Author Topic: Preferred hauling setups  (Read 6179 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rags

  • A3+ Copper Bender
  • *****
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Preferred hauling setups
« on: February 08, 2008, 01:52:49 am »
I have too much time on my hands, so I'm reading "Life on a Line - A manual of modern cave rescue ropework techniques" Three parts were published online.
Lifeonaline part-1
Lifeonaline part-2
Lifeonaline part-3
The part I was reading covers various hauling setups. This is in the context of rescue work and caving, but the same rules apply to hauling. They offer various setups and cover some interesting points. For example,when discussing "sheave clamps" (i.e. traxions) they state,

Quote
The major point of contention is the cam position. Whilst not arguing against the performance
and design of either device there is a clear difference in the operation under load. Follower
clamps grip the rope between a toothed cam and a fixed metal plate, as is the manner of generic
jammers. Under loading therefore there is both the positive grip of the teeth in the rope sheath
and the friction of the rope against this fixed plate. In addition the rope is straight at the point of
contact, so there is no preferential tension in any part of the sheath or core. In contrast shave
clamps grip the rope between a toothed cam and the moving pulley sheave, so the only holding
effect is from the teeth - there is no additional friction effect. Also, the rope is gripped at a point
where it is wrapped over the sheave, so the outer radius of the rope is under increased tension
compared to the inner. This outer radius is also the part gripped by the cam, therefore there is a
question of how this ?gripping the part most under stress? can influence the failure process.
Devices such as the Pro Traxion are tested and fully approved and this discussion is not
intended to criticise their performance or suggest faults, however there is obviously an
argument that any device working to the optimal design should not apply stress to a point on
the rope that is already under increased stress in the first place. In conclusion a follower clamp
is probably more rope-friendly and may cause less damage or failures when subjected to high
shock loading or extreme static loads. This is reflected in the fact that the working load limit of
the Pro Traxion is 2.5kN whereas that of a site-built follower clamp A-block using a Fixe
pulley and Basic ascender is 4kN.

Something to consider when hauling seriously big loads. They also consider the merits of "Follower clamps" such as the Wall Hauler or USHBA Hogwauler. There is a lengthy section on constructing an "A-block" (auto block) instead of using the aforementioned devices. Most climbers will recognize this as our trusty pulley/ascender setup. The thing I never realized is that it is an accepted setup to place the clamp, such as a Pretzel basic on the tail side of the pulley. This is called the "compression pattern".

Here's a pic -


Anyway, all very interesting, but it got me thinking. What's your rig? I prefer the pulley/ascender rig, though I know there are other options. I just don't like the extra gear. Although  I was just looking at CMI Micro haulers.
Be Safe, Live Long, Climb Hard!

Rick

Offline Mike.

  • Bigwall Shaman
  • A4+ Dreamer
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2008, 09:00:10 am »
Good food for thought, Rags.


I started out using a basic pulley and ascender. I think it's a good system. Then I wanted to solo, so I needed to expand my hauling HW.

First I used a third ascender--fine.

Then I wanted to haul two large bags. I was intrigued by the "new" Rock Exotica Wallhauler, so I got two of them.
http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/Misc/HaulingPulleyPages/HaulPulley666.html
After one was ruined under a not-so-huge load, nearly severing the haul rope, I re-thought the piece. (An interesting tale in itself.)

The Hogwaller looked like a more sturdy piece, so I got one and ran it side-by-side against my remaining Wallhauler. The Hog's miniscule sheave turned out to be its downfall. (The smaller the sheave, the less mechanical advantage.)
http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/Misc/HaulingPulleyPages/HaulPulley644.html#anchor11135921

Next, I bought into a couple of P-Traxions
http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/Misc/HaulingPulleyPages/HaulPulley731.html
Back to two-inch sheaves, great. They worked fine for me for years, but recently I've had issues with them. One was ruined when the pin in the plate notch somehow was bent. More recently I had my 8mm haul line get sucked in between the sheave and side plate when I wasn't paying close attention to the angle of the device. With these events (and others reported by other climbers), I decided to look elsewhere.

