Frog vs Rope Walker
Scott A Askey
OIn <545hjn$f...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com> man...@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>
> I'd like to see some real discussion here of the frog vs
> rope walker systems. Not flames, please; I'm new to vertical
> and would like to see real information. I've read _On Rope_
> and some of McClurg's writings, and used my own Texas rig
> and a borrowed Gibbs-style rope walker based on Jammers.
>
> --Cathy Mancus <ca...@zorac.cary.nc.us>
> Librarian, Triangle Troglodytes
>
>
On Sheery Mayo's Cave Page ther is a 20 page basic article about Alpine Style
SRT. This covers the basic of the frog and the sorts of manuevers that make
the frog rather popular among compex riggers.
In a gymnasium, five minutes for 100feet was the out sidelimit for most heathy
specimens and being on rope within 30 seconds of the previous persons offrope
call is quite possible vs. the 90 second it ussually take to engage a ropewalke
w/gibbs. (These number will likely be taken as flame bait, but isn't time and
motion study need to determine if the frog is actually slower?)
Perks of the Frog:
Ascenders are both within easy reach
Requires only 2 37$ mechanical ascenders
Reqires no expensive slings
Change overs are a snap (up to down and down to up)
Rapelling through a midline knot is not very daunting or slow (2-3minutes).
cope well with redirections and rebelays
faster than a rope walker on drops less than 50ft
Not bulky
Perk of rope walkers:
Fast on long , free pitches.
S you might have guessed I am profrog , but if I was doing fantastic pit
i would
probably whip up a rope walker. I would suggest starting with a frog for
finacial reasons since all of the component may be used in a later ropewalker.
If you could make it, there is a NCRC/NSS vertical training weekend up in
Elkins WV on 10/26-27 for free or cheap. They will be providi hardware for a
variety of rigs there.
@ http://interface.cac.psu.edu/NittanyGrotto you will find a pointer to the
vertical training event and to SherryMayo's link list.
on the link list go to sheery's cave page then vertical the alpine style srt
pages.
good luck
ps
Sorry about the spelling errors as my key board and editor are conspiring
against me.
man...@vnet.ibm.com
Keith Christenson
> I'd like to see some real discussion here of the frog vs
>rope walker systems. Not flames, please; I'm new to vertical
>and would like to see real information. I've read _On Rope_
>and some of McClurg's writings, and used my own Texas rig
>and a borrowed Gibbs-style rope walker based on Jammers.
Everybody knows that the only system worth it's weight in SPAM(tm) is the
Mitchell system. Even On-Rope will confirm this. Enough said...
Prowel
(formerly rpr...@nttc.edu but I don't work there anymore, but feel free to
send annoying little queries to them asking about me.)
PS-Don't flame knc...@psu.edu...He's not capable of stopping me from posting
this under his name.
James T. Jacobs
Keith Christenson <knc...@psu.edu> wrote:
:
: > I'd like to see some real discussion here of the frog vs
: >rope walker systems. Not flames, please; I'm new to vertical
: >and would like to see real information. I've read _On Rope_
: >and some of McClurg's writings, and used my own Texas rig
: >and a borrowed Gibbs-style rope walker based on Jammers.
It's not really a question of one versus the other. Each system has
strengths and weaknesses which make them better for one kind of use
than the other.
The frog is quick and easy to rig, and is not quite as dependent on
"correct adjustment and length of the slings" in order to work right.
The fact that this system uses no chest box to keep you close to the
rope means that it's a lot more versatile and it's easy to get over
lips, overhangs, and over obstacles. On the other hand, the lack
of a chest box also limits the efficiency of the frog system. It
takes more energy to use it.
The upshot of this is....for short climbs (say under 150 ft), and a variety of
types of climbs, if you have to rig and unrig, the frog is more convenient.
If you're doing a very long climb, then the rope walker is the most
efficient system.
I cave in the central US, southern Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, etc.
There are no drops big enough that have forced me to use something other than my
frog system. If I were going down to TAG country and do some long drops,
I would then use the system which is best for that kind of vertical work.
Most would argue for a ropewalker, some would opt for a Mitchell variation.
To each his/her own, but a ropewalker is more energy efficient.
