I've found out (no surprise) that making very long SRT ascents brings out the good and the bad for any SRT system. On the west coast trip I made several 185' ascents on each of my two main SRT systems: Tree Frog and Micro Frog (described in a previous thread "Microcender Ropewalker"). Since returning east I'm continuing to compare the systems on my SRT ascents. For east coast trees the Micro Frog is winning out. For very long single pitch tree ascents (plus 135-140') it's a wash.

Basic system specs:
1. "Micro Frog" consists of a self advancing Microcender with footloop, a self-advancing hitch below the Microcender and a Pantin, both hands grab the rope above the Microcender.
2. "Tree Frog" consists of a manually advanced handled ascender with footlop, self advancing Croll at the waist and a Pantin, both hands on the handled ascender.

Advantages per system:
1. Micro Frog is smoother, nothing has to be moved up manually, rope seems to move through the system more freely than Tree Frog
2. Micro Frog is better squeezing through tight spots
3. Micro Frog initiates self-tending more quickly through the Pantin on ground take-off, not sure why, may be less obstructed/more direct rope path down through my harness
4. Micro Frog components weigh less, take up less space and are multi-purpose (hitch is available for DRT pitches, Microcender is more rope friendly for SRT traverse)
5. Tree Frog is quicker on and off the rope (no hitch, no Microcender)

Disadvantages per system:
1. Arms held higher on the Micro, causes heart to work harder, I think cancels some of the efficiency improvement over Tree Frog on long ascents
2. Microcender and hitch are slower on and off the rope (not a bigee), more chances to drop things (hitch and pulley not tethered)
3. Tree Frog can be awkward in tight spots
4. Tree Frog is not as overall smooth in the climbing motion as the Micro Frog

Note: I'm not saying these systems are superior to any other SRT systems, they happen to be what I climb on most frequently these days.
-moss

Interesting moss. I just yesterday bought an On Rope Goliath harness that is specifically designed for the sit-stand frog. I got the padded version with the integral H-type shoulder harness.

I hooked it up in the classic frog consisting of a handled upper foot ascender with harness tether, a PMI Twist (Croll equivalent sans the long, sharp, slanted, gnawing, shredding, mutilating, picking, ooops - got a little carried away there) for the saddle.

The whole thing felt a bit awkward because of the way the saddle fits and connects so low. I had to play with the foot loops and don't think I have them optimized yet, but that rig climbs!

The frog sit-stand is probably the most popular climbing system in the world, notice most popular, not most efficient, but it is efficient. You recall those guys talking about footlocking etc.? I bet the frog would blow them away.

I only have the one experience with a true frog harness, so I've got a lot of experimenting to do yet. But, I'd be amazed if the harnes weighs 2 pounds. Probably with the steel half round it would, but with an aluminum half-round --- I'm just sayin'.

It is really nice once the saddle ascender starts auto-feeding rope.

Which reminds me of another related topic: what is a Frog SRT system? I think what I'm climbing on is more accurately described as a "Split Frog System", it is not a sit stand system. It is more like a rope walker, the feet are independent and the leg motion is more like riding a bicycle (backwards). SherrillTree calls it a "Tree Frog". The only thing frog-like about it is an ascender tethered at the waist and an upper ascender. Otherwise there is nothing frog-like about the climbing motion. For purposes of clarity it is probably best to call what I climb on a Tree Frog and not a Frog sit/stand, unless someone has a better name for it.
-moss

Moss:

Your rig is very, very interesting - as usual, good job. I've studied your Microwalker for SRT. (BTW; like the name.) Is that the same as the "Micro Frog"?

After reviewing the pictures and text many times, I've tried a version that has proven to be extremely promissing. It would be great to see more detail about your complete set-up. Would you consider posting some pictures of the complete, functioning rig? Perhaps, even a video?

Thanks, Jack

Yep, it's the same. After doing more research on Frog systems I'm thinking I'll go back to calling it a Microwalker, since that's what it is, no hands ropewalking, at least no hands on ascenders etc., hands are on the rope. I have raw video of me demonstrating the system, just have to do a bit of editing to make it useful for viewers.
-moss

A Frog is SRT by practice. The only references I have to a Frog system of any kind is On Rope (the book), and an SRT video that explains ropewalkers, the Frog (sit-stand), and the Texas sit-stand. In both references, the Frog is a sit-stand. I think Sherrill is calling their ropewalker a Tree Frog because it is essentially a Frog sit stand with a Pantin added to form a ropewalker. But, it requires one hand to advance the footloop ascender - of course the Pantin advances with the foot.

Moss
Your Microwalker is truely an exciting innovation. While eagerly awaiting your video, I've been studying your picture Ascent on "Microwalker" (below). Impatience has gotten the better of me. Permit me to ask some questions about the hitch:

Is the hitch performing an 'active' function in the ascent or is it just along for the ride? Is it a back-up? Or, is it for later use on a higher pitch in the climb?

Regards, Jack

Ascent on "Microwalker"

Sorry 'bout the video delay, busy with work.

The hitch is a backup, second "ascender" or life support attachment to the rope. It is not involved in the ascent, it just rides the rope but grabs if loaded. If I was using a cinched SRT TIP and climbing on my 150' arborist semi-static, then I would leave the hitch on the rope and switch over to DRT to climb above the initial SRT pitch. In the photo I'm climbing a cinched TIP 200 ft. 10mm static, I will leave it where it is and switch over to a long and short lanyard to climb above the SRT pitch. Note that the system is "hands free", hands are on the rope above the Microcender, the ascender is advanced by the bungee (HUT) over my shoulders.
-moss

Thank you very much, Moss. I thoroughly understand "busy". No need to rush the video - all in good time. I believe I've got the gist of it, now. Again, I'll be trying to adapt some more of your innovations into my work. I am most appreciative.

