a fewfeet off the ground.
6) Be sure your carabiners are locked and climb on.
7) You can weight your rope but I found this uneccesary after ten feet where the wieght of the rope creates a very comforting self feeding action.
Once you reach the top of your climb simply clip your belay device below the tibloc's and clip out of the tiblocs.
This system has worked great for me with no wear on the rope at all and I have intentionally cranked on the rope with five to ten foot test falls.
With the double ascender method you have two backup. If either one fails, which is highly unlikely, or if there is any rope damage, the other tibloc will catch your ass. Your basically double ascending.
Climb at your own risk but my personal experience is that it's a great way to solo ascend.
Lastly, I have experimented with other ascenders and for simplicity and superior performance I have chosen the tiblocs.
[ This Message was edited by: socaliforniaclimber on 2002-11-23 22:01 ]
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Nov 24, 2002, 3:04 AM
Post #2 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Dude, have fun. I hope it is safe, and I hope you remain accident-free. Most of the hard knocks you received last time were because of your stubborn insistence on using a method most people agreed they thought was unsafe. I know--it's tough to be reflective when you've been challenged, but the fact is you asked for the feedback and then didn't accept it too graciously when it wasn't a ringing endorsement of your method.
I have no feedback for you on your revised system. I have a feeling some others might, and I hope you can be a little more open-minded this time around. After all, you're just trying to find a good way to get the most enjoyment and mileage out of your climbing time. Heck, I'm all for that. But please consider that the feedback you get is only out of genuine care and concern for your well-being.
Ed
[ This Message was edited by: up2top on 2002-11-23 19:05 ]
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Nov 24, 2002, 3:19 AM
Post #3 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
wow this seems like a sweet idea. so as you climb are ou constantly having to reach back and pull the tiblocs along or do they slide up easily on thier own? i read your last posts and the ensuing arguments too but i gotta say it sounds safe. i have lived my life relying on the fact that the recommended use (or breaking strength) is always really conservative and you can push beyond it to a point within reason. as long as you know what your' dealing with. sounds safe to me as long as the rope is feeding through just fine. have fun. do you have a partner? or is that why you started this?
|
|
|
|
|
tradclimber2
Nov 24, 2002, 3:44 AM
Post #4 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2001
Posts: 132
|
Mike, I read the posts on your last go-around also. People do get worked up. I do have a couple of comments on your 'new and revised' system:
You wrote: "1) Set up a normal t.r. with the exception of placing a figure eight knot at the middle portion of the rope. " Does this mean you DO put an "8" in the TR anchor (I hope so), I first read it and was not sure. Sounded like that when you climb with a tibloc onto each side of the rope and climb, when/if ONE side fails for whatever reason, won't the OTHER side then be taking all the force, and, wouldn't that be like rappelling and having one side of the rope slip thru the rappel device - ie. you are now fighting gravity at the tune of 9.8M/sec? Please correct me if I am seeing this system differently than you have it set up............BTW, I use a tibloc, but mainly for rescue and emergency ascender. Ben
[ This Message was edited by: tradclimber2 on 2002-11-23 19:48 ]
|
|
|
|
|
socaliforniaclimber
Nov 24, 2002, 3:52 AM
Post #5 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 76
|
Let me specify this point. The top of the rope is a double figure eight knot that is looped through the t.r. biners. If one ascender or side of the rope fails that you will certainly be caught by the other side. There is no way it can pull through like on a rappel. Thus, you are double ascending. Each side is backed up by the other.
Furthermore, this would be a double fugure eight at the top, not a simple eight. This gives it extra strength and is less difficult to break loose when your breaking down your setup.
Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
tradclimber2
Nov 24, 2002, 3:57 AM
Post #6 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2001
Posts: 132
|
Thanks Mike, I figured as much, but just wanted to be sure before anyone else started flaming you about a 'potentially unsafe' system.
|
|
|
|
|
jhump
Nov 24, 2002, 3:59 AM
Post #7 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2002
Posts: 602
|
This topic should be called "Tibloc solo TR method." As socal is using it, it is not an ascending system at all. Tiblocs are great little ascenders, but are IMO deficient as solo devices. Using toothed ascenders for soloing is far beyond my accepted sphere of risk. It is simply unnecessary. There are plenty of devices that will not chew the rope. I had the same idea when I first got my Tibloc a few years ago, but I quickly learned that it loved to eat ropes. With an 11 mil Sterling and a fat HMS biner, if I did not manually reposition the Tibloc, it would snag the sheath resulting in ugly burrs. I did not climb on it, thinking it was either a death trap or at least the way to fast rope retirement. I have had good luck with a GriGri and clove for lead and TR solo. Socal, you are a braver man than me. I hope your system works for you, but my testing has ruled this method out for me.
[ This Message was edited by: jhump on 2002-11-23 20:02 ]
|
|
|
|
|
twrock
Nov 24, 2002, 4:51 AM
Post #8 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 223
|
Mike, although I still do not recommend your system, yes, you have at least reduced the potential for a catastrophic failure by creating redundancy. However, the potential is not eliminated. But then again, the potential always exists in this sport (even for boulderers).
I still believe you must always tie in. As I posted previously, I would still recommend tying into the backup rope (using a self-locking biner) instead of relying on a second tibloc. The cost of two tiblocs approximately equals the cost of a Basic ascender, which, unlike the Tibloc, is recommended by the manufacturer as a solo toprope device. (I'll stick with my Silent Partner.)
Your personal testing may have worked every time, but it does not mean that you have thought of and tested all potential scenarios. If you re-read my post about my father-in-law's solo TR climbing system, you will hopefully understand what I mean.
Jhump is right when he says that your post should be titled "solo TR method." Otherwise it seems as though you still aren't understanding the difference between "ascending a rope" and "climbing the rock with an ascender as your solo belay device."
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Nov 24, 2002, 5:31 AM
Post #9 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
Socal-Although I understand you wanting to find a toprope soloing method that you like, and is inexpensive. I think you need to realize that tibloc's were not designed to be used this way. You have heard this from, people here and straight from Petzl. The fact that you are adding to the system(ie-reduncy) is great, but simply put you are not using the right tool for the job. I'm not trying to flame you but, Bro seriously Tibloc's are just not toprope devices!
Be careful!
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
socaliforniaclimber
Nov 24, 2002, 6:00 AM
Post #10 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 76
|
I am not being cheap by choosing the tibloc. I like the fact that the only moving part on this device is the rope and the biner that locks upon force. I have experimented with gri gri and petzl basic and greatly prefer petzl's simple tibloc.
The truth is, without using it, without seeing it in action, it is easy to be critical. However, as it is said, the proof is in the pudding.
When I first started using the single tibloc ascention method there were flaws and I thank even the a-holes for they're input. However, I doubt there is room for real justified critisism regarding the double tibloc ascention on real safety. So what if it is atypical and nontradtional and different. It works like a charm.
So far, the single tibloc method works great on 20+ solo climbs and the double tibloc method worked equally on 20+ more climbs. Each solo climb was of coarse tested prior to each use wieghted at five feet off the ground. 100% effective with no problems other than having to manually feed the rope for the first ten feet only. Afterwards it almost completely self feeds.
Enjoy.
[ This Message was edited by: socaliforniaclimber on 2002-11-23 22:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
twrock
Nov 24, 2002, 7:14 AM
Post #11 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 223
|
Mike, just to clarify, I "have used it," I "have seen it in action." So have a number of others who have criticized your system. I own a Tibloc; bought it right when they came to market. It hangs on my harness at all times. I used to have a prusik loop hanging there, but I bought a Tibloc to replace it for emergency ascending (not self-belay). When I first bought it, I too considered it for a self-belay device, but after experimenting with it myself (long before your post), I concluded the risks of rope damage were unacceptable.
But not to worry, Mike. I can live with being wrong on this one; can you?
|
|
|
|
|
socaliforniaclimber
Nov 24, 2002, 7:28 AM
Post #12 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 76
|
If I receive any rope damage I will update and let everyone know. As I had mentioned before, I am going on around 50 climbs with zero damage.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
nifeedge
Nov 24, 2002, 5:17 PM
Post #13 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: 2
|
socal - I think your idea may have merit but I have a few questions...
