Looking for feedback on self rescue 'how-to' videos

bearbreeder wrote:folks ... lets start from the top ... 1. a locked carabiner will NOT break in normal climbing usage with a munter hitch no matter which way its tied ... remember that a munter slips as you can see below even with 400N of hand force the munter slips at less than 3 kn ... you will NOT get forces that exceed the biner breaking strength in a real world belay scenario, even with an xloaded biner ... remember there have been NO documented cases of a cross loaded biner being broken that we know off in a REAL recreational climbing BELAY situation, we went through all this in the "gridlock" discussion a while back ... you will get burned hands on a munter before it breaks the biner ... 2. it doesnt matter which way you tie the clove hich ... it will NOT break the carabiner in a real world climbing scenario ... PCGI tested this at the Yates facilities awhile back ... as we all know, a munter is basically half a clove hitch (which is the german name "Halbmastwurfsicherung"), with alot more slip ... you simply wont break a biner with it in a real world climbing scenario ... climbingguidesinstitute.org… 3. the DAV and bergundsteigen (journal of mountain risk management) does not recommend belaying with the biner where the gate faces the brake hand ... which in this case means that they recommend the load strand NOT be along the spine 4. if you want to convert to a monster munter, youll need to have the load NOT on the spine ... unless you use a Zuper Munter ... in short ... tie the munter with the load facing the carabiner gate ... its the way those crazy germans do it anyways ... and theyve probably done more testing than anyone else ... otherwise theyd be scrapping off the meat off the floor of those DAV gyms to make climber sausage ;)

Good info, thanks for that.

jktinst wrote:In short, I feel that in vertical self-rescue situations, a Z 3:1 will generally be the best option and that, if a higher mechanical advantage is absolutely needed, rather than risk wasting time building an ineffective 5 or 6:1, it’s best to go straight for the 9:1.

We may get to trying these things out early next year. If we do, I'll post up how it goes. The information is appreciated.

jktinst-
True, the complicated systems are often rendered pointless by friction and short throws. Still, understanding how they are constructed helps in case you need to improvise. If I were a lightweight climber with heavyweight partners, I would pay particular attention. Maybe I'll add the 9:1 to my diagram.

This article points out the dangers of all the downward-redirected pull strand setups.

Scholarly article on pulley systems in rescue scenarios (PDF)

well im no hauling expert, but a few points on pulling IME ...

1. a single climber hauling another climber in a real life scenario with the rope drag found on many routes, especially something more moderate for a long length is not really a realistic scenario IMO for any longer hauls

you will likely be setting up a haul system if
- the climber is injured, in which case the injury is fairly minor and they can mostly climb it with some help ... if the injury is major, youre going down or calling the whirly bird, either way youre not going to haul them up the entire pitch
- the climber fell off a traverse/overhang ... even in this case due to rope drag its much better for the climber to ascend the rope
- the climber cant do a few moves ... youre going to give em a bit of haul for a short length at most ... its much easier if the climber can aid, french free, prussic up ... as rope drag can be a total biatch ... you arent going to drag someone up an entire pitch

2. climbing rated anchors should be able to handle the load of any self rescue hauling system ... if they dont you should be going down regardless

3. the key IMO for hauling is to use the body weight to do the work ... with the frictional losses, rope drag/stretch, etc ... it can be very hard or impossible for someone to haul up a partner using a "standard" syste, especially if said partner is heavier ... and the person is cold, tired, hungry and dealing with wet ropes ... using the body weigh is much easier and allows you to push off DOWNWARDS with your feet ...

4. they key is using a redirect ... then using a munter or prussic to your harness so you can lean back into it ... sure you lose some efficiency, but the ability to use your weight outweights this IMO ... and you dont get tired as fast ...

one note even on low angle rescue practice, clip in with your safety ... even on a loaded line it works so well, hauling with the bodyweight, that as the angle got shallower, the "victim" started getting pulled up really fast and the belayer started flying down ... it was pretty hilarious

3:1 with redirect and munter at harness ... belayer using body weight

5. if you can reduce the friction with a revolver or two, it helps ... also theres a good chance you will be belaying in autoblock when you set this up ... in this case using something that pulls very easily in autoblock like a gigi/alpine smart save alot of work ...

