Kong Futura chest ascender

[Burnham]

I thought they were only considered an aid for ascending and not considered actual life support. Sort of like a pantin.
I guess it would also matter what system you use in wearing the ascender as well.

Not how I see it for any ascender that attaches at or above the climber's personal COB. To meet the long accepted standard for SRT with mechanical ascenders in vert rope access technology, there needs to be two seperate life support grade attachments to the ascent line. The chest ascender supplies one of those in almost all SRT systems.

Here's a link to an old thread on my most often used SRT system these days...well, before the Wraptor entered my life .

https://www.masterblasterhome.com/showthread.php?9950-B-s-version-of-Sherrill-s-Tree-Frog

Here, the CMI double handled ascender tethered to my central front tie in point and the Croll, attached similarly, supply those redundant life support attachment points to the ascent line.

 

[CurSedVoyce]

Ahhhhhhhh.. Thank you!
SO with the proper chest harness, or attachment that would be a yes
I don't have one yet and I thought I read somewhere diffy. Should have known to ask one of the guys that writes the standard for the forest service
I stand corrected
I was leaning toward a roller and harness for my walker system anyway keeping my prussic and tether set up I already have dialed in.
Somehow when reading that thread in the past, I missed how exactly you had all that hooked up Burnam. Thanks for posting that again.

 

[Burnham]

Really Stephen, the chest harness only keeps the Croll aligned properly...the screwlink to the harness from the bottom of the Croll is the life support attachment.

 

[SouthSoundTree]

Does that black cam-opening lever on the Croll keep the cam in place really well? No 'biner below the cam filling the hole where the screw link is attached?

 

[Burnham]

It's pretty much rock solid, Sean. Has quite a strong spring. I feel no need to add to that. Of course, one of the reasons for redundant attachment points to the access line is that a failure of one is not a failure of the system.

I do wish it's breaking strength was higher...we've talked about this issue with many CE certified items, before. For the most part, I'm not worried about it for my own safety, but the Croll stands out as being rated particularly low in this regard.

 

[SouthSoundTree]

I didn't see that hand ascender tether, previously. I thought I'd read something about a redundant ascender connection.

 

[SouthSoundTree]

4.2-6.5 Kn breaking strength is pretty low for a life support piece.

 

[Burnham]

Yes, exactly...which is why I asked Dave if he had a breaking strength number on the Kong unit...I couldn't find it on the Kong website, and hoped it might be on some literature he might of received with the ascender.

 

[rskybiz]

... loved my Kong double ... until the handles started breaking ....just the plastic! .... tried. And tried to get manufacturer to re-grip the unit ...NEVER was able to get a response either way .... crap back up! ... gave the ascender to Joel (RiskyBiz) .... went to a CMI

Of course, one of the reasons for redundant attachment points to the access line is that a failure of one is not a failure of the system.

I still use it with my own fix. Again Mr. B says it all "failure of one is not a failure of the system.

 

[DMc]

Yes, exactly...which is why I asked Dave if he had a breaking strength number on the Kong unit...I couldn't find it on the Kong website, ....

Sorry, Burnham. I tried finding it also to no avail. I suspect the answer is in its CE EN 567/1284-b:06 rating but I could not find that either.

Dave

 

[Burnham]

Thank you, Joel.

I am forever grateful that I learned SRT from cavers and high angle rescue technicians, rather than from tree climbers...the latter group (which I consider myself firmly within, warts and all ) have been distressingly blind to the long developmental path, the safety protocols developed, in those fields. We don't need to be applying all of that stuff to tree climbing...but we sure as hell shouldn't ignore it either. Re-inventing the wheel is for losers.

Worth noting though that today's arb oriented SRT is a far cry from what we took into the trees 10-15 years ago. We now have specialty items like the Unicender, and the Rope Wrench. Different rules apply to these.

As an example, DMc made a clear case to me, and changed the way I viewed it, that the Uni really isn't an ascender in the old school sense...it's a mechanical friction hitch. We have to look at it that way when we prescribe protocols.

You need to have the historical perspective to be able to descriminate between these technologies, so you can use them safely. I may be old and stove up as a working climber, but I can at least offer that insight from time to time .

 

[Burnham]

And thanks for looking, Dave. I'll try to look into it deeper myself...if I find anything out, will certainly share.