I scored a ratcheting rescue pulley for a song at a used gear sale:
http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/Misc/HaulingPulleyPages/HaulPulley642.html
(RM22, the double-sheave version on the right.) For $20, I couldn't resist. I initially thought it too huge and heavy to seriously be used for walling, but after using it once I decided I liked the extra burl. And the thing is a sweet, toothless unit with confident-feeling action. A bit clunky with the clip-in system, the unit could be more easily dropped when being threaded. No major ill. The extra sheave I have not employed.

I was stoked enough on this style of hauler to get a Kong Block Roll:
http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/Misc/HaulingPulleyPages/HaulPulley720.html
Not as overkill burly as the RM, but sufficient for my uses (and much lighter). I theorized this unit would work well, and on the one outing I used it I was pleased with its performance. The unit is available through a shop/distributor in Utah (I even got it for less than the $139 advertised price, excellent service).


I think what one needs depends on the uses. The Traxions (even the Wallhauler if not jugging on the rigged unit) are fine for light loads. For heavier loads (well over 100 lbs), I'm sticking with my newer unit(s). More lately I've been jugging weighted haul lines, so the extra beef suits me fine. I will say that the sheave size is a sometimes-overlooked aspect that's critical. If I was in the market today, I'd prolly cough up for one of these:
http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/Misc/HaulingPulleyPages/HaulPulley719.html

I've never used mech advantage systems like the 2:1 or 3:1. I'd rather split the load up into multiple 1:1s. That's just me, but I'm hearing more climbers preferring 1:1 over mech advantage systems as time goes on. I'm a huge fan of 8mm haul lines (if they aren't being jugged).

Cheers...
Say no to limbers, excavators and retro-bolters. No matter how much he smiles.

Offline Craig Peer

  • A3 Fool
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
    • http://www.summitpost.org/user_page.php?user_id=5092
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2008, 09:47:50 am »
For years I used a pulley and 2 Jumars, but the simplicity of the ProTraxion and ease of setup sold me. I also do 1:1 hauling. Faster .

Offline Garbonzo

  • A4+ Dreamer
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2008, 10:31:20 am »
So far it's all been mostly the Pro-traxion.  I've had no problems, but frankly it's design, and assorted tales of malfunction don't inspire me.

I tried the 3.5" hollow core pulley last season, but was disappointed.  While it claims to be uber efficient, the "bearing" is just a plastic sheeve on a 2" OD aluminum tube, not the "bearing" I was expecting...  On the plus side a big pear biner clipped through the bottom to hold the ascender, keeping it very clean, jut not any more efficient than the pro-traxion.

For this season I am gonna take a third ascender and a CMI bearing pulley and see how I like it.  I figure for down low I'll want the third ascender for space hauling or for pulling up on the load strand.  Once the bag lightens up enough for straight forward body hauling I'll start leaving the extra ascender in the haul bag.

Thanks for the links, those have a lot of good stuff in them, too much to read right now...
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 10:52:28 am by Garbonzo »

Offline Rags

  • A3+ Copper Bender
  • *****
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2008, 10:52:56 am »
Mike, good feedback.

Your observations of the Wall Hauler and the traxion, I have heard elsewhere. I do have a mini-trax, that serves occasionally as a far-end hauler (actually rare).

The RM22 looks like de' bom'. Only $20 ? What a deal. What's the name of the place in Utah where you purchased the Kong B/R?

The thing that surprises me is the Hogwauler. Your the only one I've heard actually having used one. So the sheave was too small?
Looking at the pics, it does look small. Just a note about mechanical advantage that you mention.
The Lifeonaline manual that I noted above has lengthy section on pulleys, mechanical advantages, and compares various devices. What is absent is any mention
that the size of the sheave has any effect on friction when the sheave is a pulley. I can't tell from the pic, but is the sheave on the Hogwauler fixed, or is it a pulley?
If it is fixed that would explain some things.
Lifeonaline does mention a variety of other friction factors, and Interestingly, Storrick rates it pretty high.
But hey, you've actually used one.

You mention jugging weighted haul lines. It is a bonus to have a device rated for live loads.

Garbonzo
Quote
While it claims to be uber efficient, the "bearing" is just a plastic sheeve on a 2" OD aluminum tube, not the "bearing" I was expecting...