6. i think anything beyond a 3:1 and 5:1 is conterproductive for most people out there ... a 3:1 is easily transformed into a 5:1 ... most climbers have issues remembering how to tie even those, never mind practicing them with a real load at higher angles ... when yr cold/tired/hungry/wet/in the dark, which may be when you most need to set this up, most wont remember any fancy hauling systems ... KISS ... at a certain point all that length of rope you need to pull and frictional differences, as well as the complex setup makes it all a moot point IMO

in the end i think that many people overestimate how well they can haul someone up in a real life scenario

being able to do it a short distance in the gym or the crag is much different on a long multi 1/2 way up under conditions with rope drag when yr tired/hungry

;)

Josh, the 'bridge' on your cordelette is the same as what we called a 'technical ledge' in the 2nd ed of Self Rescue.
amazon.com/Self-Rescue-2nd-…

bearbreeder wrote:1. a single climber hauling another climber in a real life scenario with the rope drag found on many routes, especially something more moderate for a long length is not really a realistic scenario IMO for any longer hauls you will likely be setting up a haul system if - the climber is injured, in which case the injury is fairly minor and they can mostly climb it with some help ... if the injury is major, youre going down or calling the whirly bird, either way youre not going to haul them up the entire pitch - the climber fell off a traverse/overhang ... even in this case due to rope drag its much better for the climber to ascend the rope - the climber cant do a few moves ... youre going to give em a bit of haul for a short length at most ... its much easier if the climber can aid, french free, prussic up ... as rope drag can be a total biatch ... you arent going to drag someone up an entire pitch

1A. A short haul is possible though ... akin to falling on a traverse ... that case of lowering an injured climber on two ropes knotted together ... where getting much help from them isn't an option due to the injury, the steepness of the terrain, etc. ... and one messes up and fully loads the knot against the belay device. Well, there is the knife.

Bill Lawry wrote: 1A. A short haul is possible though ... akin to falling on a traverse ... that case of lowering an injured climber on two ropes knotted together ... where getting much help from them isn't an option due to the injury, the steepness of the terrain, etc. ... and one messes up and fully loads the knot against the belay device. Well, there is the knife.

in that case a block and tackle would probably work better as you only need to gain a few inches ...

dont get me wrong, one should be practiced in z-pulleys for those emergency situations

but when we practice hauling, its often a best case scenario with a clean rope ...

if you want a realistic scenario, lead up a crag route that wanders a bit or has a decent amount of drag ... then from the belay try hauling the second up with the gear in ... its pretty darn hard or impossible unless the drag is minimal,...and unless you use your body weight with a redirect, you wont be able to do it on semi or hanging belays, or for very long for that matter

having someone practice this for the entire pitch quickly disabuses them of the notion of realistically hauling someone up a route ...

;)

bearbreeder wrote: ... having someone practice this for the entire pitch quickly disabuses them of the notion of realistically hauling someone up a route ... ;)

Bear, I think you make a good point a couple of times. But I was talking about a short haul. And, no, I don't carry a block 'n tackle with me on multi-pitch ... mostly what I have is for the "happy day" scenario ... although I've started carrying a pully now and then.

Bill Lawry wrote: Bear, I think you make a good point a couple of times. But I was talking about a short haul. And, no, I don't carry a block 'n tackle with me on multi-pitch ... mostly what I have is for the "happy day" scenario ... although I've started carrying a pully now and then.

http://www.rescuedynamics.ca/articles/pdfs/UnweightingPCD.pdf

the block and tackle is a self rescue technique for quickly pulling in a few inches of load

;)

I see - a terminology difference. I had visions of those wood blocks with built-in pulley one sees on the old sailing ships. :-)

bearbreeder wrote:... 1. a single climber hauling another climber in a real life scenario ...is not really a realistic scenario IMO...

