What did I just read?

[Tlaloc]

John Woods wrote a couple of very nice documents about body type and ascending systems:
Typecasting the Vertical Caver and Comparisons of the Frog and the Mitchell ascending systems
They are very informative and a good read. Body type matters with a frog system.
If you are too top heavy, switch to a Mitchell,

Where would one find these articles?

[Carl Amundson]

John Woods wrote a couple of very nice documents about body type and ascending systems:
Typecasting the Vertical Caver and Comparisons of the Frog and the Mitchell ascending systems
They are very informative and a good read. Body type matters with a frog system.
If you are too top heavy, switch to a Mitchell,

Where would one find these articles?

The internet is a wonderful thing. Do a Google search.
Typecasting the Vertical Caver has a part 1 & part 2.
Part 1 concentrates on the Frog and part 2 concentrates on the Mitchell.

[Cody JW]

I agree Junkman, I feel the Woods article in the Aug NSS News is interesting. I especially like where he talks about chest depth ( the measurement from the sternum to the center of the back) as opposed to how broad the shoulders are. My build is similar to the man in his photo. I am just now beginning to see articles that touch on different body types in rope work. I feel it is long overdue. As great as "On Rope" is for a reference book ,it does not really address body types in any kind of detail.I am not the ideal build for frog but I still love the system. I feel the advantage for American style climbing with a frog is how compact the chest harness is compared to a rope walker or a mitchell. A commercial chest roller will add bulk compared to a torse or similar . Clinton Elmore came out with a video on a homemade compact chest roller he uses with a modified frog where it is easy for him to switch from a "frogwalker" to a texas mid rope. Clinton is a trim guy so I am not sure how well his invention will work with a big boy.

[NZcaver]

FYI:

Typecasting the Vertical Caver
Comparisons of the Frog and the Mitchell
Converting the Mitchell to a Frog

Previously discussed in several topics on the forum.

[Mike Hopley]

Technically a QAS is a separate (additional) ascender from your climbing system. The foot-loop ascender is part of your climbing system.

Depends on your definition of a QAS, really. I would say anything qualifies that fulfils its intended safety role; but that's a tedious discussion.

Anyway, how does this spare ascender help -- particularly with the changeovers being discussed? What does it allow you to do that you otherwise could not?

[Carl Amundson]

Technically a QAS is a separate (additional) ascender from your climbing system. The foot-loop ascender is part of your climbing system.

Depends on your definition of a QAS, really. I would say anything qualifies that fulfils its intended safety role; but that's a tedious discussion.
Anyway, how does this spare ascender help -- particularly with the changeovers being discussed? What does it allow you to do that you otherwise could not?

Alterative method of up to down changeover using a QAS
• Stop ascending. Put your QAS on the rope above your foot ascender.
• Standup in your footloops and remove your Croll from the rope.
• Now you have a lot of space in front of you to rig your rack and lock it off.
• Move your foot ascender down to just above the rack.
• Standup in your footloops and remove the QAS. All your weight is now on your rack
• Unlock your descender and allow the rope to move thru the descender just a little to check things are ok. Do not move down by more than an inch or you will end up hanging on your ascender again!
• Remove your foot ascender and go down the rope.

[Mike Hopley]

Alterative method of up to down changeover using a QAS

Okay, so the purpose of the extra ascender is to give you more space to thread the rack?

You can just put the short cowstail into the (single) ascender, so that you can unweight it later; but I suppose this wouldn't give you as much space to work with (the short cowstail being, well, short).

[Carl Amundson]

Alterative method of up to down changeover using a QAS

Okay, so the purpose of the extra ascender is to give you more space to thread the rack?

You can just put the short cowstail into the (single) ascender, so that you can unweight it later; but I suppose this wouldn't give you as much space to work with (the short cowstail being, well, short).

You should always maintain two points of attachment to the rope.
In your example, you have gone down to a single point of attachment and unweighting that single point of attachment can be a problem.

[Chads93GT]

Unless you are one of those oddballs that does it all by rigging your rack under the croll. Now thats a pain in the ass..

[NZcaver]

You should always maintain two points of attachment to the rope.
In your example, you have gone down to a single point of attachment and unweighting that single point of attachment can be a problem.

But isn't your descender a single point of attachment..?

If you really need to toe the party line and keep 2 ascenders attached (and not just 2 cowstails into 1 ascender), you could just clip your short cowstail into your upper ascender and slack the rope through your Croll without removing it. This will give you more room in front to thread an obscenely long descender while doing a changeover, while still technically having 2 gripping points of attachment connected to the rope and not having to faff about with an extra third ascender/QAS.

[Cody JW]

When frogging I always use a QAS along with the foot loop ascender. It is nice to have to attach to the rope as a safety before attaching the rappel device depending on the nature of the lip. I also feel better having it ready ( cam locked open) when climbing. I sometimes use a short rope at the lip to assist if I feel the lip might be difficult. In this case a third ascender may assist in negotiating a difficult lip using the second short rope. This way you always have two attached to the rope even if you have to remove one to replace above the difficult lip.

[Carl Amundson]

Unless you are one of those oddballs that does it all by rigging your rack under the croll. Now thats a pain in the ass..

Actually that's exactly what I do (& I never carry a separate QAS).

[Extremeophile]

The changeover difficulty is only when going from ascending to descending. Using a 6-bar rack instead of a bobbin creates many of the same challenges. It leaves relatively little space for reattaching the descender and still being able to remove the ascenders. I suppose the combination of a high attachment harness with a 6-bar rack might make this maneuver not possible in the traditional way. I don't think that makes it unsafe necessarily, but probably less efficient.

[Extremeophile]

But isn't your descender a single point of attachment..?

If you really need to toe the party line and keep 2 ascenders attached ...

There are certainly many examples in vertical work of relying on a single point of attachment or single piece of gear (after all, it is called SRT, not DRT). I've heard some talk about rope maneuvers that rely, if only briefly, on one ascender. The difference is that descenders, locking crabs, ropes, trees, some natural anchors, etc are "bombproof". Ascenders have been known to twist off ropes and are only rated to around 4kN. I sometimes trust a single point of attachment, but I don't think I'll adopt trusting a single point if it's an ascender.

[NZcaver]

There are certainly many examples in vertical work of relying on a single point of attachment or single piece of gear (after all, it is called SRT, not DRT). I've heard some talk about rope maneuvers that rely, if only briefly, on one ascender. The difference is that descenders, locking crabs, ropes, trees, some natural anchors, etc are "bombproof". Ascenders have been known to twist off ropes and are only rated to around 4kN. I sometimes trust a single point of attachment, but I don't think I'll adopt trusting a single point if it's an ascender.

Hmmm. I understand the functional differences, but I don't consider the ascender versus everything else issue quite so black and white. I'm curious - do you know of documented examples where modern toothed-cam ascenders (e.g. Petzl) have twisted off a rope in normal SRT use in a frog system? It is my understanding the 4kN MBS is a reflection of the expected failure mode when overloaded - i.e. stripping the sheath off the rope, not having the device itself fail. Hence they are more appropriate for ascending, work positioning and fall prevention rather than true fall protection/arrest.

I am not necessarily advocating the use of single point ascender attachments during changeovers. To each his own, depending on the circumstances. You spend a lot of time on rope, and I'm sure you have an appropriate routine figured out that works for you.