Jim Jacobs
Near Normal Grotto
Keith Christenson
>Keith Christenson <knc...@psu.edu> wrote:
>:
>: > I'd like to see some real discussion here of the frog vs
>: >rope walker systems. Not flames, please; I'm new to vertical
>: >and would like to see real information. I've read _On Rope_
>: >and some of McClurg's writings, and used my own Texas rig
>: >and a borrowed Gibbs-style rope walker based on Jammers.
>:
Jim,
Sorry, this is not my text, as this is my first post to alt.caving. Bob
Prowel wrote a note to the group off my server recently, and I am sure you
accidentally mis-identified it to me. I usually just read this newsgroup, and
find that it once in a while refers to caves. I am, by no means new to
vertical.
I hate posts that do not add to caving, so let me add this. I have used most
rope climbing systems over the years, and still prefer the Mitchell. I use
the Texas on long multi-pitch stuff, and knots once in a while just for fun
and practice. As I am nearly 6 foot 5 inches tall, the frog has never worked
for me, although I have tried it several times. I find that a vertical system
should be whatever the user prefers, and if he/she prefers knots or something
other than what you use, you should only be interested in the time factor of
the trip, not whether one is better than the other. They all work.
kc
hasb...@ix.netcom.com
jja...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (James T. Jacobs) wrote:
>Keith Christenson <knc...@psu.edu> wrote:
>:
>: > I'd like to see some real discussion here of the frog vs
>: >rope walker systems. Not flames, please; I'm new to vertical
>: >and would like to see real information. I've read _On Rope_
>: >and some of McClurg's writings, and used my own Texas rig
>: >and a borrowed Gibbs-style rope walker based on Jammers.
>:
>It's not really a question of one versus the other. Each system has
>strengths and weaknesses which make them better for one kind of use
>than the other.
[snip]
>Jim Jacobs
>Near Normal Grotto
I agree with this. Just got back from a vertical practice and had a chance
to use a Mitchell that was adjusted right. Here is what I experienced:
1. Mitchell is faster up the rope than the frog. It definitly is more
efficeint than the frog.
2. The frog is faster to get on and off the rope.
3. The Mitchell is great for free hangs. The frog works well around lips
and in squeezy places where you need to manuver. The frog also can be
adapted to a single big foot loop for better manuverability.
4. The total gear for a frog is lighter and less expensive than the gear
for a Mitchell (by a chest box).
5. Larger cavers may find the Mitchell to be a much better system to use,
since it holds the chest to the rope, not your waist.
I have concluded that having harnesses for both is not a bad idea. I can
carry the frog for small caves and short exploratory trips and the Mitchell
when I do deeper cave. Also, the frog is a good introductory system due to
expense and ease of construction (harness, ascenders, bieners, and
webbing). Where as, the Mitchell is not as easily knocked together.
I haven't tried a rope walker yet, so I won't comment on it.
Marc Hasbrouck, Caver
MLG, NSS
Its only a hobby...only a hobby...only...
Sherry Mayo
Cathy Mancus, man...@vnet.ibm.com, wrote:
>
> I'd like to see some real discussion here of the frog vs
> rope walker systems. Not flames, please; I'm new to vertical
> and would like to see real information. I've read _On Rope_
> and some of McClurg's writings, and used my own Texas rig
> and a borrowed Gibbs-style rope walker based on Jammers.
Hi there,
The discussions on "frog" vs "ropewalker" do take on a quasi-religious
fervor at times which can make it difficult to decide what might be
best.
Well of course it's not that simple. One thing to bear in mind is that
if you and your caving friends know and love one system, and you decide
to try out another, you will more that likely find the system you try
out
to be awkward and inefficient. This will simply be because you don't
know
how to optimise it, and it is unfamiliar.
Ropewalker-types trying out a frog rig will find it hopeless to start
with, just as I found my first try of a ropewalker frustrating and
slow compared to my frog.
