FiddleStick finally available

[Deathcricket]

I see your point a little Jake, but no matter how the story plays out which is almost always the case, it will be user error that caused it. No different than trying to blame and 'Assault Rifle' for shooting somebody. Hopefully nothing ever comes of your predictions because as we know there has already been too many. Let's all try to do a better job of double checking anchors and making sure everybody sets their devices up correctly.

Oh for sure! 100% agreed. The end user is always responsible for products they purchase and consume. My comment is really more about marketing, producing, and promoting a possible faulty device to the unwashed masses and the responsibility included therein. It's a completely different point for competent canyoneers such as yourself to use a device of their own accord or possibly something they made in their garage let's say. Once you bring a product on the market and start selling it for a profit, the scenario changes a bit IMO. I think most (or at least some) consumers have a knowledge gap and possibly assume a product is "safer" than it really is, they assume it has been tested or perhaps put more trust in it than they should. This is when the "mistake" (as you put it) comes into play. Taking the devices safety margin for granted, getting in over your head, one mistake you're dead.

Your gun analogy is only accurate (I think) if you change it a bit to be that the gun is always pointed at your head, someone's finger is always on the trigger, and you have to constantly check to make sure the safety is on. A rifle's job could be argued that it's to take a life, but there are so many safeguards in place I don't think it's nearly this inherently dangerous. Keep the safety on, never point it at anyone, etc, etc... This device is way more dangerous than a gun ever will be IMO. *shrug*

[2065toyota]

If you would stop being a pansy and saying your leg hurts and come with us I think you would change your mind a little

[Exergy]

I thought it might be of interest to the readers of this thread that the loudest critics were people that have not used nor tried to use this device in the field.

That's all.

Tom

What Iceaxe said. First Tom wants people that haven't tried it...when he gets what he asks for he runs at the mouth in an attempt to discredit their pontifications ... Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Although he might like it, it is true that I have never played with Tom's fiddlestick . The only stick I have ever fiddled with is my own. Tom doesn't know me so he doesn't know the time I spend practicing/learning rope skills (including ghosting). There was a website (maybe Tom's) which illustrated several ghosting techniques that I experimented with awhile back including a wooden dowel (AKA fiddlestick), the omni-sling, and others. I think the page has since been taken down.

[Exergy]

I thought it might be of interest to the readers of this thread that the loudest critics were people that have not used nor tried to use this device in the field.

That's all.

Tom

I will say that I admire Tom's efforts to grow the sport -- I use his book and visit his site. However...

Material science questions are much better suited to the lab than the field. The field isn't where you want to learn the material limitations that a lab geek can discover. I wish Tom would address the Qs instead of blowing them off. It was previously suggested that rope is a single point failure -- the multiple strands make it highly redundant -- a failure of one strand is isolated to that strand. A small undetected crack in the fiddlestick can grow unrestrained through the entire section resulting in complete failure under load. This is true even for metals but the metals used in climbing equipment are well suited to resisting crack growth. There's a reason the big manufacturers of climbing gear and life support equipment don't use plastic for single point failure items where a life is on the line. This to me is a red flag. It is not a trivial effort to select a material for life support items.

Although it is an inherently risky piece of equipment, my biggest concern is with the material selection. As one who oversees material selections and failure analysis for critical applications I can't help but be skeptical when I see a small business stepping outside the mainstream for critical applications. Perhaps ICG has already studied the fracture mechanics of the fiddlestick (crack growth analysis, durability and damage tolerance, environmental testing and the like). If so, good on them, let the masses get educated and use it. If not, it would be wise to consider such analysis.

[PG Rob]

I personally would have no problem using ICG's fiddlestick. I use a different variation of the fiddlestick now.

If it makes you feel better, consider the fiddlestick a disposable, 1 use item or a large keychain. After 1 use, toss it, and use a new one, or hook your keys to it to show everyone your canyoneering cred.

Each should take on the responsibility of using it, or any product, at their own risk.

Many products serve a valuable purpose where the manufacturer needs to indemnify themselves from people using the product. Don't even try to tell me you use these only as directed.

[ratagonia]

I will say that I admire Tom's efforts to grow the sport -- I use his book and visit his site. However...