Plastic sheave around a tube? Yowza! Not the rig I'm looking for.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 10:57:01 am by Rags »
Be Safe, Live Long, Climb Hard!

Rick

Offline hammock-soloer

  • A3 Fool
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2008, 12:48:29 pm »
Dun Duh Dun Duh Dun inspector gadget Dun Duh Dun Duh Dun Dun Dun who who!

Offline Mike.

  • Bigwall Shaman
  • A4+ Dreamer
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2008, 05:08:23 pm »
Rags,

The US distributor for the Kong Block Roll (all Kong products?) is:

Mountainworks
2494 N. University Parkway in Provo
801-371-0223

A super helpful guy there named Adam took my order. It was a great experience, he was totally on it.


Yea, the sheave thing. The Hogwaller's is not fixed, but a true pulley. Too bad, as it was a cool unit otherwise. I had a conversation with Jim at Ushba about it, and he didn't seem too thrilled with my findings as I recall. It made me wonder what's up at Ushba. Puzzling that those caving nerds apparently have no clue about sheave diameter. There was a thread on rc.c where several engineer types were chiming in with explanations of sheave diameter:mech advantage. Beyond me--I just know bigger is easier.

Ten-four on the live load-rated unit for jugging the weighted haul line. But honestly, I did it on a PTrax and KBRoll and felt okay doing it with a backup tied with minimal slack. I'm actually more concerned about the rope on the rock in that situation, but that's probably worth a new topic. Still, I'll prolly heed your note and use the beefy-ass RM for that sort of thing here forth. I was actually sorta surprised at how light and non-burl the KBR is. That said, it really is a fine unit, and easier to rig and use than probably any hauler I've owned.

Cheers...
Say no to limbers, excavators and retro-bolters. No matter how much he smiles.

Offline Feral Rat

  • A1 fiend
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
    • http://www.mudncrud.com
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2008, 08:09:47 pm »
The Wall Hauler is good for basic stuff.  I done around a dozen with mine.  I have done two walls where the load seemed a bit over the top for me yet no probs with the Waul Hauler.  95% of what I have done has been 1:1 with a fair amount of space hauling thrown in.  I have no idea if space hauling with the WH is a good idea or not but thankfully it worked.
Here's ta sweat in your eye

Offline Rags

  • A3+ Copper Bender
  • *****
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2008, 10:47:56 pm »
Thanx Mike,
Curiosity got the best of me. I went looking for the RC.Com post you were talking about- all your fault. I should have left it alone.
Anyway I came up with this:

Quote
This came up in a question I asked about the Usaba HogWaller. In that post I stated that neither I nor my physics professor could see why it would make a difference because this was a simple potential energy problem.

But we were both wrong. We had assumed a frictionless pulley but, in fact, friction plays a major part in the problem.

Let's say the friction on any bearing you choose is some constant, K. (This is, of course, not true in the real world, but it's a simplification that will show the point.) So, for every rotation of any pulley of whatever diameter, K friction is added.

A pulley (A) with diameter 1 has a circumference (pi*diameter) of pi * 1 = 1pi. According to our assumption one rotation of pulley A will have friction 1K.

Now pulley (B) with a diameter of 2 has a circumference of 2pi. B also has a friction of 1K.

So in order to pull up 2pi worth of rope on pulley A you have to spin it twice and acquire 2K worth of friction. So let's say you're leg hauling three feet at a time. You're pulling up the same amount of rope whether using pulley A or B. Pulley B, with diameter 2, will add 1/2 the amount of friction to your efforts than a pulley with diameter 1. Of course, the bigger the pulley the more effecient it is: e.g. a pulley of diameter 3 would be 3 times more effecient than A.

Now it's not true that all axles have a constant frictional coefficient. But they're close enough that the model still works. For example, the friction in pulley A would have to be 1/2K, while B remained K, for the two pulleys to be equally efficient.

So the moral of the story is to maximize diameter while minimizing the friction of the axle.

The other aspect of this that I overlooked earlier is the potential size of the bearing. Larger bearings distribute load over a greater bearing surface, significantly reducing friction. As they say, bigger is better. It also affords a higher load rating also, AKA- live loads.
Be Safe, Live Long, Climb Hard!