1. what kind, size, and type of rope (i.e. static or dynamic) are you using?
2. are you climbing on steep or overhanging rock and taking hard falls on your system?
3. how much do you weigh?
thanks, andy
|
|
|
|
|
winkwinklambonini
Nov 24, 2002, 6:41 PM
Post #14 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 1579
|
Mike Goff, an instructor at Prescott College, used to lap everyone at the local tr land:upper sullies. He would walk to the top of a climb, set up an anchor, fix a line and throw it down, rap, coil the remainder and clip his rope to it to wieght it down, then climb with a non-toothed ascender of some kind. This is important because the teeth disallow the device to catch the core of the rope, only the sheath. I've seen something that wild country makes that is small, and looks like it holds more securely than a tiblock.
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Nov 24, 2002, 7:50 PM
Post #15 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
Socal: It seems you did learn something from the last go-around. At least you are adding some redundancy but if the use of a tiblock is generally considered to be fatally flawed, what makes you think two wrongs will make you alright. Just because you have done a number of climbs this way without incident doesn't mean it is always going to be that way. That's exactly what that guy Joe and his buddy assumed.....and Joe died. With your system, if you load the rope, you have to be lucky every time. On the other hand the "grim reaper" only has to be lucky once
If you are truly convinced that the tiblock is fail safe then why use a second? Why not take that second line and instead of using a second tiblock, use it to tie in directly. You could even have the clip in loops pre-tied as you drop the line. I think you are not convinced of the fail safe aspect which is why you are backing it up. Your fatal flaw is to assume damage will be minimal, just like Joe assumed only the sheath would cut, not the core. If you didn't read this before either read or read it again and learn.
http://www.texasroperescue.com/library/09report.html
Despite so many people telling you that you are creating a flawed system you insist on using it. Why not just go and get equipment designed for the job. Do you really think you know better than the equipment manufacturers?
NOTE TO BEGINNERS: The system advocated here is a flawed system that has not been properly tested (including all scenarios, or to failure to find true limits). The evidence offered is anecdotal and not scientific or definitive.
DO NOT USE THIS SYSTEMYou may wish to read this http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=6096&forum=19
I assume you are at least using dynamic rope and hope this and redundancy will keep someone from having to scoop up your remains off the rocks.
I wish you luck because I think you will need it. I hope you will stay safe but have reservations about that.
I will bid you farewell with best wishes for I may not get the opportunity to do so the next time you use this system. May you be lucky each time.
[ This Message was edited by: darkside on 2002-11-24 11:54 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mattiem
Nov 24, 2002, 9:31 PM
Post #16 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 104
|
The problem i see even with the "improved" system is you are still only planning for a best case senario. When your life is on the line you want to plan for the worst case senario. You said you have taken fall of up to 10 with no damage. What about 20? how about 40? how about a half rope 100 foot fall (the most you could get with a 60 meter rope and backup) onto tiblocs? When soloing you should be tied into the the second rope not on another tibloc. for instance say you aren't paying attention it gets darka dn the tiblocs stop feeding but you dont notice you get to the top and take a 100 foot whip onto the tiblocs which are right near the bottom of the rope, are you going to live? If i solo clipped to a backup knot every 15 feet and i fall i only fall 15 feet, even if my ascender breaks. I hope you are just trolling for fun, but it seems you are serious. If you are then you need to take some physics learn about these products and then you'll reach a nirvana-esque state in which you'll realize "HOLY CRAP I ALMOST KILLED MYSELF 40+ TIMES" and then you'll get an approved solo device and tie backup knots. Good luck in you quest to be the evidence for injury/death soloing with tiblocs matt
|
|
|
|
|
mtngypsy
Nov 24, 2002, 10:38 PM
Post #17 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 73
|
Socal:
Get pissed do whatever you want, but your system and your defense of it is a nightmare. Toothed acsenders are not solo TR devices, especially tiny little ones like the tibloc. They are specifically designed with the idea that they will not have to withhold dynamic falls.
