Moving along through On Rope, I’ve finally come to Chapter 6: Ascending.

Ascending is such a complex topic, because of the vast range of personalities in specific ascending systems. Climbers have very different preferences, and very different opinions on what is economic and efficient with regards to safety.

Near the beginning of Chapter 6, I came across this concept,

“Each climbing system offers a different level of efficiency, safety, and redundancy. Many competent old-fashioned climbers suggest that a system incorporate three points of ascender contact. During the movement of one point, two are available to support the climber’s weight. In the event of a failure of any one of the remaining two, the climber remains on the rope supported by at least one locked ascender,” (136).

Many ascending systems used in production tree climbing today do adopt this concept of three points of contact from the vertical rope movement universe. Not all, but some. I’ll use the example of a rope walking or frog walker system; the former is built with the main climbing system, a knee ascender and a foot ascender, the latter with a handled ascender/footloop, the main climbing system and a foot ascender. So there is a very general idea of what those points of contact are exactly or what they could potentially be for this discussion. The options are endless, but not really.

These points of contact are at the absolute core of efficient and safe ascending. How each point of contact is built and oriented in the overall system, what type of material the point of contact is built from, and then how each point of contact can be utilized for another purpose outside of the ascent will determine the beauty and economy of ones points of contact. When operating in perfect unison, an ascending system will run in perfect timing, just as an engine fires and operates in perfect tune. Better yet, the climber will dance on their ascending system just as the marionette dances on it’s strings. Ultimately, the main objective of every ascent system is to work better against the force of gravity as safely as is mechanically possible.

From the stance of efficiency, lets discuss the main point of contact to be the actual climbing system typically used (hitch/wrench, mechanical, MRS hybrid, etc.). If the main point of contact is the main climbing system, then changing over into a descent ready mode or work ready mode should only require the disengagement of two cams or a ‘spiking’ in of a hybrid system. A rapid conversion would of course be required for running into things like stinging insects aloft, or angry wildlife that maybe you didn’t see from the ground. If the climber, and especially the SRS (stationary rope system aka and formerly SRT) builds their ascent system around their main climbing system, then the work-ready or descent-ready conversion is simplified and safer.

Also, I think it’s important to note that when talking about ascending and the importance of these points of contact in an ascending system, this concept better applies to large crown access that obviously require longer ascents, very generally speaking. Certainly, shorter ascents can be done with minimal gear for the small distance involved. But I do think that when the points of contact are perfected for each individual climbers needs, there isn’t a time moving upward on rope that you wouldn’t want to employ those tools, either individually or as a complete system. So then, those points of contact are really at the heart of a comfortable, well rounded climbing system. It becomes the basis of upward movement in the tree.

“In theory, the minimum amount of work required to raise a climber will always be equal to the energy necessary to lift a climbers weight a given distance against the force of gravity. While rappelling, friction is used to control gravity, while producing heat as the energy by-product. Ascending requires the reverse of the equation: the use of energy to overcome the force of gravity. It is important for a climber to direct energy downward against gravity in order to move upward in a direction as close as possible to that directly opposite of gravity. Properly directing the climbing force can minimize wasted energy. The closer a climber directs the applied force in a straight downward direction, the more efficient the climbing system,” (136).

Minimizing drag and the angle of inefficiency are the keys to directing our energy downward while ascending. Drag can be mitigated by the prussic knot used, tending bungie tension and location, mechanical device orientation and adjustment, and spacing between each point of contact when engaged on the rope. Drag is a direct by product of component incompatibility. The better the ascending tools, or points of contact, operate together, the less drag the climber will experience. Selecting points of contact that minimize drag will have a huge impact on the amount of energy a climber must spend moving upward against gravity. And the angle of inefficiency, which increases as the climber’s body moves more perpendicular to the vertical rope while ascending, should be kept as close to zero as possible. In other words, staying parallel to the rope as you ascend will allow you to ascend better. If each leg is operating with a separate ascender, a climber is more apt to stay upright while ascending, avoiding the need to ‘rock backwards’. Because the lower half of the body is a major muscle group, it is suited for taking on and sharing the force of gravity, and also sharing the work load of energy output for overcoming gravity, all while better managing the angle of inefficiency by keeping the climber upright while moving upward. I’m afraid though, that when two ascenders are below the main point of attachment, the climber loses a bit of system redundancy, and that is a very critical consideration, and a problem that can certainly be mitigated by system design.

So then if we consider ascending systems through each point of gear contact, that is a good basis for analyzing ascent systems, and for tuning and evolving them as well. I think that we need to consider the usefulness of each point of contact, and prioritize it first with how it affects the efficiency and safety of the ascent, and how it can serve a purpose for climbing later in the crown of the tree. Many SRS applications in large trees require many different ascents while working off of non-retrievable redirects in different sections of the tree crown. That type of work setting and climbing will require very different points of contact and gear selection/operations than smaller tree crowns without complex dimensions of arboriculture work or climbing movement.

Basically, these points of contact put the ‘send’ in ascending.