Couldn’t agree more : hauling someone up a whole pitch is unrealistic; a climber (leader or second) should be able to self-rescue without having to be hauled; and using your own weight to do the pulling is the way to go (if your anchor is bombproof). But if the person needing rescueing is unconscious or badly hurt, if there’s no whirly bird to be had and no other teams nearby, if it’s the last pitch of a very long route, etc., the situation becomes vastly different and that’s when you need to know what’s more likely to work and what’s more likely to be a waste of time.

Thinking that you can quickly convert a Z 3:1 to a complex 5 or 6:1 if you need more mechanical advantage, as recommended in the books, is exactly the sort of trap you don’t want to fall into. You’ll see a lot of cord go through the system and see your partner move up somewhat with each pull but may miss that he settles back down by the same amount with each reset. You’ll start wondering if your mind is playing tricks with you, then figure "oh, that’s right, there’s greater mechanical advantage so the raising will be slower. I just need to keep at it", only to finally realize 10 min. later that no, you’re really not raising anything at all. Then, you’ll remember all these people on the intranets who told you that hauling was a waste of time and you’ll probably give up altogether when what you should have done is convert to a 9:1 right away.

jktinst wrote: Couldn’t agree more : hauling someone up a whole pitch is unrealistic; a climber (leader or second) should be able to self-rescue without having to be hauled; and using your own weight to do the pulling is the way to go (if your anchor is bombproof). But if the person needing rescueing is unconscious or badly hurt, if there’s no whirly bird to be had and no other teams nearby, if it’s the last pitch of a very long route, etc., the situation becomes vastly different and that’s when you need to know what’s more likely to work and what’s more likely to be a waste of time. Thinking that you can quickly convert a Z 3:1 to a complex 5 or 6:1 if you need more mechanical advantage, as recommended in the books, is exactly the sort of trap you don’t want to fall into. You’ll see a lot of cord go through the system and see your partner move up somewhat with each pull but may miss that he settles back down by the same amount with each reset. You’ll start wondering if your mind is playing tricks with you, then figure "oh, that’s right, there’s greater mechanical advantage so the raising will be slower. I just need to keep at it", only to finally realize 10 min. later that no, you’re really not raising anything at all. Then, you’ll remember all these people on the intranets who told you that hauling was a waste of time and you’ll probably give up altogether when what you should have done is convert to a 9:1 right away.

i would actually like to see the accident reports where a single free climber has hauled up their totally incapacitated partner up the last few pitches of an actual multipitch route ... it would be most instructive to see how they did it with whatever system, and if they used more specialized gear such as pulleys that most of us dont carry ... also how they got DOWN without SAR ...

if you could post it, it would be much appreciated

the problem with a 9:1 is
- the additional biner adds more friction into the system
- it may require a decent amount more room to set up and pull
- you have to pull more for every raised foot ... thats a lot of rope you have to pull, for a 60m raise youre pulling 540m ....
- you have to remember how to do it when yr in the dark, cold, tired, hungry, wet and your partner is telling you to take care of his dog if it all goes kaput

these days there is an excellent chance that if you are setting up a partner haul, youll do it off an autoblock device ... as long as the rope runs through those devices it WILL NOT come back out ... whether its a 3/5/9:1

i might be headed out next week to do some wet practice ... if so ill give the 9:1 off a semi-hanging belay a try with gear in the climb, and thus a real world frictional climbing situation, not a clean haul ... and see if a single strapping young male can haul someone up 20m or so in the rain in this situation

;)

bearbreeder wrote: ...the problem with a 9:1 is - the additional biner adds more friction into the system...

Sure it does but that extra friction does not completely cancel the extra mechanical advantage. You still get almost double the mech. adv that you have with the 3:1.

bearbreeder wrote: ... - it may require a decent amount more room to set up and pull

As I said, its effective pulling distance is only slightly less than the Z 3:1 (exactly one prusik length shorter, so keep your prusiks short). You always try to set up with as much room as possible between the main anchor and the lowest point you can reasonably set the primary haul prusik. If that amount of room was good for the 3:1, it'll only be slightly less good for the 9:1.

bearbreeder wrote: ... - you have to pull more for every raised foot ... thats a lot of rope you have to pull, for a 60m raise youre pulling 540m ....