Now I should mention rigging. US cavers and European cavers *tend* to
rig
in quite a different style (with notable exceptions, I know). European
rigging is more elaborate and requires the cavers to pass a number of
obstacles on the rope (rebelays, deviations, pendules). These are much
easier to pass with a frog-rig than with a rope-walker, which is why
European cavers tend to prefer the former. A simpler style of rigging is
more common in the US for which a ropewalker is preferred as they are
somewhat faster. How much faster is open to debate. Some brit friends
(who have well set up frog rigs) have said they didn't feel they were
significantly slower than their ropewalking counterparts on caving trips
to the US. On the whole, for long uninterupted pitches ropewalkers are
faster (although the amount of energy the caver has may be the ultimate
deciding factor!). On shorter pitches they are slower because it takes
longer to get on and off the rope.
*Much* more inportant is how well set-up the system is. A badly set up
ascending system will be bloody slow regardless of it's type. Also
your equipment may be better suited to a certain kind of rig. A frog
rig needs a snug harness with a low point of attachment. If your harness
doesn't fit the bill, you will probably be better off with a rope
walking
rig.
There are of course a number of types of rope walking rigs, however they
*tend* to use similar components and harnesses so there is room for
experimentation. The best advice is that whatever systems you try,
get someone who knows and uses that system to help you set it up.
I have a description online of the standard frog-rig at the following
URL with some hints on how to set it up properly if you want to try it.
http://rschp2.anu.edu.au:8080/cave/SRT.html
This is *no* substitute for getting someone who knows to show you
though.
I imagine your caving buddies will be able to fill you in on
ropewalkers,
and the book "On Rope" is a good reference for this styles of SRT.
Sherry
--
Sheridan C. Mayo | Crystallography, Diffuse Scattering
RSC, ANU, Australia | http://rschp2.anu.edu.au:8080/Welcome.html
scm...@rschp2.anu.edu.au | Caving, Crypto & PGP, X-files, and more.
Walt Pirie
In article <54fngu$i...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, JHOLL4@ wrote:
:In <548ato$i...@thor.cmp.ilstu.edu>, jja...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
(James T. Jacobs) writes:
:>The frog is quick and easy to rig, and is not quite as dependent on
:>"correct adjustment and length of the slings" in order to work
right.
:>The fact that this system uses no chest box to keep you close to the
:>rope means that it's a lot more versatile and it's easy to get over
:>lips, overhangs, and over obstacles. On the other hand, the lack
:>of a chest box also limits the efficiency of the frog system. It
:>takes more energy to use it.
: Jim, I could take the above paragraph and change "frog" to "Texas"
:and it would still be true. Given that the frog seems to have most
:of the advantages and disadvantages of the Texas, perhaps I should
:be asking "What's the difference between a frog and a Texas rig?"
I think by now, most people that use a rope walker also have a
so-called safety ascender attached to the seat, and often riding on
top of the chest box. When I get to a lip, I open the chest box and
rely on the "safety" as my upper contact, just as on the frog, in
order to not be held into the rope. In the meantime, on the way up,
being held in is an advantage in terms of energy. I also use easy on
Kroll and Jammer instead of Gibbs. So three questions:
1. Where's the advantage of the Frog at lips.
2. Where's the advantage of easy on-off, except putting on the chest
box, I guess.
3. Do people ever use a chest box with a frog, and then open it at the
lip as described above? And if so, how does that compare to a rope
walker? Defeats the compactness some I guess, but otherwise?
No challenges intended there, just looking for information. Just
picked up my frog, but haven't had a chance to use it yet.
Walt
JHOLL4
In <548ato$i...@thor.cmp.ilstu.edu>, jja...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (James T. Jacobs) writes:
>The frog is quick and easy to rig, and is not quite as dependent on
>"correct adjustment and length of the slings" in order to work right.
>The fact that this system uses no chest box to keep you close to the
>rope means that it's a lot more versatile and it's easy to get over
>lips, overhangs, and over obstacles. On the other hand, the lack
>of a chest box also limits the efficiency of the frog system. It
>takes more energy to use it.
Jim, I could take the above paragraph and change "frog" to "Texas"
and it would still be true. Given that the frog seems to have most
of the advantages and disadvantages of the Texas, perhaps I should
be asking "What's the difference between a frog and a Texas rig?"
