French Wrap Self-Belay

[Pat Kambesis]

I'm not usually concerned about having just one point of attachment on my rack and have felt that "more stuff" can complicate situations more than help them. However, the one scenario that I do worry about is loosing consciousness on rope most likely from being bonked with a rock. So, I thought the French Wrap could function to stop an unconsious caver.

Best way to check things out is to field test - I found that it definitely takes practice to get used to dealing with this extra "device" on the rack - not impossible, but it requires that you be more conscientious about things, know how you are going to adjust your friction AND know how you would disengage it i.e practice.

During our practie, on rap, I let go of the rope and the knot definetly stopped me - but I was then hanging with the climbing knot loaded and my rack a bit crammed into it - I was pitched to one side since the wrap is located on one side. If I was unconscious there is no way that I could deal with that - so the only thing it bought me was a little time - the rest would depend on the skill level and competence of whomever I was caving with in terms of actually getting me down.

Other cavers who are bigger than me simulated "out-of-control" and found that the device didn't stop them but did slow them down quite a bit. Again, they had to deal with unloading the knot and getting the rack engaged again.

I don't know that I'm sold on using the FW - will have to practice with it a bit more.

pk

[Buford Pruitt]

Pat,

At the risk of invoking HL Mencken , let me point out two simple modifications :

If the FW is feeding into your rack, then the FW is too long. Shorten it. Practice and re-knot until it works right every time. You may have to put the seat harness loop further under your thigh.

If the FW only slows down your heavier friends, have them add another wrap around the standing rope. I use 4 wraps around an 11mm and 5 wraps around a 10mm rope. As you say, practice...

My FW is a continuous loop of 9mm static nylon kernmantle rope, formed with a barrel knot.

[hank moon]

french wrap and similar backups are fine for those that want them; however if this thing has a place in caving, it ain't below a rack IMO...! Better to use a simple friction device with a friction hitch. i would also not attach the backup to a leg loop.

[George Dasher]

I've not used the French Wrap, but I understand that it works below the rappel device, works fine, and has been tested extensively above ground and underground.

It is something that can catch you if you have a total failure (or disconnect) of your rappel device.

I do think the rope has to be run over one hip though, and I've personnally found that running the rope between your legs on long drops (because of the weight of the rope) is a must.

Like I said, I don't use it (nor have I tried it), but that certainly means nothing negative about the device and technique.

[Cindy Heazlit]

I've used the french wrap and I think it is a grand thing.

Like the frog system, it must be tuned to exactly the correct length for it to work well. That is, long enough to keep from catching all the time, and short enough not to feed into the rappel device.

I've found that if it is this perfect length then:
1) Yes, it does stop me
2) Yes, it is easy to break and start rappeling again.

When I used it I had it clipped to my right leg loop wih the rope running over my right hip.

Also, I normally don't use it. I've used it when I've been fearful of getting hit on the head, and also when I'm rappelling with someone else attached to the device too (a lot of extra weight and I'm scared of losing control).

On a side note, I disagree with some of Bruce's analysis, as I believe that some of his assumptions are flawed. But that might be for another thread.

[Marlatt]

Interesting discussion. I don't typically use any sort of safety while rappelling, but I have used both prussiks above the descendeur and a French wrap below.

As I see it, the primary advantage of either system would be to stop a rappel if you are rendered incapable (getting bonked and knocked unconscious). In that case, either system should work ok - and in either case, you are then at the mercy of your companions to rescue.

Using either the FW or a prussik above the descendeur requires you to manage an additional task while rappelling, and both can be distracting. Obviously, practice will reduce this. In this area, the FW has a huge advantage over an above-rack system, since you can manage it with your brake hand, leaving your free hand to deal with brake bars, directionals, etc.

The efficacy of rappell safeties to stop an out-of-control descent has been the subject of much debate over the years. A notable issue with above-rack knots is the possibility of the out-of-control caver gripping the knot in panic, preventing it from locking on the rope. This is another advantage of the FW, since properly used the brake hand sits above the knot and doesn't actual grip its coils.

Loosening a locked up knot presents an additional challenge - you will need another sling at a minimum, and a QAS is an extremely useful addition. Practice, and you won't have to figure it out when you are injured and hanging in the dark.

swm

[Scott McCrea]

On a side note, I disagree with some of Bruce's analysis, as I believe that some of his assumptions are flawed. But that might be for another thread.

Please share, Cindy.

[hunter]

It is something that can catch you if you have a total failure (or disconnect) of your rappel device.

George and all,
I don't understand how the french wrap used below your device and as shown in the NSS article (i.e. clipped to the leg loop or an accesory loop sewn to the leg loop) can really be relied on in a device disconnect? I understand that the cord and knot are safe but it seems like a total device failure will either result in hanging from your leg loop(possibly upside down) or tearing off your accessory loop and falling.

James Hunter

[Marlatt]

It is something that can catch you if you have a total failure (or disconnect) of your rappel device.

George and all,
I don't understand how the french wrap used below your device and as shown in the NSS article (i.e. clipped to the leg loop or an accesory loop sewn to the leg loop) can really be relied on in a device disconnect? I understand that the cord and knot are safe but it seems like a total device failure will either result in hanging from your leg loop(possibly upside down) or tearing off your accessory loop and falling.