 

[kevin bingham]

I personally dont tie into asscenders at all. I am a fan of the Kong futura line. I like the Kong Duck and the Robots as well. Great designs I believe they have some awesome people in their design department. They did offer to pay half and it was their believe that it was not compeletly the fault of Kong as there were other mess ups along the way which is very well arguable. Their letter about the comps was unfortunate. The letter was hastily written and in poor english. I saw J butcher fall and am still traumitized by what it taught me. Dont trust anything. Petzl, Kong, DMM, ISC. New England... anything. Dont trust that cars are going to not spin out of control. Back things up. replace. inspect. I like Kongs designs but I dont put a whole lot of faith in their word, I trust it a little less. Kong Rings are out of the question. Kong Carabiners no. But I think the futura hand ascender is one of the best tools on the market. I thought I could improve it by ripping the gard latch off it so I could pop it on and off with one hand but that was a bad idea. Its a little portable hand hold. I never tie into it. I clip it with a leash sometimes Zing it, for my foot hold. I dont own the futura foot. but I would get nervous not being able to kick out, its got a lock on it. I like the ease of the petzl to kick out of it in a second. The chest ascender seems nice but I dont really get the whole chest ascender Idea. It seems like the unicender on its own makes a pretty sweet chest ascender right?

 

[Burnham]

I rest my case...

 

[kevin bingham]

What case? did I miss something?

 

[kevin bingham]

There are several reasons why I dont like being attached to ascenders. They are trapping devices and they can severe the rope in a fall. They are very difficult to recue off of. Getting someone out of a croll in a rescue situation is an advanced procedure. Especially a self rescue. They easily severe Tree climbing ropes which are the preffered ropes of mine to climb off of. I would much rather keep ascenders as simple grabs. Futuras are great for that.

 

[Burnham]

Sorry, Kevin...that was a rather rude comment I made in response to your last post.

I'm referring to my post #36 in this thread. Your perspective and mine are clearly very different...but please accept my apology.

 

[kevin bingham]

Ah, i see. No apologies needed. Different opinions but you make good points. I agree that being clipped in to two ascenders is better thsn one. I just prefer to not mess With them at all i think.

 

[tophopper]

Isnt the unicender an ascender?

 

[bonner1040]

I learned 'srt' as a rock climber... the thought out more than one rope was unheard of. Mechanical ascenders were the only option. Its called jugging and we have been doing it for a long time... the rule was always two attachments when using toothed cams.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk

 

[woodworkingboy]

Can't help wondering what Kong's response would have been, if any, had Jay been more fortunate and had won the competition while using their ascender?

 

[tophopper]

Kong is crap IMO...... Ive pushed handled ascenders right off the host line before.

Sounds like a law suit is in order.

 

[PCTREE]

The first few prototype Wraptors had Kong snaps on them. After the ring incident and more importantly how the Co. responded to it I will never use another Kong product and will tell everybody I know not to use them as they are taking their life in their hands. When a ring sold for life support breaks with a 200lbs load they have problems. Saying that every co. will do bad stuff is BS. Don't ever buy their product again and send a message to the industry that we won't put up with this BS. Kong sucks ass and should under no exceptions be used. I don't give a rats ass if they have the best freakin design in the world they could drop you to your death and then make up some excuse as to why it was your fault.

frig Kong and the horse they rode in on

Sorry for profanity but this is a subject I believe strongly about and I cannot believe anybody in our industry would even consider buying Kong

 

[woodworkingboy]

That's a review that should make the Kong CEO get up off his chair!

 

[DMc]

...They are trapping devices and they can severe the rope in a fall... They easily severe Tree climbing ropes which are the preffered ropes of mine to climb off of....

Can someone help with more statistical information on this subject.

It has always been my understanding that the sheath-shedding properties of toothed ascenders was a design component. Being that hand and chest ascenders cannot withstand much force before total failure, it was noted that toothed ascenders that shreaded the rope sheath lowered the forces by distributing them over a larger distance. Thus preventing full failure of the ascender or of the rope. I have heard wildly varying opinions on this and I would like to see some actual statistics.

I recently read an article by Brian Kane where he was testing toothed ascenders on arborists' ropes. In almost all of the tests, the ascenders failed the rating criteria because they slid further than the rating allowed but the ropes themselves did not fail. Except for a few extremes.

He was also achieving some tremendous loads on very short drops; i.e., 190 lbs on a 3.3 ft drop averaging 1100 lbs of force. I have taken many 3 to 4 ft drops in my career and it has always been a non-issue. Not that long ago I took a 10 to 12 ft drop while ascending a large Ponderosa pine. The upper redirect broke. There was about 100 ft or so of line in the system and I was on the Unicender, Croll and Pantin. Not only did nothing fail, it was also a nonevent. Meaning hardly any jarring at all, let alone bruising and broken bones.

What gives.

Dave