Material science questions are much better suited to the lab than the field. The field isn't where you want to learn the material limitations that a lab geek can discover. I wish Tom would address the Qs instead of blowing them off. It was previously suggested that rope is a single point failure -- the multiple strands make it highly redundant -- a failure of one strand is isolated to that strand. A small undetected crack in the fiddlestick can grow unrestrained through the entire section resulting in complete failure under load. This is true even for metals but the metals used in climbing equipment are well suited to resisting crack growth. There's a reason the big manufacturers of climbing gear and life support equipment don't use plastic for single point failure items where a life is on the line. This to me is a red flag. It is not a trivial effort to select a material for life support items.

Although it is an inherently risky piece of equipment, my biggest concern is with the material selection. As one who oversees material selections and failure analysis for critical applications I can't help but be skeptical when I see a small business stepping outside the mainstream for critical applications. Perhaps ICG has already studied the fracture mechanics of the fiddlestick (crack growth analysis, durability and damage tolerance, environmental testing and the like). If so, good on them, let the masses get educated and use it. If not, it would be wise to consider such analysis.

You are kind of out-of-place on this thread, Exergy, bringing up an ACTUAL POTENTIAL ISSUE.

I recognize your concern as valid, and it was considered carefully in the selection of the final material.

What mechanism do you see for cracking the PolyCarbonate? PC is pretty tough and pretty strong - I just do not see a mechanism for stressing it to the point of cracking. Some of Brendon's prototypes cracked, but they were recycled uni-directional fiberglas sail battens, much much more prone to cracking than PolyCarbonate - and even cracked would be full strength since the cracks were longitudinal.

If you are concerned, please do a free-body diagram on the thing and estimate the forces involved. I think you will see that the forces are well-within the fatigue limits of the material chosen (or, in this case, pseudo-fatigue-limits). You are welcome to make your own FiddleStick out of whatever material you find most acceptable. However, the Lexan ones have approx 1000 raps on them without difficulty.

Tom

[Brian in SLC]

What mechanism do you see for cracking the PolyCarbonate? PC is pretty tough and pretty strong - I just do not see a mechanism for stressing it to the point of cracking.

Tough stuff. It'd almost have to be honked up in processing. I think if you heat it to form when the material is wet, it can get pretty brittle. Can't imagine a sheet of it would have that issue without notice, especially cutting it to shape.

Makrolon is the stuff we injection mold a bunch. Not that there aren't issues...ha ha. Ugh...

Gonna probably scratch pretty easy, I'd guess. A well scratched up Fiddlestick might be tougher to pull through that stone knot. Might could effect the friction. Knockin' around after a number of pull downs might roughen it up a touch, I'd think.

After, uhh, fiddlin' around with one a bit, the material doesn't seem to be as much of an issue to me. Pretty good application, really. Too bad it doesn't float...

[Moose Droppings]

I think its a foolish product to promote and a foolish technique to use. It'll hurt or kill someone soon enough.

^^^THIS^^^

This FiddleStick technique is nothing but a giant gamble every time you use it. And the major problem with that is you only have one big chip to bet on every toss of the dice, sooner or later this is going to come up snake eyes for someone.

I'm betting it will be some poor noob trying to copy the A-team and at the current rate of promotion I'm putting the over/under at 2 years.

+1

Fiddlesticks!??.... wow. shit like this puts the "progression" of canyoneering on the wrong side of Occam's Razor. i'll caste my vote for renaming the fiddlestick to occam's razor.

[Exergy]

What mechanism do you see for cracking the PolyCarbonate?

If you are concerned, please do a free-body diagram on the thing and estimate the forces involved....

However, the Lexan ones have approx 1000 raps on them without difficulty.

Replace the fiddlestick with your finger and rap off it. You'll be likely to find the mechanism.

If I stood to make a dime off this I'd do some analysis but it would involve instrumentation rather than an FBD. PM sent.

If the 1000 raps weren't done on an intentionally flawed part, then damage tolerance wasn't assessed. Bottom line is I won't be dropping money on a plastic fiddlestick. Maybe metal. I don't like to load all the cylinders when playing Russian Roulette.

[bjp]

For what it's worth, I've attached my thoughts on the general fiddlestick approach (using an aluminum rod fiddlestick rather than a Fiddlestick) below. Tom, I'm curious why you decided on a roughly rectangular extrusion rather than a polycarbonate rod. Also, the pull was easy enough with an aluminum rod that I'm going to try a wood dowel next time to see how much harder it is.

---
I had the opportunity to try out a fiddlestick-type rigging in a canyon this weekend and overall I was very impressed -- I plan to enthusiastically use this rigging in the appropriate circumstances, but for me I expect these circumstances to be pretty rare.


