/ Self rescue hauling

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
David Coley - on 21 Jun 2014
Hi,
I have just written a post on mountain project about self rescue hauling and would really like to know what is wrong with the system I've proposed, or if anyone has tried it, as I can't find it in the books I own. I won't post it here as it is very long and contains embedded photos. I have tested it, so I know it works. I have also tested many of the systems given in the books, and I can't get them to work in a realistic situation (small ledge / low belays / heavy climber / friction at edge) ) at my local crag.

The post can be found at: http://www.mountainproject.com/v/self-rescue-hauling/109130468

Thanks.
jon on 21 Jun 2014
In reply to David Coley:

I wonder if the title is misleading? I read it as rescuing oneself rather than rescuing/hauling a partner. Maybe that's just me, though as I've always placed any type of rope manipulations like this under the general title of improvised rescue and then qualified it under a separate subtitle.
David Coley - on 21 Jun 2014
In reply to jon:

Well, both of the most popular books on the topic are called "self-rescue" as is the BMC endorsed video!

By self-rescue I think people mean that the climbers are doing the rescue rather than a third party.

As in " the climbers reduced themselves"

jon on 21 Jun 2014
In reply to David Coley:

Well yes, once I'd looked at your MP post I realised that. It was just my first impression and at that moment no-one had replied to your post. I see now that they have.
jon on 22 Jun 2014
In reply to David Coley:
I'm intrigued to know what other variations of pulley systems you've tried and failed to make work. Why for instance the simple 3:1 Z pulley plus a 2:1 which I've always thought of as 6:1 (2x3 but I'm not going to argue that with you!) doesn't work for you. I've used it many times on glaciers - never in urgence but in very real situations - and it's never failed. That's working 1:1, not in a team and with soft sticky snow providing plenty of friction on the lip of the hole (replacing friction over the edge of a ledge in a rock scenario).

Or am I misunderstanding completely your point (absolutely possible...) Is iit purely the reduced space that is the problem in a rock scenario. I have only once used a hoist for real on rock - on the cave pitch of Craig yr ysfa's Great Gully and admittedly it was a simple 3:1 and assisted by the climber being hoisted - but I could well imagine that if I'd added a 2:1 to it I would still have managed, though I admit it would have taken quite a long time with the restricted space and greatly increased number of movements required.
Post edited at 10:21
jon on 22 Jun 2014
In reply to David Coley:

... And having now bothered to look at MP again I see where you're coming from so ignore my post above!
henwardian - on 24 Jun 2014
In reply to David Coley:

Sounds like you came up with a good system in the end (though you will lose efficiency because without hauling using the rope, the stretch in the rope will mean some of your haul distance is lost when you relax the prussic cord to slide it down again.

I've hauled a few times with a 3:1 using the rope over an edge. Once it ripped my rope to shreds and every time it has been a complete ball ache. I've never hauled a heavy climber (max about 70-75kg).

If I had a reverso set up in guide mode and had to haul my partner a long way up, I would be very tempted to abseil down the dead rope to my partner and then use a combination of shoving them up by the arse (with my weight obviously pulling them up) and then prussicing up a little.
This has several advantages:
1) You get to the casualty quickly and can start to administer some sort of first aid.
2) You can take out all the gear on the rope which is causing drag.
3) With the gear removed, you can actually get the casualty to the ledge by hauling (without going down yourself the casualty is going to get stuck at the first bit of gear when you start hauling).
4) You can safeguard the casualty on the way up (check they don't get their head stuck under an overhang while you are hauling, etc.).
David Coley - on 24 Jun 2014
In reply to henwardian:

> Sounds like you came up with a good system in the end (though you will lose efficiency because without hauling using the rope, the stretch in the rope will mean some of your haul distance is lost when you relax the prussic cord to slide it down again.

Good point. Luckily this turns out to a very small amount of stretch as only the rope between the prusik and the reverso is relaxed. This is about 1m.
David Coley - on 24 Jun 2014
In reply to David Coley:

> Good point. Luckily this turns out to a very small amount of stretch as only the rope between the prusik and the reverso is relaxed. This is about 1m.

I've just rethought that. It is only the rope between the prusik and the reverso at the TOP of the cycle. This is more like 15cm.

Assuming a stretch of 8% under load, but the rope only having time to relax half of this we have 4% of 15cm, or 7mm.

andrewmcleod - on 25 Jun 2014
In reply to David Coley:

The change in geometry is probably more than this (i.e. the rope will bend more where it turns to enter the Reverso, and so take a slightly shorter path when loaded), but probably still small?
David Coley - on 25 Jun 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

Small, but it still exists, which is a pain. However it seems to be smaller with a reverso than with a grigri or a french prusik. I haven't tried a garda hitch.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.