Talk:Single-rope technique

SE Cavers - ropewalker

Actually, most southeastern US cavers don't use ropewalker. Thats more of a texas thing.

• I have to both disagree with the premise of separating the US into regions when talking prevalent system choice (yes clubs and regions have variations)and disagree specifically in that rope-walker is not the SE choice or it being a Texas thing. It is a continent thing. Decades back Europe being strictly frog and US (entire US) being ropewalker. In recent years (say since 2000) as petzel and rock climbing equipment has become so accessible (and easier to use for frog) and frog systems usually cheaper, there has been a trend in increasing numbers of folks choosing frog. I've had both for 15 years, the advantages of both are presented in article. Its not a clear division now, but technically the division of US = ropewalker and Europe = frog makes sense, marketing and economics not in the mix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnNashua (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

deletion from Systems

I really don't like deleting others' work, but I felt that the new paragraph on Jamaican technique did not describe a 'system' of SRT. Every region has its own local variations on rope thicknesses/lengths used; perhaps a general comment to this effect would be better than each nation detailing its own variants, which would make for a very long article... Have a look via article/history at the deleted text and add your thoughts here, please. Ian mckenzie 02:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the "Jamaican system" is just a variant, of the types we all use (well, those of us who use SRT at all!) for adaptation to local aims and circumstances. It's not a separate "technique". Steve Roberts 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Add-ons

I have added some details about the early developments of SRT in Europe 75.149.36.50 (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)(V. Bouchiat, Berkeley)

SRT applications

SRT is not usualy used in rope rescue. Actualy, two ropes are obligate in most rescue departments. --Ornitos (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• The key is not how many ropes you are using, but how you use them. Rope rescue is done almost entirely using SRT, but usually also with a belay rope of some sort. Ratagonia (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rigging section does not discuss rigging

Rigging section should be renamed as Prusik System Selection and a section on Rigging that actually describes anchoring, rope selection, re-belays, deviations, etc. should be added. If I don't see disagreement I'll make this modification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnNashua (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Figure-of-eight descender

I feel that the recent additions are giving undue weight to this one descender. Although a popular one for beginners, it is not recommended for most SRT situations for several reasons. The recent additions seems to need to say some of this and it is causing an WP:UNDUE situation. There are a lot of different types of descenders and belay devices that can be used in SRT and giving that much detail to just one of them is too much.

• Figure 8's can be dropped during changeover because they must be removed from the harness to thread and unthread them.
• Figure 8's can be accidentally locked off with a girth hitch especially if upward pressure is applied to the free end of the rope. This is primarily what the horned figure 8 is supposed to prevent.
• Figure 8's have a reputation for kinking or twisting rope. This kinking only occurs in previously coiled ropes, though and is due to the device removing twists that were added during previous coilings.
• Figure 8's are hard to lock off. The horned version is better at this; but, full lock offs require a knot or rethreading through the attachment crab and the regular (unhorned) version doesn't like to soft lock.

Does anyone else agree (or disagree) with me that it is too much to specifically try to deal with a figure 8 descender in this article? Maybe just mention that it is the simplest of descenders and link to its more detailed article for the rest?

In any case, here is a much better source than the one provided for some of this detail: Smith, Bruce (1996). On Rope; North American Vertical Rope Techniques (New Revised ed.). Huntsville, Ala.: National Speleological Society. p. 115. ISBN 1-879961-05-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). WTucker (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I readily accept that figure-of-eights have not had any practical relevance to SRT since the mid-1970s (at least in Europe). What caught my attention was that you chose to complain about the lack of an inline citation for one statement, when no other statement in the article has one! I suspected that you had a hidden agenda, and the reference I gave was just the first one I came across without having to get off my backside. Langcliffe (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No hidden agenda; and, you are right, the whole article needs citations. I was trying to tone down the detail about figure 8's with an excuse that I thought would be accepted without my having to come to the talk page to explain in tomes of prose. The best laid plans of mice and me. Going into this much detail about that one descender will cause paragraphs to be written about the pros and cons of each different device which will lead this article in a bad direction. Mentioning a figure 8 is fine as it already mentions bobbins, stops and racks; but, we don't need to expound, here. If you will let me, I would like to remove that bit of detail again. I await your response. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Having taken another look at the article, I see that it is intended to cover SRT in canyoning, although it is currently very much biased towards caving. Figure-of-eights are widely used in canyoning on doubled ropes, so maybe we shouldn't dismiss their advantages and disadvantages too much (one advantage is that if rigged appropriately, they can be flicked off whilst struggling in a deep pool under a waterfall - but don't take your weight off if you're passing a ledge!). However, they have no place in technical caving SRT. Incidentally, I haven't been a contributor to the article, and I'm not going to get very excited about the direction it takes. Langcliffe (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

WTucker: Personally I don't think your edit went far enough. I'd like to see you remove the criticism as well. The article doesn't discuss the pros and cons of other descenders so why the eight? Also the spelling is British English. Wikipedia's policy is to write an article in the variety of English that was originally used to write it, see WP:ENGVAR. Hyphens should be used when words are comibined to create and adjective or adverb but not when they are used as a noun so the hyphenated spelling violates Wikipedia's (and everybody else's) standard for punctuation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I like your improvements. Thanks for that. I did not have time to research the WP:ENGVAR issue; but, I did see a mixture. Thanks for fixing that, too. WTucker (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many many types of descender. Beginning to list and describe them is a slippery slope. Should the article list and describe all of them? I don't think so. Here's a great site about this - http://storrick.cnc.net/VerticalDevicesPage/VerticalHome.shtml. Maybe it's best to include only the two main ones used in caving - the bobbin and eight. Also it's misleading to say that the euros use the frog and American's use the rope walker. In the United States, cavers use all kinds of systems like the Mitchel, etc. etc. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Acronyms

I replaced nearly every instance of "SRT" by its expansion (which turns out to be the article's title).

I've no idea if caving enthusiasts refer to this thing by its acronym, but to the public at large or a casual reader (i.e., me), that's just confusing and annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.217.74 (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Klemheist not suited to ascending

I suggest the removal of the reference to the "Klemheist" knot, since that is absolutely unsuited to ascending, as described at http://storrick.cnc.net/VerticalDevicesPage/Ascender/KnotPages/KnotHedden.html it's actually a Hedden tied upside-down, and Heddens *are* suitable for ascending. No one has ever used a Klemheist to ascend since it locks in the wrong direction and would be very difficult and exhausting, but somehow it has this legendary status as something one could use to ascend. Since the Bachmann carabiner knot is mentioned, the RBS carabiner knot might also be good to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.39.137 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)