This is just a really dumb idea that you or someone else dreamed up, give it a rest before you convince someone to use it and they get hurt or worse.
There are much better systems out there, and much better ways to learn them than the wacko approch I have seen here.
[ This Message was edited by: mtngypsy on 2002-11-24 15:21 ]
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Nov 24, 2002, 10:59 PM
Post #18 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
I still understand what you're trying to do and I still thing it's braindead. I don't care to open up the whole can of worms again, all I can say is that you'll probably not die and will probably be just fine but I hope I never climb on one of those ropes...
josh
|
|
|
|
|
erdeneruc
Nov 25, 2002, 12:16 AM
Post #19 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 56
|
Tiblocs are not an approved device for this kind of use. DO NOT USE TIBLOCS IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED.
Unless you positively engage the tiblocs with a thumb on them with each stride upward, you are risking shredding the rope.
In addition, any shock load on the Tibloc, that is any load other then body weight, will break the puny device.
This is a BAD IDEA! Do not condone it, do not promote it, forget it.
Erden.
|
|
|
|
|
timpanogos
Nov 25, 2002, 12:58 AM
Post #20 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 935
|
I’m working on getting into some solo aid climbing, just bought a Petzl Ascension the other day – and I read the information that came with the device. Ok, here are some interesting numbers for you, right off of the paper work that comes with this “toothed ascender”.
8mm rope – it will break/cut it in half at 4.2kn
10.5mm rope, “safety, risk limited to damage to the rope sheath” which occurs at 4.7kn.
This testing was done on Beal ropes.
Now if you have looked at the design of the teeth and the rope to metal areas on the ascension verses that on the tibloc – it should be blatantly obvious that the tibloc is going to cause sheath damage at a much lower value than the ascension – and who knows how far up the break/cut factor has come”?
Now go over to the Petzl fall factor calculator – and enter 80kg (160 lbs), 10.5mm rope (NOTE this is DYNAMIC rope, STATIC will generate almost 2x the force factors), 12mm bolt for belay and 0 meter distances for 1st to 3rd belays. – Now dial in a fall of 5 feet – I left the grigri and hit calculate (equivalent to falling 5’ while futzing around at the top anchor with your system). Hit calculate and check out the results – 900 DaN on the climber – the belay anchor holds, but “Risk of injury for the climber” warning comes on.
Now read down on the explanation of the parameters to the simulator – notice that the 900 DaN is the LIMIT of a 10.5 mm ropes requirement to pass UIAA testing, which is the point at which “serious bodily injury” can be inflicted on a climber when everything holds up. Notice that this fall will hit the UIAA limit of the force on the rope.
In summary, take a close look at PTPP’s suggested grading scale, and realize that if you use this method of tr solo the DFU rating of the climb rises as you move higher up the rope. And like the Ascension – there will be a point (somewhere under 4.7kn) that will definitely damage the sheath – and I’m not talking about just the sharp teeth doing some shredding because they don’t happen to set right off. I just hope that hitting a 10.5mm rope with it’s maximum UIAA force is lower than the cutting point of the tiblok on your system. Hey, a ruined rope is only $150.00, Are you absolutely sure a fall as explained here could not possibly cut both of your ropes? Can you assure us that you will never hit your setup with 4.6kn of force (guaranteed sheath damage - if not cut in half)
If nothing else, look into the Petzl Croll (it is a Petzl Basic ascender made for cavers) and buy yourself a $12.00 Torse (shoulder strap), which ties into the Croll. This system will auto feed like your tibloc system (if you weight the bottom of the line slightly). The croll has the same specifications mentioned above – which means – in an absolute worse case fall, on a 10.5mm rope, Petzl has found the rope will not break, but you might ruin the rope. (Backup knots are still required for the safe climber).
Or, how about finding an approved self belay device, that will not even have the possiblity of ruining your rope.
Now SoCal - if you are so sure of this system, I challenge you to stand at your TR anchor and firmly set your tiblocs 5' down the ropes from the figure 8 - and jump. I would strongly suggest that you have a backup rope on you while doing this test.
