Moderator: Tim White
caverdan wrote:I wonder if her next video will show how to do a change over or possible rebelay with such a high attachment point.
may indicate inefficiency but it also proves that a low croll does not always equal a longer stroke. I think a lot of people think only about stroke length when they hear the word efficient, and not about conserving energy. For example, I'm currently using a handled ascender as my lower frog ascender. A croll would be nice, but it wouldn't make my stroke any longer. The legs limit the distance I can raise the upper ascender, and thus set the stroke length. So until my top ascender is set so high that I run out of arm before I run out of leg, it doesn't matter where the bottom one is.Amazingracer wrote:gap of space between upper ascender and croll.
GroundquestMSA wrote:The legs limit the distance I can raise the upper ascender, and thus set the stroke length. So until my top ascender is set so high that I run out of arm before I run out of leg, it doesn't matter where the bottom one is.
GroundquestMSA wrote:I think a lot of people think only about stroke length when they hear the word efficient, and not about conserving energy. For example, I'm currently using a handled ascender as my lower frog ascender. A croll would be nice, but it wouldn't make my stroke any longer. The legs limit the distance I can raise the upper ascender, and thus set the stroke length. So until my top ascender is set so high that I run out of arm before I run out of leg, it doesn't matter where the bottom one is.
GroundquestMSA wrote:but it also proves that a low croll does not always equal a longer stroke.
GroundquestMSA wrote:A croll would be nice, but it wouldn't make my stroke any longer.
GroundquestMSA wrote:The legs limit the distance I can raise the upper ascender, and thus set the stroke length. So until my top ascender is set so high that I run out of arm before I run out of leg, it doesn't matter where the bottom one is.
GroundquestMSA wrote:Of course, increased fatigue and difficulty with other various maneuvers may make this truth irrelevant, but I think that Amy has noted something that a lot of people may not ever think about.
UnderGroundEarth wrote:Wow, this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Arm Chair Caver"...
Amazingracer wrote:GroundquestMSA wrote:
A croll would be nice, but it wouldn't make my stroke any longer.
Yes it would. It would make it maybe a few inches longer.
Amazingracer wrote:GroundquestMSA wrote:
The legs limit the distance I can raise the upper ascender, and thus set the stroke length. So until my top ascender is set so high that I run out of arm before I run out of leg, it doesn't matter where the bottom one is.
And there in lies your problem. The legs dont limit the distance you can raise your upper ascender. If they are you have tied your foot loop wrong. Your arm is the limiting factor for how high you can raise your upper ascender. Then you adjust your footloop according for your legs, not the other way around as you point out. Which means yes it does matter where the lower ascender is. Once you max out your upper ascender, the lower croll gives you a longer stroke length. And thus properly tuned Frog system.
Amazingracer wrote:And despite teaching vertical caving on frog to over 150 people over the last five years and personally climbing 5.5 miles of rope (nearly all on frog), here is some proof that I am not full of poppycock: Vertical by Al Warild page 118
Jeff Bartlett wrote:I could make my upper ascender tether 3 feet longer, and my footloop 3 feet longer, and operate my upper ascender with one of these, and it wouldn't affect the length of my stroke. But that doesn't make it a good idea!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users