Re: FIRST LOOK at the new Petzl ascenders on Pit Rope
Posted: Feb 18, 2013 1:47 pm
I had the opportunity to try out Jeff's new Petzl Croll this weekend; the same individual Croll that fed miserably on fixed, swollen, muddy 11mm rope for him. The significant difference in our frog systems, however, is that I always use a Petzl Pantin when ascending.
The relevant parts of my frog are all-Petzl: Superavanti harness, Torse chest harness, handled Ascension upper ascender, and old-style B02 Pantin foot ascender; the Ascension is attached to my tied lanyard with a 5mm screwlink via a fat half-double-fisherman (barrel) knot, and my frighteningly-tiny tied Amsteel Blue spectra cord single-foot footloop attaches to the Ascension's other hole using a small, wiregate Metolius FS Mini carabiner, with the gate facing out away from me to avoid having it contact my Croll. In other words, the attachments to the Ascension are optimized to avoid having a large carabiner interfere with the Croll so I can maximize efficiency of each frog stroke; I'm a very fast, very efficient frogger, and this is in part because I've spent considerable effort to tune my ascending system.
As Jeff ascended the first, fixed rope this weekend, it was comical how poorly the Croll performed, and we had a thoroughly enjoyable time heckling him as he'd stand in his footloop while the Croll pulled the rope up with each step. This didn't just happen on the first few strokes, it appeared to poorly feed for most of the 30 foot pitch. When I reached the top, he had already swapped the new-style Croll out for his old Croll, so it didn't take much bribery for him to let me test the new Croll for the remainder of our trip.
I ascended the next pitch, 30 feet in total, with the top 10 feet on a steeply-inclined slope, using his new Croll. Again, I always ascend using a Pantin foot ascender. I had absolutely no problems with the Croll failing to feed on any part of the pitch; not at the start, where there's no weight under the rope, nor on the slope at the top where I essentially walked up while "jugging" with the handled upper ascender as the rope fed itself through the Croll with each step.
I then ascended the 240' free-hanging entrance pitch. I intentionally wore my pack on my back, and strapped a rope coil to it, so my climbing posture would be worst-case with my upper body leaning back. Again, zero problems with feeding at the start; zero problems during the free-hanging climbs, zero problems against the wall, and zero problems for short duration frog-walking toward the top.
On both pitches, I noted significantly less interference of the new Croll with my upper ascender attachments or lanyard knot. Its body is smaller and shorter than the old Croll, and it was a noticeable improvement in this aspect, even though my frog is already tuned to minimize contact here anyway. Note that I did not adjust my footloop length when using the new Croll versus my old Croll.
My only non-positive comment is that the new Croll is louder than the old Croll, and I don't know if this loud vibrating-metal camming sound will decrease as the teeth wear, or if it's a result of the new camming angle and spring tension; this sound could be indicative of increased internal friction in the ascender.
There were no surprises with placing or removing the new Croll from the rope, despite the fact that the angle and size of the cam's thumb release lever must have changed. My muscle memory worked here with no problems, though this was only a sample size of 2 roped pitches.
Given this small testing, I find no decrease in performance of the new Croll versus the old for use with a Pantin foot ascender, but I also note no strong increases in performance either. My personal mode of failure for Crolls has always been wearing of the cam's teeth, never the body's aluminum shell, which now features a steel wear-protection plate on the new model. The new cam is made of stainless steel, whereas the older model's was not stainless, so perhaps this will further extend its life for my use. I certainly won't be upgrading while my old Croll still has life in it, as the positives for this new model aren't that significant in my eyes. If I didn't use a foot ascender, however, I must admit that I'd be a bit worried about the new design.
For what it's worth, I also tested his new Basic on a single 70' pitch in a different cave, but I normally use a handled upper ascender, so my comments here aren't relevant -- I have no experience frogging with the old Basic. It did make more cam noise than my Ascension, similar to what I noted above about the new Croll, but I can't comment on how its ergonomics differ from the old design other than to say that so long as I gripped the body with my right hand, it was comfortable and "just worked". Gripping with he the left hand, or mis-placing the right hand puts pressure on the cam's thumb release, but I assume the same of the old Basic.