The primary unique advantage I see to a fiddlestick setup is that only one unknotted, unlooped strand of rope needs to be pulled around the anchor when retrieving the system. The only other setup I'm aware of that has a characteristic similar to this is the Buckle, and the Buckle has many possible ways to rig it incorrectly in ghost mode -- basically, I perceive the Buckle to be more finicky than a fiddlestick. This single-strand-around-anchor characteristic would be very useful when using large natural anchors, or natural anchors with lots of friction, and I wouldn't hesitate to seriously consider a fiddlestick in these cases. I also don't know of a better way to rig a fixed (not retrievable) quick link anchor to avoid rope grooves.


When I used a fiddlestick in a canyon this weekend, the first thing I noticed was that you have to start the rigging differently. In nearly every rigging I use regularly, the first step is to put the rope through the quick link, and feed enough rope for the rappel through the quick link. You don't want to do that with the fiddlestick. Instead, you feed just a few feet through the quick link (or around the natural anchor) and throw the bag down immediately as the rappel strand. In addition to feeling a bit weird to be rappelling on the bag side, one major issue of the fiddlestick with a group using 8-like devices (like the Pirana, ATS, etc) is that the rope twists can't come out at the bottom -- they just bunch up against the bag. This one downside alone will probably prevent me from using the fiddlestick regularly, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be a problem for a group that uses ATCs/sticht plates/bobbins/racks exclusively.


I'm not at all concerned about release danger for everyone but LAMAR. For the rest of my group, I simply put a figure 8 on a bight on the short end of the rope and clipped it to the anchor with a carabiner. If there was no anchor, I would just clip it to the rappel/bag rope for nearly the same effect (with some extra redirect tension). This safety is quick and easy to install and remove and is, as far as I can tell, pretty foolproof.


For LAMAR, I could imagine there might be some nailbiting at the prospect of the fiddlestick falling out of the rigging at an inopportune time. But, under the conditions I tested the rigging, these fears seem to be relatively unfounded. I used a 1/2" diameter, 12" long aluminum rod as my fiddlestick with both a soft Edelweiss 10mm canyon rope and a stiffer Imlay Canyonero rope and I didn't think the fiddlestick would come out under any reasonable circumstances. My team shook the rigging a lot while setting up which knocked the fiddlestick against rocks, but after snugging down the stone knot, the fiddlestick stayed put with both rope types tested. As Tom has said himself, the fiddlestick can fall out. But I'm personally comfortable with this risk given the appropriate amount of vigilance.


The fiddlestick is extremely unlikely to come out while the system is weighted (like most releasable riggings), so the big concern is unweighting during rappel and setup. I don't think static forces from most drops are likely to pull out the fiddlestick when it is unweighted during rappel (though I would change my mind if the pull strand were in running water), so I plan to focus mainly on the release-during-setup issue. To mitigate this risk, I (as LAMAR) connect my rappel device to the rappel strand before undoing the safety. That way if the fiddlestick falls out, I'll lose the pull strand but not the rappel strand, and my partners at the bottom can simply tie the pull strand to the rappel strand so that I can retrieve it. This introduces an additional risk if the fiddlestick falls out and then the rappel strand gets pulled (if someone at the bottom decided to pull wildly on all strands available, as might perhaps happen on the last rappel in Mystery for instance), but I think this additional risk is foreseeable and avoidable.


Another consideration in fiddlestick usage is where along the fiddlestick to center the stone knot. It seemed to me that I wanted to position it pretty close to the pull side of the fiddlestick so that there is a lot of buffer for the fiddlestick to wiggle its way out of the stone knot from tension vibration on the pull strand. But, I also wanted a longer lever arm to make retrieval easier, and I didn't want the knot to fall off the other side of the fiddlestick either. Both these considerations led me to feel most comfortable centering the stone knot 1/4 to 1/3 of the fiddlestick length from the pull side of the fiddlestick. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has different ideas about where to center the knot.


In all, I think this is a great tool that I'm thrilled to have in my toolbox. I don't expect to use it a whole lot using 8's in the San Gabriels, but I can see why it would be a primary rigging for someone who uses ATCs in sandstone canyons with few established anchors.

[Mountaineer]

The primary unique advantage I see to a fiddlestick setup is that only one unknotted, unlooped strand of rope needs to be pulled around the anchor when retrieving the system. The only other setup I'm aware of that has a characteristic similar to this is the Buckle, and the Buckle has many possible ways to rig it incorrectly in ghost mode -- basically, I perceive the Buckle to be more finicky than a fiddlestick. This single-strand-around-anchor characteristic would be very useful when using large natural anchors, or natural anchors with lots of friction, and I wouldn't hesitate to seriously consider a fiddlestick in these cases. I also don't know of a better way to rig a fixed (not retrievable) quick link anchor to avoid rope grooves.