--Cathy Mancus <ca...@zorac.cary.nc.us>
Librarian, Triangle Trogs
Christopher Tomlin
hasb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> <post on the merits on Mitchell vs Frog not quoted>
Not much to add to the last post, except to say that the Frog rig is
near universal in Europe for almost all vertical stuff, even up to deep
Alpine caves (a Frog rig weighs less than a Mitchell for those horrible
approach marches, and anyway we have all those bolts and krabs to carry)
as over here we have to use bolts a lot on our more broken pitches
(compared to yer average Maxican soltano) and also to rig out of the
water in wet caves.
The Frog is better when you're not going to do big free-hangs, and
there are few European pitches that have such huge dry free-hangs that
you find in the New World, and anyway they tend to be blind shafts
formed on a fault and not worth bothering with.
A few years back, I trained with some American cavers on a very big
cliff in Yosemite ('between 690 and 725 feet high' said the guy with the
altimeter). I was using a Frog rig and the other 3 all used Mitchells,
and the prusik times went roughly as follows:
Young really fit guy: 19 minutes (!)
Average fittish caver guy: 33 minutes
Me (fairly fit): 52 minutes
Really not very fit guy who had never used a Mitchell: 55 mins
So there you have it! Next time you have a 690 foot high cliff to get
up, use a Mitchell rig! I will stick to Frog in our little, rough,
spray-washed pitches over here, but would seriously consider a Texas or
ropewalker rig for really huge free-hangs. Each system has its place!
A question:
Are you American cavers starting to use rebelays on pits in the US
then, rather than deviations and rope pads? Is that why the Frog is
getting popular?
happy caving
christopher
Douglas Moore
-> A question:
-> Are you American cavers starting to use rebelays on pits in the US
-> then, rather than deviations and rope pads? Is that why the Frog is
-> getting popular?
I don't know about the rest of the group but I started to use a frog
system for most of my trips because of a couple things. Most of my
trips are push/survey trips where we take a little vertical equipment
with us. The frog is one of the smallest and lightest mechanical
systems available. I also have my setup so that it can be on with the
attachment of one carabiner thus I can get ready to go up faster than I
can get ready to go down with my rack. (Oh, for those wondering why a
rack, I use a specially made 4 bar rack that weighs less than most fig
'8's.)
I also like the frog in most rescue situations.
Now give me ANYTHING over 100 feet / 30 meters then I'll switch to
something else like my gibbs rope walker. Of course if you want my
opinion on the best vertical system there is then it's a Mitchell.
Doug
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| /\+/\ Douglas L Moore II /\+/\ |
| NSS 33064SU - NASAR 102903 |
| UTM Zone 17 Coordinates 562,160 East 4,363,370 North |
| Staff - Eastern Region - NCRC (http://svis.org/erncrc/erncrc.htm) |
| Owner - Karst Sports (Caving, Climbing, & Rescue equipment) 304.592.2600 |
| On the World Wide Web at http://svis.org/msc/karst.htm |
| Catalog available upon request |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: dougla...@svis.org (Douglas Moore)
This message was processed by Software Valley Information System
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hasb...@ix.netcom.com
C.To...@lancaster.ac.uk (Christopher Tomlin) wrote:
[snip]
>A question:
> Are you American cavers starting to use rebelays on pits in the US
>then, rather than deviations and rope pads? Is that why the Frog is
>getting popular?
>happy caving
>christopher
Well, here in the Mother Lode of California, we're still using pads and
deviations. Many of the caves I've been in are small and squeezy near the
top, if not all the way down.
Walt Pirie
In article <55aasc$9...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Well, I finally got to try out my new frog system at a nearby quarry.
I only got in two climbs (about 60 ft?) before we had to leave, but I
was reasonably impressed. There was no one present familiar with frogs
systems, so I had to guess at configuration. The first climb was
awful, but it was easy to tell what needed adjustment. The second
climb went fairly well, and was fairly comfortable. I'll try to get
back again next weekend and I think a couple more rounds and it'll be
a very nice, smooth system. I'm not yet convinced I want it for deep
free climbs, but for smaller ones or climbs against walls and on
slopes, I can see why it's popular. I think it'll be a nice addition
to my kit. Especially with its light weight and compact size for
packing on international trips and for pits far from the entrance.
Walt