Moderator: Moderators
VRcaver wrote:It is not used outside of the US because it was invented in the US and my "naive" comment holds. In the US we use(d) bobbins as well as racks. While I can't speak for the people who invented the micro rack, when solving the problems with the rack it solved other problems with other descenders at the same time. In my experience in the US, the people who use bobbins are doing so because they want to be more consistent with "European" vertical work, not because there is any particular reason. When have you heard that opinion within Europe?
VRcaver wrote:I'm sure it has many good points, and that I could get along with one if I had one, but if I did have one, I suspect I'd still end up using a Stop much of the time, due to its good points and the fact that for me, the Stop doesn't have any significant drawbacks.
That is a bold statement from someone who has apparently not used a micro rack. And, for the record, I now use a primary device that is different than a micro rack as my preferred device, but the constrained thinking of many Stop users will miss all the new opportunities for improvement out there.
VRcaver wrote:I suppose that car made in 1950 does have its advantages beyond personal aesthetics, but in >99.9% of situations you pay the price. If all you ever drive is that outdated vehicle you will never know what you are missing.
killian wrote:Dave you are completely right sir... i was just wondering because i did Sites cave a yr or so back on a SMC 6 bar rack and felt like i had to feed the rope for most of the trip down. i was planning on getting down to TAG soon. not ready for Fantastic pit yet but dont feel far from it. would like to hit some other stuff in the 200+ range thoe. but u are right i can wait a few yrs b4 buying a full 6 bar rack..
VRcaver wrote: What I would not use on an Ellison's size drop is a Scarab because it does not have the heat dissipation necessary for that.
VRcaver wrote:Caver John wrote:I'd really like to hear more about how the scarrab is working for VRcaver...
The Scarab is a wonderful device
A couple considerations if you do get one, though:
- there is not a lot of heat dissipation, so I would not use it on large drops
- I have not tried it on rebelays where there is not much rope between bolts to determine if there is any rope twisting. I don't expect any, I just have not tried it there
One device was tested by pulling over a mile of rope through it under rescue sized tension, with temperature monitoring thermocouples being monitored at several locations during pulls. At 2kN of tension, and a lowering speed of 10m per minute, the SCARAB® maintains a frame temperature at about 100 degrees C.
snoboy wrote:VRcaver wrote:Caver John wrote:I'd really like to hear more about how the scarrab is working for VRcaver...
The Scarab is a wonderful device
A couple considerations if you do get one, though:
- there is not a lot of heat dissipation, so I would not use it on large drops
- I have not tried it on rebelays where there is not much rope between bolts to determine if there is any rope twisting. I don't expect any, I just have not tried it there
I find there is some twisting with the Scarab.
VRcaver wrote:In my experience in the US, the people who use bobbins are doing so because they want to be more consistent with "European" vertical work, not because there is any particular reason.
VRcaver wrote:[The micro rack] is not used outside of the US because it was invented in the US and my "naive" comment holds. In the US we use(d) bobbins as well as racks. While I can't speak for the people who invented the micro rack, when solving the problems with the rack it solved other problems with other descenders at the same time.
VRcaver wrote:Mike Hopley wrote:The Simple most certainly will give you the same range of speed (at least on normal length drops, not 200 m). The difference is that friction is controlled mainly by raising or lowering the hand (and also by how hard you grip the rope).
You do realize there are 3 methods of controlling friction with a rack? 1. Raising or lowering the hand (and also by how hard you grip the rope) 2. spreading or compressing the bars with your non-brake hand 3. adding or removing bars. The simple has only the first method. Therefore not the same range of speed even on normal length drops. I agree that #3 is only for the long drops.
Extremeophile wrote:VRcaver wrote:In my experience in the US, the people who use bobbins are doing so because they want to be more consistent with "European" vertical work, not because there is any particular reason.
Really?!
Maybe I'm misreading, but it sounds like you're saying anyone using a bobbin is choosing this device for conformity, not because of its attributes.
I primarily use a Simple with Freino
I had tried the Stop back in the 90's and wasn't crazy about the cam and lever. I decided to buy one after reading Al Warild describing descending a rope without a stop mechanism being like riding a bike without brakes. I now find that to be a completely flawed analogy. It's more like driving a car without an emergency brake, but it has a brake handle that has to be held down in order for the car to move. In my own experience the Simple is far easier to descend rope with and only very slightly more complicated to lock-off.
NZcaver wrote:VRcaver wrote:[The micro rack] is not used outside of the US because it was invented in the US and my "naive" comment holds. In the US we use(d) bobbins as well as racks. While I can't speak for the people who invented the micro rack, when solving the problems with the rack it solved other problems with other descenders at the same time.
Sorry, I call BS. The micro rack (a.k.a. small U-frame rack) IS used outside the US. In fact I still own an Italian-made one which I used caving in New Zealand 20 years ago, prior to Bassett producing the BMS micro rack I now use today. OK so my old Kong rack didn't have the hyper-bar, but it was essentially the same operation AND the frame was wide enough to accommodate doubled rope if needed. I also had caver friends constructing their own versions back in the 80's and 90's, so let's not pretend the micro rack was some revolutionary US design from just a decade ago that also magically solved problems with other descenders. That would be rather naive.
Extremeophile wrote:First, this seems like an apples and oranges comparison. Second, hopefully you aren't adding or removing bars on a micro-rack, so even though you describe it as an evolutionary device that eliminates some of the problems of the 6-bar rack, it has one less mode of speed control. And C, I'm not sure more modes of speed control is inherently a good thing. Would a device with 5 or 6 modes of speed control be better than a rack? Maybe there's a reason it's called a Simple, and maybe in rope work simplicity is a good thing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users