Sure but the pulling is a lot easier than with the 3:1. In a lot of cases you'll go from having to use a prusik / garda walk-up system on the 3:1 to pulling hand over hand with the 9:1 so the trade-off is not bad. NOw if you have to use a walk-up system to overcome the friction on the 9:1 and you're facing one of those 60 m hauls you seem to be fond of, I would reconsider too.

bearbreeder wrote: ... these days there is an excellent chance that if you are setting up a partner haul, youll do it off an autoblock device ...

NOw if you're worried about friction, those are a sure way to piddle away a lot of your efficiency.

bearbreeder wrote: ... i might be headed out next week to do some wet practice ... if so ill give the 9:1 off a semi-hanging belay a try with gear in the climb, and thus a real world frictional climbing situation, not a clean haul ... and see if a single strapping young male can haul someone up 20m or so in the rain in this situation ;)

Be sure to try a complex 5:1 set up with the same amount of room right alongside the 9:1 ;)

jktinst wrote: Sure it does but that extra friction does not completely cancel the extra mechanical advantage. You still get almost double the mech. adv that you have with the 3:1. As I said, its effective pulling distance is only slightly less than the Z 3:1 (exactly one prusik length shorter, so keep your prusiks short). You always try to set up with as much room as possible between the main anchor and the lowest point you can reasonably set the primary haul prusik. If that amount of room was good for the 3:1, it'll only be slightly less good for the 9:1. Sure but the pulling is a lot easier than with the 3:1. In a lot of cases you'll go from having to use a prusik / garda walk-up system on the 3:1 to pulling hand over hand with the 9:1 so the trade-off is not bad. NOw if you have to use a walk-up system to overcome the friction on the 9:1 and you're facing one of those 60 m hauls you seem to be fond of, I would reconsider too. NOw if you're worried about friction, those are a sure way to piddle away a lot of your efficiency. Be sure to try a complex 5:1 set up with the same amount of room right alongside the 9:1 ;)

realistically you arent going to be hauling up an incapacitated second on a clean rope without friction ... not without some fancy work anyways

think about it ...

they would have been incapacitated either
- during the pitch ... in which case all the pro is still in rope drag and all
- before the pitch ... in which case you still have to lead up, then haul em up through the pro ... unless you have another line of a diameter you are willing to trust hauling with a live load with over edges and all, most free climbers dont usually carry up a large tag line, more often a thin static or half rope

my point is simply that you arent going to be hauling for long distances at all with an incapacitated partner by yourself ... and if you tried to, you may well find out that the conditions, belay stance, friction on the rock, the lack of specialized gear make it unfeasible

as for autoblocking devices ... the grigri and smart have much less friction in a top belay that a guide ... you arent realistically expecting the average climber to transfer the load to a self minding prussik setup off the autoblock then set up a compound 9:1 on the last pitch of a climb where he could be cold. tired, hungry, in the dark and wind???? ... then perform a long haul???? ... a trained professional could probably do the transfer (i doubt they could haul every well with real life rope drag though) under conditions, but a recreational climber that practices self rescue at most once or twice a year????

again im waiting for the accidents reports where someone hauled their incapacitated partner seconding a route a decent distance by themselves on a multi ... im sure there are at least one or two

perhaps you can share your experience in hauling up a partner in just such a situation through gear and rope drag?

personally with a 5:1, i can haul partners of roughly the same weight up short distances if the rope drag isnt great ... with gear placed and rope drag in the system, i doubt even a 9:1 would work well, basically your are fighting the rope stretch and the rubbing against the rock at every turn

an interesting point made my Mr.tyson and ms. loomis in "climbing self rescue" is that while a 9:1 calculates at 21 lb for each 100 lb ... a 6:1 comes out at 27 for 100 ... due to the frictional losses of the additional biner

well see what happens if i get out next week ... perhaps you would care to post up your own practice test on a real wandering route with gear in under conditions?

;)

A 9:1 using carabiners in place of pulleys is not going to yield much more of an increase in Mechanical Advantage (MA) over a 6:1 if you are using a simple MA system. As the number of pulleys (or carabienrs) in a MA system increase, the efficiency of each component becomes increasingly more important. Because carabiners have really shitty efficiency, you are limited in how much MA you can create.