There are others. For example, the Omnisling.

[bjp]

There are others. For example, the Omnisling.

The omnisling pulls the omnisling around the anchor rather than a clean strand of rope or webbing. Perhaps a small difference, but it still has more pockets to hang up on small obstacles. But point taken -- the omnisling has a relatively clean pull around the anchor relative to many other riggings.

Separately, the rappel side of an omnisling releasable has a bunch of bulky stuff on it (carabiner, figure 8 block, two strands of rope) with a potential to catch on something if the anchor is away from the edge. By contrast, the fiddlestick setup only has the fiddlestick to catch on things when retrieving. And there's no need to untie a well-weighted knot from the fiddlestick :)

But it does seem less likely for an omnisling to accidentally release, so perhaps the fiddlestick isn't better on all counts.

[bjp]

Tom, would you be willing to post the dimensions (specifically thickness and width) of the Fiddlestick you sell? Also, is it polycarbonate?

[ratagonia]

Tom, would you be willing to post the dimensions (specifically thickness and width) of the Fiddlestick you sell? Also, is it polycarbonate?

Good comments and evaluation, BJ.

The Imlay Canyon Gear FiddleStick is 1/4" polycarbonate x 1" x 9". All edges are generously broken using a belt sander, and a rough texture left on that.

I think making it longer gets in the way. I had been using a 16" x 1/2" Easton Tent pole segment, and in some cases it did not set up well because it was too long.

Why the Rectangular Lexan? There is a balance required between the stick and the slip. This size and material seems to have about the correct balance. Lexan has good engineering characteristics and is tough, and readily available on the marketplace in small quantities.

I highly recommend AGAINST using a FiddleStick in flowing water conditions, even as benign as the last rap in Mystery. Flowing water could result in undesirable forces on the pull side.

Omnisling: The Omnisling itself is quite heavy and expensive. It is of a specific length, and cannot be used around larger objects. It softens up with use, and 'wears out'. The release of the Omnisling is controlled by the friction characteristics of the rope against the webbing, and will be different under different conditions, enough so that a reliable release across a wide range of conditions is not attained. With small ropes, the Omnisling CAN capsize and fail disastrously.

And, as you pointed out, when pulling the Omnisling, there is more junk that can catch on stuff.

Essentially, the FiddleStick is better in all respects to the Omnisling.

Tom

[Mountaineer]

Omnisling: The Omnisling itself is quite heavy and expensive. It is of a specific length, and cannot be used around larger objects. It softens up with use, and 'wears out'. The release of the Omnisling is controlled by the friction characteristics of the rope against the webbing, and will be different under different conditions, enough so that a reliable release across a wide range of conditions is not attained. With small ropes, the Omnisling CAN capsize and fail disastrously.

And, as you pointed out, when pulling the Omnisling, there is more junk that can catch on stuff.

Essentially, the FiddleStick is better in all respects to the Omnisling.

Good points Tom, only a couple of things I would add. I've successfully used the FiddleStick principle (a piece of roughed up PVC), and also have used the Omnisling method. So, not defending or favoring one over the other. They both have the advantage of minimizing rope grooves. They both require special attention to minimize risk.

The Omnisling can be extended for larger objects with webbing and a rapid. Although you could forgo the rapid, I suppose, the potential of the rope getting stuck in the mechanism may be greater. Not critical, since when you pull/release, the webbing/rapid side comes straight down and does not go around the anchor. Only the Omnisling goes around the anchor. And if hazard strikes and it got stuck, you can still pull your rope through while the Omnisling remains behind.


Here is one example of rigging an extension:




You also don't typically use a pull cord with the Omnisling, you use the same rope. However, you need half the rope with the FiddleStick (the other half is a potentially smaller diameter pull cord).

Interesting about the softening with use, release, and small rope caveats. I haven't observed them, but I read them with care and thanks. I have used 8mm rope without any problem. I have been sure to make the loop large. Many use two loops. But more importantly to the point, I trust in their relevance so best to take them seriously.

I look forward to further learning all the points of caution for the FiddleStick, some of which may be captured in this thread.