Then report to us. I can not wait to hear the results.
Chad
|
|
|
|
|
sushislayer
Nov 25, 2002, 1:10 AM
Post #21 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2002
Posts: 709
|
Dude, I say do it. You're going to anyways even when folks here tell you not to. Just quit posting about it so you don't give any impressionable people any stupid ideas and get them killed. (And probably Petzl sued).
|
|
|
|
|
socaliforniaclimber
Nov 25, 2002, 2:32 AM
Post #22 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 76
|
Two improtant things to conisder.
1) using 2 ascenders rather than one reduces the strain on the rope in more than half.
2) Tiblocs dont wear the inside of the rope like most other non toothed ascenders. Thus if wear exists it is on the outside of the rope where you can see it.
3) At this point, if you think that you can end up hurt by using two tiblocs your an idiot. It is highly improbable that one would fail but impossible for both to fail at the same time. Talk is cheap and it is easy to click clack on a computer a crtisize a system that you haven't tried.
If you don't want to use this system don't. If you choose to use non-toothed ascenders fine use something else. But facts cannot be disputed and the fact remains: In my experience the system has been truly solid.
Some one asked the answers to someone question:
I wiegh around 180.
I monitor my rope every 5-10 feet but you can feel the rope feeding itself through the ascender.
I usually do only sloped (non invert) climb freeing up a hand in case I need to manually feed the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
timpanogos
Nov 25, 2002, 2:55 AM
Post #23 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 935
|
Mike, do you believe that if Petzl testing has found their Ascension ascender will ruin a 10.5 rope in a dynamic fall that a Tibloc will not? And you are willing to ruin your rope on this system?
Yes talk is cheap – anybody live by Mike? I want to see a verified 5 footer off the anchor! Come one Mike, put up or shut up. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the previous challenge – instead of “firmly” setting the tibs – Prove the worst case, manually pull 5 feet of rope through the tiblocs, from the figure 8 at the anchor – letting them seek there own position – now jump from the anchor – 6 to 8 times (how ever many falls your rope is rated for) (that's what a vendor would do).
Come on, enough b llsh t! It’s only half the force! Do the test, prove your system is safe and prove us all wrong. Come on Mike, at least one jump from the top.
|
|
|
|
|
takeit4granite
Nov 25, 2002, 2:59 AM
Post #24 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2002
Posts: 93
|
Socal your system does load the tiblocs evenly with enough forces to shear both ropes! You need to re-examine the value of what ever you hang off the rope (ie your life). I work in public safety and it is my job to evaluate and develope rope access and working at heights systems.
A significant part of the cost of gear goes into R&D and Product Liability Insurance. Companies need to be insured because people continue to misuse their products and expect large sums of money in lawsuits when the equipment fails and they are left with life long medical bills.
I hope you have good medical coverage because you may very well need it some day soon!
The TR solo device I use is the Ushba Ascender. (a toothless titanium device) The Ushba is light, feeds well (read hands free)and has worked for soloing steep routes, ice and slab/ vertical. You should check it out if you plan on doing as much solo climbing as you claim.
Better yet, make some friends and talk one into giving you the odd belay!
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Nov 25, 2002, 3:38 AM
Post #25 of 57
(6958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
socal wroteQuote:...your an idiot....it is easy to click clack on a computer a crtisize a system that you haven't tried....In my experience the system has been truly solid
Oh Mike, some of the things you say.
If it wasn't so scary it would be funny
takeit4granite wroteQuote:Better yet, make some friends and talk one into giving you the odd belay!
I think I am starting to understand why socal has to climb solo.
Mike don't be so bull headed. You have heard from many people, had the science explained, but your blind insistence on the "safety" of this flawed system is starting to make you look silly. Be big enough to admit your system has problems. Be bold enough to renounce it, and you will once again rise in not only my estimation but others too. Advocate it again and you will likely lose all credibility remaining.
Dude I hope good fortune and whatever god you pray to is on your side, science certainly isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