Ron, tell me about the PMI twist. I also dislike my Croll. It works well, as long as I don't ever try to remove it from the rope. It's probably just me, but it takes two hands, and I really have to hold my tongue right to keep it from picking the rope sheath. When I find a suitable replacement, the Croll will be on the giveaway list. I'm wondering if the PMI version looks well-made, or is it a cheap copy.

I'll try to shoot some picks and a video comparing the Croll and the PMI Twist. One thing I've noticed about the Twist is that it tends to ride perpendicular to the body instead of flat. For all I know, the Croll does that too and I just hadn't noticed it. That hasn't been a problem; it's just something I noticed.

Depends how and what it's attached to, my Croll rides flat. I'm perplexed about all these problems with Petzl ascenders picking the rope. I know they can pick the rope but if the device is unloaded it's very easy to take off the rope without picking. Just move it up slightly as you release the cam, smooth as silk. The cover on the Sterling HTP 10mm is so firm it's practically pick-proof anyway. Arborist semi-statics are much more prone to picking but it's the same deal, the ascender should not be loaded at all when you take it off the rope, just move it up a couple millimeters as you open the cam, zero picking. I'm not saying the Petzl cams are better than the CMI, PMI or other less aggressive ascender cams, just saying I have no problems with them.

Send all discarded Petzl ascenders to me, I'll make good use of them.
-moss

Moss, I should have added, it sometimes takes me two hands AND a foot (with a Pantin) to remove the Croll. KMIII and Tachyon "pick" pretty easily, and 6' of hanging rope is often not enough weight to easily remove the Croll. Yes, removing a loaded Croll is impossible, but usually I have to add downward pressure to the rope as I am moving the Croll up those couple of millimeters. Sometimes with the busy cluster of ropes and branches there is just not enough downweight. Also, to be fair, hand strength and coordination are disappearing with age, so many actions for me are more difficult. I'm sure Petzl wanted to be sure this thing won't accidentally come off, and I my case, it surely won't.

I'd like to find something with teeth like the Microscender. That, to me, is smooth as silk. When/if I do, I'll PM for your address to send the Croll. However, you must know I filed down the first row of teeth, which helped about 50%. So maybe you don't want it. Wonder if anyone else has done that.

I don't believe the PMI (Heightec) Twist will pick the rope. I now only use Heightec, CMI, or Black Diamond's nForce ascenders unless there's a very strong reason not to. I may try a Kong Futura hand ascender, On Rope 1 now carries them and I got to hold one. I'd have already bought it, but even the large grip is just a bit small for my hand.

In addition to the reasons you gave about removing the ascenders, sometimes I just get sloppy.

In an SRT video produced by the Vertical Section, as they describe the Mitchell ropewalking system's ability to downclimb as well as it up climbs, they make it clear that only two ascenders work well for downwalking, the Jumar and CMI small ascenders. They give two reasons, the small Ultrascender has a larger triangular shaped upper hole that makes it easy to hold and thumb the cam. The other reason they give is that both of these ascenders have straight teeth and are much less likely to snag the rope.

There are a number of other folks I know, including Bruce Smith, that recognizes the pick problem with Petzl and other brands with slanted teeth.

moss is an example that one can use slanted teeth and still be kind to the rope. Personally, I'm not one that seems to be able to do that.

The straighter, shorter teeth don't catch quite as quickly sometimes and have to be reset, but once set they never slip.

But, we're highjacking moss's excellent thread, so maybe we should start a new thread or PM.

Sorry for such a late response to this thread. I have been away for awhile.

In my other hobby, I have gotten to experience a lot more of SRT and SRT systems. I have quite a few friends who "Frog" using a pantin and a footloop to an upper ascender and have been doing so for about as long as the pantin has been around. Using this equipment configuration, which is the same as Moss describes, they still sit/stand. The common consensus and main selling point for a foot ascender added to a frog system, that I completely agree with, is that the pantin helps feed the rope throught the croll/twist or other similar "Chest" ascender. This adds a lot of efficiencies to the system and almost eliminates misfeeds. They do not call this configuration anything different than just "Frog" It is just a modified version of a traditional frog. Some people refer to the walking motion as "Frog Walking". Having seen Moss climb the "tree frog" in person, I noticed that the "walking" motion is what seems to be the key difference of what Moss is doing and a traditional "Frog" as defined in the On Rope book. At the end of the day the two configurations has about the same difference as climbing traditional drt using a foot loop and climbing a traditional DRT using a pantin. They are both still traditional DRT with an additional piece of equipment. Albeit that the actual motion varies. When I frog... I try to climb with a Pantin if is of any distance (80+ feet). I double bungeee rope walk almost everything above 150 feet as it is a lot more efficient and faster.

As for the Frog being the most popular system in the world, from the perspective of a caver where the system is being used to climb a single length of rope that is already rigged, it is a happy mix of simplicity, efficiency, and low cost. It is also very versatile in a cave environment. It is easy to perform a tyrolean traverses, easy for rescues (Both as a rescuer and rescuee), easier to pass undercut lips than other systems, lightweight for those nasty hikes to caves, Easy for rebelays, easy for passing a knot and the most common plus to the frog that I hear from my friends is that it is easy to wear when moving through out cave for those fun multidrop places.