Moderator: Tim White
Extremeophile wrote:Is it possible the new Basic has been designed with enough of a recess that it performs like a Rescuescender? It has the same sharp teeth as always, so I wouldn't expect it to slip at higher loads. It's more likely to just cut the sheath.
Jeff Bartlett wrote:UPDATE: I used these in a local (TN) project cave with some fixed 11mm ropes last weekend, and had some pretty major issues with the Croll not feeding. Tough to tell whether it's a spring-tension issue with a brand new ascender, or if there's more rope channel friction, or what. I'll need to use these a bunch more before I can formulate a thorough opinion.
I also encountered a rope that would barely fit in the rope channel of the Basic, though once I got it in there both ascenders were fine.
kevinm wrote:Jeff Bartlett wrote:UPDATE: I used these in a local (TN) project cave with some fixed 11mm ropes last weekend, and had some pretty major issues with the Croll not feeding. Tough to tell whether it's a spring-tension issue with a brand new ascender, or if there's more rope channel friction, or what. I'll need to use these a bunch more before I can formulate a thorough opinion.
I also encountered a rope that would barely fit in the rope channel of the Basic, though once I got it in there both ascenders were fine.
interesting. So the Basic fed fine, but the Croll didn't. Any idea why? Is the new Croll more angle sensitive due to the narrow channel?
Extremeophile wrote:With the new Croll it doesn't want to self feed on larger diameter ropes until you're maybe 20-30 feet off the ground even when you do stay in alignment with the rope.
Jeff Bartlett wrote:Extremeophile wrote:Is it possible the new Basic has been designed with enough of a recess that it performs like a Rescuescender? It has the same sharp teeth as always, so I wouldn't expect it to slip at higher loads. It's more likely to just cut the sheath.
I don't think it's any different in that sense. I'd certainly use one as the "lead" ascender (not the progress capture) of a 3:1 in a self-rescue situation, but I don't think I'd put an actual rescue load on one.
Scott McCrea wrote:New croll + pantin = bigger than old croll.
Sounds to me like this new design may need some tweeks.
Mike Hopley wrote:The Basic has long been used in haul systems (small party self-rescue).Scott McCrea wrote:New croll + pantin = bigger than old croll.
Sounds to me like this new design may need some tweeks.
Petzl are probably expecting cavers to use a Pantin nowadays. That's generally the case in Europe, at least on expeditions.
A smaller chest ascender will be a blessing in tight meanders.
paul wrote:In fact, I suspect part of the modifications seen in the new Croll, the additional protection on the budy by the rope slot, are probably as a result of more cavers nowadays using Pantins.
Mike Hopley wrote:Strangely I didn't notice much difference myself, but a lot of cavers get increased wear at the top of the Croll, creating a sharp V notch.
potholer wrote:Having seen the new Pantin, I went and bought myself a spare old one while they were still available, since my existing one is getting close to retirement, and the new model doesn't seem to leave much possibility for adding resistance to unwanted cam opening.
Jeff Bartlett wrote:
UPDATE 2, 2013-02-18: After using these more extensively in-cave, the new Croll is consistently difficult to self-start and feed, even as high as 25-30 feet off the ground. This is a non-issue for Pantin users, but likely a deal-breaker for US cavers employing a “standard” French-style frog system without foot ascender. It’s possible that Petzl is assuming, at this point, all froggers are using the Pantin, which has certainly seen an increase in popularity (especially in Europe).
If you use 11mm ropes and no Pantin — or if you’re ropewalking! — you’re not likely to enjoy the new Croll. Unfortunately, after further testing, I cannot recommend this ascender for this application. The new Basic remains highly-recommended for frogging, though would likely suffer from the same issue when employed in a double-bungee system.
Mike Hopley wrote:Jeff, do you feel these issues apply to thinner ropes (8 -- 10 mm)? Or is it only a problem with 11 mm rope?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users