Rick

Offline Garbonzo

  • A4+ Dreamer
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2008, 09:41:42 am »
Rags,

  A couple important notes:

1.  Friction loss, if using a bushing style bearing, will indeed be constant for the same for the same number of revolutions, but ONLY if both pulleys being copared have the SAME axle diameter.  If you double the axle diamter leaving all else the same, then the total friction loss per revolution will double.

2.  There are also losses in the rope iself.  As the rope conforms to the V slot of the sheeve there is some squishing, and therefore loss.  As the rope is bent around a small sheeve it also does some squishing around resultin in friction losses inside the rope.  Larger diameter here helps.

As much claim as there is for large efficiency improvements ("felt 50 lbs lighter") it would be really useful to do some controlled experiments using ~100-200 lb dead weights and see how much would have to be counterweighted with assorted rigs to get them moving (Traxion, a 1" wall pulley, 2", 3", and 4") to see how much improvement there really is for lugging up that 4" monster.

Offline Rags

  • A3+ Copper Bender
  • *****
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2008, 12:36:46 pm »
I was in the local mountain shop yesterday, and was surprised to see that most of the pulleys were various polymer plastics (i.e. Delrin) and bushed.

Guess I was expecting ball/sealed bearings, at least on the heavier stuff.

So I find this on the BD website-
oil-filled bronze bearing. Technically, the bronze bushing is a bearing. The way the advertise is misleading.

Petzel is a little more clear, Ball bearings in the mini, rescue and Protrax.

CMI is very clear about the design. They call it a bushing or bearing.

Guess I shouldn't have been surprised. Appears that most of the stuff is bushed.

Point of interest from CMI website-

A Bushing spreads the load over a larger area of axle, sliding the load around he pulley. This results in greater transfer, very little wear, and extremely long life. However, the greater area in contact results increased friction, decreasing efficiency.

Bearings decrease the amount of surface area in contact with the axle, which creates a more efficient transfer. By rolling the load around the axle, load on the transfer point is increased, which results in faster wear and shortens the life of the pulley.

Sheave diameter, along with bearing efficiency, determines the overall efficiency of the piece. In general, larger sheave diameters produce greater pulley efficiencies
« Last Edit: February 11, 2008, 12:40:39 pm by Rags »
Be Safe, Live Long, Climb Hard!

Rick

Offline Garbonzo

  • A4+ Dreamer
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2008, 02:14:18 pm »
For the high loads involved with pulleys I believe many are actually needle bearings, which use cylindrical rollers instead of spherical rollers.  Sorry to nitpick.

The CMI catalog has an OK picture of one of their bearings showing needle rollers, look on page 5 of http://www.cmi-gear.com/pdfs/cat38.pdf for the pic
« Last Edit: February 11, 2008, 02:16:34 pm by Garbonzo »

Offline jbur

  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2008, 12:40:31 pm »
Rags, I noticed the same setup recomended in petzl's instruction manual for the basic and the handled ascender.  I also had never thought that the ascender could be moved from the load side of the pulley to the non load side.  I can see a few advantages such as not having to weight the ascender, and you can get more height when raising the load.  I would like to see some discussion on disadvantages, as I have never even seen this setup discussed in climbing or rescue.  Everyone have a good year,  Jody

Offline marde

  • Gumby
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2009, 01:47:07 pm »
I rigged my hauling system like this last spring, and it worked perfectly fine. (big Yates pulley, petzl handled ascender)
The only real advantage I see is that you don't need a weight for the ascender.
I didn't notice any disadvantages or strange loading scenarios of the setup.


Offline mungeclimber

  • Administrator
  • A4+ Dreamer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
    • View Profile
    • http://www.sonorapassclimbing.com
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2010, 06:25:06 pm »
I'm always surprised at the haters on the protrax usage. I keep thinking I'm missing something, but as long as one allows the thing to swivel, uses a proper sized locker in the lower point, and uses larger than 8mil haul line, it's a nifty hauler.

can anyone talk me out of buying one for BWs that are between 3 to 6 days long (think min 3 quarts per person per day on that load). 