In summary: the new Croll frogs just as well as, if not slightly better than, the old Croll when used with a Pantin foot ascender.
The relevant parts of my frog are all-Petzl: Superavanti harness, Torse chest harness, handled Ascension upper ascender, and old-style B02 Pantin foot ascender; the Ascension is attached to my tied lanyard with a 5mm screwlink via a fat half-double-fisherman (barrel) knot, and my frighteningly-tiny tied Amsteel Blue spectra cord single-foot footloop attaches to the Ascension's other hole using a small, wiregate Metolius FS Mini carabiner, with the gate facing out away from me to avoid having it contact my Croll. In other words, the attachments to the Ascension are optimized to avoid having a large carabiner interfere with the Croll so I can maximize efficiency of each frog stroke; I'm a very fast, very efficient frogger, and this is in part because I've spent considerable effort to tune my ascending system.
As Jeff ascended the first, fixed rope this weekend, it was comical how poorly the Croll performed, and we had a thoroughly enjoyable time heckling him as he'd stand in his footloop while the Croll pulled the rope up with each step. This didn't just happen on the first few strokes, it appeared to poorly feed for most of the 30 foot pitch. When I reached the top, he had already swapped the new-style Croll out for his old Croll, so it didn't take much bribery for him to let me test the new Croll for the remainder of our trip.
I ascended the next pitch, 30 feet in total, with the top 10 feet on a steeply-inclined slope, using his new Croll. Again, I always ascend using a Pantin foot ascender. I had absolutely no problems with the Croll failing to feed on any part of the pitch; not at the start, where there's no weight under the rope, nor on the slope at the top where I essentially walked up while "jugging" with the handled upper ascender as the rope fed itself through the Croll with each step.
I then ascended the 240' free-hanging entrance pitch. I intentionally wore my pack on my back, and strapped a rope coil to it, so my climbing posture would be worst-case with my upper body leaning back. Again, zero problems with feeding at the start; zero problems during the free-hanging climbs, zero problems against the wall, and zero problems for short duration frog-walking toward the top.
On both pitches, I noted significantly less interference of the new Croll with my upper ascender attachments or lanyard knot. Its body is smaller and shorter than the old Croll, and it was a noticeable improvement in this aspect, even though my frog is already tuned to minimize contact here anyway. Note that I did not adjust my footloop length when using the new Croll versus my old Croll.
My only non-positive comment is that the new Croll is louder than the old Croll, and I don't know if this loud vibrating-metal camming sound will decrease as the teeth wear, or if it's a result of the new camming angle and spring tension; this sound could be indicative of increased internal friction in the ascender.
There were no surprises with placing or removing the new Croll from the rope, despite the fact that the angle and size of the cam's thumb release lever must have changed. My muscle memory worked here with no problems, though this was only a sample size of 2 roped pitches.
Given this small testing, I find no decrease in performance of the new Croll versus the old for use with a Pantin foot ascender, but I also note no strong increases in performance either. My personal mode of failure for Crolls has always been wearing of the cam's teeth, never the body's aluminum shell, which now features a steel wear-protection plate on the new model. The new cam is made of stainless steel, whereas the older model's was not stainless, so perhaps this will further extend its life for my use. I certainly won't be upgrading while my old Croll still has life in it, as the positives for this new model aren't that significant in my eyes. If I didn't use a foot ascender, however, I must admit that I'd be a bit worried about the new design.
For what it's worth, I also tested his new Basic on a single 70' pitch in a different cave, but I normally use a handled upper ascender, so my comments here aren't relevant -- I have no experience frogging with the old Basic. It did make more cam noise than my Ascension, similar to what I noted above about the new Croll, but I can't comment on how its ergonomics differ from the old design other than to say that so long as I gripped the body with my right hand, it was comfortable and "just worked". Gripping with he the left hand, or mis-placing the right hand puts pressure on the cam's thumb release, but I assume the same of the old Basic.
In summary: the new Croll frogs just as well as, if not slightly better than, the old Croll when used with a Pantin foot ascender.