[Aj84737]

Good points Tom, only a couple of things I would add. I've successfully used the FiddleStick principle (a piece of roughed up PVC), and also have used the Omnisling method. So, not defending or favoring one over the other. They both have the advantage of minimizing rope grooves. They both require special attention to minimize risk.

The Omnisling can be extended for larger objects with webbing and a rapid. Although you could forgo the rapid, I suppose, the potential of the rope getting stuck in the mechanism may be greater. Not critical, since when you pull/release, the webbing/rapid side comes straight down and does not go around the anchor. Only the Omnisling goes around the anchor. And if hazard strikes and it got stuck, you can still pull your rope through while the Omnisling remains behind.


Here is one example of rigging an extension:




You also don't typically use a pull cord with the Omnisling, you use the same rope. However, you need half the rope with the FiddleStick (the other half is a potentially smaller diameter pull cord).

Interesting about the softening with use, release, and small rope caveats. I haven't observed them, but I read them with care and thanks. I have used 8mm rope without any problem. I have been sure to make the loop large. Many use two loops. But more importantly to the point, I trust in their relevance so best to take them seriously.

I look forward to further learning all the points of caution for the FiddleStick, some of which may be captured in this thread.

Nice picture of a way to extend that. However I don't think all your electrical work is up to code. Haha

[Mountaineer]

However I don't think all your electrical work is up to code. Haha

Nope! Just extra wires, not hot.

[bretoyce]

If you put a few half hitches at the distal end of the fiddlestick using the lanyard provided it helps mitigate risk, keeping the fiddlestick in place all except LAMAR.
[ATTACH]65054[/ATTACH]

[deagol]

This is an old thread, but worth reviving IMO. There were claims here that people would die using the Fiddlestick. Now that 2013 is winding down, does anyone know of any Fiddlestick induced rappel accidents? There are none that I have heard of..

At the beginning of the year, I was aware of the idea in development but had no idea that I would use it. I did finally use it with a friend and was far more comfortable with it than I believed I ever would be. Later, I stumbled upon the Smooth Operator version from Blue Gnome and it addressed most of the safety issues that people have mentioned here. I have now used that version extensively this year and am sold on the idea. I most recently used it on my last canyon trip with a group of four. Having a heavier rappeler go down prior to me (I was LAPAR) cinched the knot up very nicely. The stick was not easy at all to pull out (in a good way) and I was very pleased to learn that based on the pull force needed, there was a very small chance of unintended release. I was like "wow, I am really glad that it was this hard to pull the Smooth Operator out".

For all but LAPAR, the safety biners in the Smooth Operator prevent it from falling out of a properly dressed knot- even if it does get pushed up against something. Another advantage associated with rigging this way is that you can place a rope protector on your rope where it crosses an edge. Since the rope doesn't need to be pulled back through a rapid for retrieval (in fact, the rope "downhill" from the knot doesn't even need to go back around the anchor at all), a rope protector can easily stay in place and protect your rope from the rock and also protect the rock from your rope.

One difference between rigging these two devices is that the Smooth Operator uses a pull cord that ties directly into the stick. This can be done with the safety biners still in place. This allows you to deploy the pull cord prior to LAPAR. This is good so prior rappelers can set it out of the way while it is still locked in place and can't release. The LAPAR doesn't have to mess with it or worry about stepping on it if it was deployed by prior person correctly.

Another benefit to tieing in directly is that when you do pull it down, there is no carabiner. This means that there isn't a lot of weight or force generated by just the stick and the cord. The stick kind of catches the air a little and comes down gently and can sometimes even be caught. You can stuff the pull cord and leave the stick tied to it while someone else starts stuffing the rope. No biners or knots to undo- fast and easy. The thicker Lexan of the Smooth Operator is bomber strong, too.

Caveats: I agree that it wouldn't be good to use in flowing water and also it is good to rig your device to not twist the rope (if you have that option).

At the beginning of 2013, I never thought I would be signing the praises of these devices, but at the end of the year, here I am doing just that.. and I am thankful to those who have spent the time developing these techniques and have shared them with the rest of us.

[ratagonia]

Not even a reasonable comparison. You got "user error" versus "inherently dangerous".

Ever seen ANY piece of climbing and/or rappelling and/or canyoneering equipment commercially sold with the following in its product literature?:

Even when used properly, it has the possibility of failing, resulting in severe injury or death, or being stranded in a canyon with your ropes hopelessly stuck.

I wonder how many retailers will carry it? The smart ones won't touch it.

Actually, all climbing equipment carries this warning, though perhaps not stated in quite so forward a manner.

Tom