Rack Eyes and Attachment

[Rastus]

This is mentioned in the 1st edition. I don't have a copy here at work. The picture inadvertently was published upside-down, however.

[Scott McCrea]

Ah, page 185, 1st edition of On Rope.

Interesting idea. Anyone tried it?

[fuzzy-hair-man]

Ah, page 185, 1st edition of On Rope.

Interesting idea. Anyone tried it?

Is On Rope available online so we can see what you mean?

[NZcaver]

Ah, page 185, 1st edition of On Rope.

Interesting idea. Anyone tried it?

Is On Rope available online so we can see what you mean?

Unfortunately, I don't think so. But hopefully one of these people who own a first edition can post a picture of what they are talking about. (Even a photo of that page in the book would be fine.)

I'm curious to see this, too.

[Rastus]

Here's a photo. As I mentioned, the diagram is inverted--the caption clarifies that the rack should be attached to the lower maillon so that it can hang freely out of the way.

[NZcaver]

Here's a photo. As I mentioned, the diagram is inverted--the caption clarifies that the rack should be attached to the lower maillon so that it can hang freely out of the way.

Interesting - thanks! I've never seen that done before. I see what you mean about the order of the maillons being reversed.

It all looks neat and tidy - and perfectly functional - in the diagram, but I'm thinking this system would be awkward to actually use. Most maillon harnesses these days have webbing loops - not metal rings. And those that do have rings, usually have "twisted" ones. Squeezing 2 delta or half-round maillons in there, and expecting them to function semi-independently this way, would be a little optimistic in my humble opinion.