For example, increasing from a 2:1 to a 4:1 using carabiners might yield, say, a 60% increase in real MA. But increasing from a 4:1 to an 8:1 might only gain another 30%, and going from an 8:1 to a 16:1 might only gain another 10%. If you want to see real increases in MA with larger MA systems, you need to use pulleys, and preferably large ball-bearing pulleys.

Bearbreeder, if you insist on considering only the case where the leader has to haul an incapacitated second up most of a pitch, you also have to consider that he may be too incapacitated to unclip the pro as he goes. If he’s not that bad, it’ll probably be better to lower him either back to the previous belay or to some other intermediate ledge and have him secure himself there while you head back down (unclipping the pros as you go) to give him first aid and calmly take stock of your situation. If you’re in a situation where it would really be quicker and safer (for him) to haul him up, it would likely be because he’s quite close to the top of the pitch.

Insisting on looking at the many case scenarios when hauling is going to be very difficult, plain impossible, or just a worse option compared to other self-rescue possibilities; or demanding published reports of when it was actually achieved despite overwhelming difficulties and obstacles is a pointless exercise. Some people consider that hauling systems themselves are pointless for vertical, small-team self-rescue. Others feel that they’re important tools in the toolkit, even if their real use over the course of a climbing career is most likely to be only to help a second over a difficult spot once in a blue moon, as opposed to real emergencies. I fall in that second category.

Never mind cold, tired, hungry, in the dark and wind, etc. (although they are likely factors too), I know that if I ever need to consider hauling for a real self-rescue emergency, at the very least I’m going to be stressed-out. That’s why I want the hauling tools in my toolkit to be the most likely to work in the widest possible range of circumstances. You and 20kN go on as if I like the 9:1 because of its added mechanical advantage over the 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, etc., which means that you missed my original point. The greater efficiency I like about the 9:1 isn’t its marginally better mechanical advantage. It’s the fact that, for a given situation where I most likely won’t have a lot of choice as to how high up my main anchor is and how far down from it I can set the primary haul prusik, the 9:1 will work better than the others because I will be able to raise more between each reset thanks to its longer effective pulling distance. The complex systems will often work too but less efficiently, given the same parameters, requiring more frequent resets; and in more restrictive situations, they may not work at all, which is why I’d rather not have them in my toolkit.

If I needed to haul, I would start with a Z 3:1. If I have the slightest doubt as to the bombproofness of my anchor, I will try to pull up instead of redirecting downward because that subtracts the force of my pull from the load on the anchor instead of adding it. If that doesn’t work or if I’m 100% confident in my anchor, I will redirect down. If the weight and friction make it difficult to operate the 3:1, I will add a prusik/garda walk-up system on the pull side. I may even add a sling or biner to the primary haul prusik for me to grab and pull up on at the same time as I step into my walking system (often effective at the beginning of the pull to overcome the initial inertia). If friction is such that these tricks don’t work, that’s when I may switch to a 9:1 (provided that it seems realistic to do so) and not bother with the complex systems.

Of course, as I said above, the considerations and options are quite different for a large organized and well-equipped rescue and for crevasse rescue.