James Hunter

I think the point is that hanging from your leg loop is infinitely preferable to falling. Sort of like the chicken loops around your ankles in some ascending systems. Connecting to an accessory loop which may fail when loaded seems useless.

swm

[Cindy Heazlit]

On a side note, I disagree with some of Bruce's analysis, as I believe that some of his assumptions are flawed. But that might be for another thread.

Please share, Cindy.

You asked!

A rappeller using a rack should be acutely aware of how the rope leaves the bottom engaged bar, insuring that it is in capture position (Max left or Max right for some). In other words, the bottom bar should be captured by the rope as it encircles it. As one removes a bar or adds a bar it is often necessary to change brake hands to maintain this safe approach to rappelling. This results in changing the hip that one brakes with. If this is not done, folks removing bars will lose the bars in even numbers (either 8 to 6 to 4 or 7 to 5 to 3). A French Wrap totally limits the user from using both hips. You cannot change bars one at a time with a French Wrap.

This is the paragraph I'm having problems with. The assumption that the rope does not touch the bottom bar if you don't switch the rope max left or right depending on how many bars you have on your rack. The assumption that you actually lose 2 bars at a time if you don't have the rope max left or right.

For short racks and mini-racks, the bottom bar is certainly more important. That is because shorties and minis have fewer bars (and minis with hyperbars absolutely utilize the bottom bar).

I will argue that the bottom bar is far less important for normal racks. The upper bars take the greatest amount of friction. The lower bars significantly less. Unless you are a very heavy individual, the bottom bars don't account for much of your total friction. Because of this, the effects of having maximum contact with the lowest bar is minimized. The friction added by having your rope max left or right Vs middle position is minimal . I would argue that the spacing between the bars affects your total friction far more.

I will also argue that you will still get some friction from the bottom bar even if the rope were in the middle Vs max left or right. You are getting some of "not much friction" Vs all of "not much friction". Because you are still getting some friction, you do not effectively lose 2 bars if you don't switch hands every time you subtract a bar.

[Buford Pruitt]

Hunter wrote "it seems like a total device failure will ... result in ... tearing off your accessory loop and falling."

The accessory loop won't tear off if you construct it crrectly. My accessory loop is a continuous loop that completely encircles the leg loop, and is rather seriously sewn into place. By "serious" I mean lots of stitches of 40-lb test braided nylon fishing line.

[David_Campen]

For short racks and mini-racks, the bottom bar is certainly more important. That is because shorties and minis have fewer bars (and minis with hyperbars absolutely utilize the bottom bar).

I think you are talking about different things. Bruce is talking about the "bottom engaged bar" which for me is usually the 5th bar on a 6-bar, J-frame rack. You are talking about the "bottom bar" which is the 6th bar on a 6-bar, J-frame rack. For me, I rarely care about the 6th bar but I do care about the 5th bar and I want to hold the rope to the side of the rack that ensures that this bar stays captured (or hold the rope in front of me running between my legs). Having the French Wrap means I can't change the number of bars because I have to have the rope to one specific side.

I will also argue that you will still get some friction from the bottom bar even if the rope were in the middle Vs max left or right.

But with the French Wrap you can't hold the rope in the middle, running between your legs; you have to hold it to the side.

[Cindy Heazlit]

Having the French Wrap means I can't change the number of bars because I have to have the rope to one specific side.

snip...

I will also argue that you will still get some friction from the bottom bar even if the rope were in the middle Vs max left or right.

But with the French Wrap you can't hold the rope in the middle, running between your legs; you have to hold it to the side.

I'm not seeing why the rope has to be to one side or another for control. Hence, I can't see why it is a problem if you have the rope running to one side. If I want extra friction I'm more likely to squeeze the bars together instead of adding bars. If I want less friction I squeeze the bars together and take off a bar. Then slide the bars out again as needed.

Again, those bottom bars are not the big players in the friction game.

[hank moon]

The accessory loop won't tear off if you construct it crrectly. My accessory loop is a continuous loop that completely encircles the leg loop, and is rather seriously sewn into place. By "serious" I mean lots of stitches of 40-lb test braided nylon fishing line.

might not be as serious as you think. is it a commercially sewn continuous loop or is the whole thing handmade? i was really surprised when i broke some of my (speedy stitched) loops - way weaker than i had thought. i quit using the SS for critical points. have you tested the strength of your rig?

imo this discussion brings up many problems w/traditional U.S. caving, especially overemphasis on rack use. Perhaps it's time for a steel ATC or other tuber-style device? A stronger move away from IRT? I can't imagine using a FW with a rack - mainly b/c i rarely use a rack. seems kinda silly to drag all that weight and bulk around for short drops...i generally only use it if rope conditions are uncertain (i.e. i'm going out with a bunch of IRT folks who shove their coiled, stiff, unbagged rope through the mud all the way to the back of the cave, etc.) or if the drop is longer than 300' or so...

Bruce's argument kinda dries up if you take racks out of the discussion. and...On Rope may be the "Bible" but even the "Bible" has been quite misdirected in the past (re: Frog system, for example). Maybe he'll change his mind in the future when the rack is no longer the dominant descender in U.S. caving... :)

[NZcaver]

Hank - I'm with you.

Bring on the revolution!