I guess 2 hauls may be needed on hot 6 day trips.

skully

  • Guest
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2010, 07:12:18 pm »
I'm using my bitchen pulley. After all, it's bitchen!!!!!!!!!

Offline Mike.

  • Bigwall Shaman
  • A4+ Dreamer
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2010, 03:56:20 pm »
"can anyone talk me out of buying one for BWs that are between 3 to 6 days long (think min 3 quarts per person per day on that load). 

I guess 2 hauls may be needed on hot 6 day trips."



The 8mm rope thing is a deal breaker for me. Speshly with multipull hauls. I had two PTs. One went back to REI after the pin bent (how ???). The other I still have not forgiven for sucking my 8mm haul line into the gap. I used them a bunch, but there is simply better stuff for the task. I really don't think the KBR is so much more large and heavy than a PT. Rescue pulleys are heavy. I use one of those also. Eliminating the hauler malfunction and strength issues is worth the weight to me sometimes. I would sooner go back to a simple pulley and jugs than have to mind that PT. But the PT works great for backup when jugging a weighted line.

Say no to limbers, excavators and retro-bolters. No matter how much he smiles.

Offline passthepitonspete

  • A3 Fool
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2010, 10:35:11 pm »
The Pro-Traxion is a colossal piece of junk and should be outlawed.  It will work ok for light loads, but not for heavy ones.  It is poorly designed and will fail.  I'm surprised Petzl still markets it. 

I have been very happy with my Kong Block-Rolls and continue to use them for everything. 
Dr. Piton says, "There is always a Better Way!"

Offline mungeclimber

  • Administrator
  • A4+ Dreamer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
    • View Profile
    • http://www.sonorapassclimbing.com
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2010, 06:38:41 pm »
Pete,

"It will work ok for light loads"

I see your posts regularly on this, but forgot what kind of light load are you thinking?  You idea of light, might be my idea of murderously heavy.  :)

skully

  • Guest
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2010, 06:48:46 pm »
I think Pete only does "Murderously Heavy" hauling.
Haha!
Aside from others folks advice,I'd say he's fully tested the Kong.
I'm stickin' with my CMI pulley & jumars, though.
Too poor to change now! Cheers!
« Last Edit: February 13, 2010, 06:10:37 am by skully »

Offline lunchbox

  • A3+ Copper Bender
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2010, 11:12:39 am »
For what its worth I've hauled as much as 13 gals plus protaledge and food with a ProTrax on a 1:1 system.  I've never had to truly space haul which would be worth some additional considerations.  I've also jugged a weighted 11mm run through a ProTrax but it was autoblocked off below the device.

I've also watched a 10.5mm static roll up the V-notch of the ProTrax as I hauled and damn near fail.  You need lots of freedom so it can swivel. 

I really like mine but I have learned to work with its limitations. 

Offline gdstorrick

  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2010, 04:14:24 pm »
Re Hogwauler:

Interestingly, Storrick rates it pretty high.

I'm not sure that I should have done that. From other comments,  it seems that I didn't give it a good enough test.

I now have three of them, and the first one had far less friction than the later two.

I still like it, but that doesn't mean that I like it, if you know what I mean. It is a "cool-looking design," but probably not as efficient as I once thought.

Gary

miwuksurfer

  • Guest
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2010, 11:32:54 am »
Garbonzo, The 3.5" hollow core pulley is the one from RSI, sold on the Yates website?  Wow, I almost bought it then just found your comments here.  I'm really suprised they went with a plastic sheave.  I have the Petzl Rescue but was looking for a kick-ass backup pulley.  Guess I'll keep looking.  Have you guys seen the rock exotica website? Some cool stuff on there.  Swivels with built in biners, pulleys with swivels, etc.  Cool stuff.

skully

  • Guest
Re: Preferred hauling setups
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2010, 06:29:41 pm »
Got to use Caz's Kong Block Roll on our Va. Trip. First time ever with such a monster.
That thing is the Shit! I may just have to invest. Can one fall in love with a hauling device?
I must be weirder than even I thought.

Bitchin' & worth it, IMO.