jktinst wrote:Bearbreeder, if you insist on considering only the case where the leader has to haul an incapacitated second up most of a pitch, you also have to consider that he may be too incapacitated to unclip the pro as he goes. If he’s not that bad, it’ll probably be better to lower him either back to the previous belay or to some other intermediate ledge and have him secure himself there while you head back down (unclipping the pros as you go) to give him first aid and calmly take stock of your situation. If you’re in a situation where it would really be quicker and safer (for him) to haul him up, it would likely be because he’s quite close to the top of the pitch. Insisting on looking at the many case scenarios when hauling is going to be very difficult, plain impossible, or just a worse option compared to other self-rescue possibilities; or demanding published reports of when it was actually achieved despite overwhelming difficulties and obstacles is a pointless exercise. Some people consider that hauling systems themselves are pointless for vertical, small-team self-rescue. Others feel that they’re important tools in the toolkit, even if their real use over the course of a climbing career is most likely to be only to help a second over a difficult spot once in a blue moon, as opposed to real emergencies. I fall in that second category. Never mind cold, tired, hungry, in the dark and wind, etc. (although they are likely factors too), I know that if I ever need to consider hauling for a real self-rescue emergency, at the very least I’m going to be stressed-out. That’s why I want the hauling tools in my toolkit to be the most likely to work in the widest possible range of circumstances. You and 20kN go on as if I like the 9:1 because of its added mechanical advantage over the 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, etc., which means that you missed my original point. The greater efficiency I like about the 9:1 isn’t its marginally better mechanical advantage. It’s the fact that, for a given situation where I most likely won’t have a lot of choice as to how high up my main anchor is and how far down from it I can set the primary haul prusik, the 9:1 will work better than the others because I will be able to raise more between each reset thanks to its longer effective pulling distance. The complex systems will often work too but less efficiently, given the same parameters, requiring more frequent resets; and in more restrictive situations, they may not work at all, which is why I’d rather not have them in my toolkit. If I needed to haul, I would start with a Z 3:1. If I have the slightest doubt as to the bombproofness of my anchor, I will try to pull up instead of redirecting downward because that subtracts the force of my pull from the load on the anchor instead of adding it. If that doesn’t work or if I’m 100% confident in my anchor, I will redirect down. If the weight and friction make it difficult to operate the 3:1, I will add a prusik/garda walk-up system on the pull side. I may even add a sling or biner to the primary haul prusik for me to grab and pull up on at the same time as I step into my walking system (often effective at the beginning of the pull to overcome the initial inertia). If friction is such that these tricks don’t work, that’s when I may switch to a 9:1 (provided that it seems realistic to do so) and not bother with the complex systems. Of course, as I said above, the considerations and options are quite different for a large organized and well-equipped rescue and for crevasse rescue.

well with a 9:1 youre going to have to reset TWO prussiks ... i really dont see how that makes it any easier to reset ... remember that since you are stacking to 3:1s, your will tend to occupy more space than a 3/5:1 ...

Others feel that they’re important tools in the toolkit, even if their real use over the course of a climbing career is most likely to be only to help a second over a difficult spot once in a blue moon, as opposed to real emergencies. I fall in that second category.

so basically youre helping a second through a short haul who is not totally incapacitated ... which is what ive been indicating all along

as youve and others said above, the mechanical advantage gained may not be that great with a 9:1 with real life carabiner friction ... im pretty sure theres a reason why most self rescue books and many courses teach mainly the 3/5:1 ...

for people who practice this stuff at most once or twice a year KISS ... and may only need it on a "blue moon" and will need to remember it all under conditions

if you however feel you are much more professional, go for it, use a 9:1 or 27:1 if you desire ...

myself ive had to "haul" someone up very rarely ... once was on a traversing climb where the partner had issues getting back on the route, and the rope drag was absolute hell ...

more often is when they need some help pulling a move when they cant grab on draws or gear ... and again the rope drag is absolute hell along with the stretch on real life routes that arent just a straight up pull, and the rope runs through gear

the advantage in setting it up off the autoblock, like i mentioned prior is that you dont need to do any rope transfer ... just tie a quick kleimheist, clip the line to it, put in a redirect, munter to it and then start putting your bodyweight onto the line ... if you need more just add the additional sling for a 5:1

when they get past the tough part, simply unclip the line and take off the kleimhest ... no transitions to garda/self minding pulley setups required ... less chance to screw up and much more "safe" IMO

perhaps you can share your experience in using it in "self rescue" (or climber assist) situations on real world climbs?

;)

I probably didn't explain well-enough what I mean by effective pulling distance. I wrote a much more detailed explanation in the following thread (post No 18), as I reflected on the different systems, tried some of them in scaled-down models and others on hanging belays up in a tree in my backyard.

rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/fo…;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;

I tried to avoid the lengthy explanations here but here I am again despite that. Trying to summarize and explain better: the Z 3:1 lets you keep pulling until its primary haul prusik is right under the anchor pulley (ie the primary prusik can travel the whole distance between its starting point and the anchor, which means, of course, that it raises that distance before having to reset). The compound Z 9:1 lets you keep pulling until both prusiks are stacked one under the other right under the anchor, which is why I said that its effective pulling distance is exactly one prusik length shorter than the 3:1. By comparison, complex systems force you to stop pulling when the primary haul prusik has reached less (often a lot less) than the half-way point to the anchor pulley, which is why I say that they drastically cut down on the effective pulling distance, thereby greatly decreasing the efficiency of the raise.

I believe that the manuals are written by rescue specialists who are usually much less limited than the lone self-rescue guy in how and where they set up their systems and who probably make sure, as a matter of course and habit, that they give themselves plenty of room between the anchor and the lowest/furthest possible spot where the primary haul prusik/tibloc/ascender/etc. can get set. As I said earlier, they are also used to high-efficiency pulleys, rescue ropes, etc. and know that you have to be very careful if you use a 9:1 with those. They probably realize that if you start out with a less than ideal distance between primary prusik and anchor, use another stretchy prusik as your locking mechanism and try to use a complex 5 or 6:1 to boot, you will be able to achieve very little raising if any... but if they do, I have not seen any manual where they talk about it.

As for KISS, the 9:1 is just a Z pulling on a Z. How much simpler can you get?

Regarding personal real world experience, aside from once providing a bit of help to the second on a Z 3:1 a long time ago (and I don't remember the friction being particularly bad), my only experience is at the receiving end. One of my early climbing outings with the Université de Perpignan climbing club in the fall of '82 was as a second in a 3-person team. We were climbing a 3-pitch route after hiking/scrambling down to the start. We were too slow and were still at the last belay when night fell. The other parties at the top tossed us a rope and hauled us up one after the other. I can't remember what they used but there was 5-6 of them pulling and I wouldn't be surprised if they were just hauling on a 1:1 anchored in the small cliff running along the top, 10 m back from the lip. I think that it was the following Saturday that the chief instructor taught us the Z 3:1 and funnily enough, I paid attention, remembered and practiced it when I could over the years, which has certainly not been very often.

I just posted one more video (6:1 haul system) to complete the 'hauling series' on the SIET Youtube Channel. Community feedback was invaluable with the last few how-to videos, more would be great!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vNwqGZVqEQ&list=UUhadVGrq5B1DvOnvN4sb4QA

Please let me know if the instructions are clear, succinct, and if the clips showed enough detail to re-create the 6:1 in you own living room with basic gear. Please avoid the temptation to write about 50 other ways to accomplish the same thing.

Thanks,
Josh

Josh, I find the instructions clear, but still, think as bearbreeder has emphasized, that people who might actually try to use such systems should realize how ineffective they can be in real situations. I think it is worthwile to know how to set up such systems, with the knowledge that there is a chance that they won't work at all and if they do, they will only be practical for very short hauls. As such, hauling is an absolute last resort if it is even an option at all, and should never be used when the person to be hauled is able to prussik or significantly assist in the rescue process.

If we make what seems to be the standard assumption for the efficiency of carabiners (1/3 of pulling load lost to friction around each biner), then the best you can expect from a 3:1 is about 2:1 and the best you can expect from the 6:1 rigged as you showed is 3.5:1, going down to 2.3:1 if you redirect as shown. These numbers are before we add in the significant rope friction over edges and through protection points. There is a real possibility of eating up all the mechanical advantage.

Moreover, you're losing a huge amount of mechanical advantage by using a Reverso in guide mode as a progress capture device. (I suspect the same is true for systems that use an alpine clutch.) Every time the climber hauls in all of your videos, the load strand goes slack because of the Reverso friction (this is a very prominent feature of the opening still of the latest video), meaning you've only got a 2.7:1 ratio with purported 6:1 rigging.

Considering the friction problems that can't be avoided, adding in a major additional source by using the Reverso seems to me to be a bad idea. Using the Reverso is, of course, much easier than the alternative of getting it out of the system, but considering how ineffective improvised hauling can be in the best of circumstances, further crippling the process with a lot of extra friction seems particularly unfortunate.