What do you think of a steel figure 8 (Rescue 8) descender?

I'm looking for some suggestions in designs materials of the figure 8 descender. Fusion currently produces them in aluminum and i know there are steel versions available also. Do you guys have any preferences in the build material? What would you like to see in a future product?

I think figure 8's are a poor choice for climbers. Maybe they're great for fire fighters and rednecks, but they suck for rock climbing.

kink makers

Are you producing them for rescue workers? I agree they are not very good for climbers. Rescuers already carry a lot of weight so having a lighter version is good, they are also tough on equipment. Besides lightening it up while keeping it strong, I don't know what other improvements can really be made...

I think what would be better is a steel atc. something that would work well with a steel biner. Probably not for climbing but for canyoneering. something that wouldn't wear out after running 400 ft. of wet sandy rope through the device.
Just a thought...
I would work for climbing too--it would just be really heavy.

maybe some sort of aluminum or plastic eight with stainless wear points would be durable and light...

FusionClimb wrote:I'm looking for some suggestions in designs materials of the figure 8 descender.

For climbers, figure 8's went the way of the dodo. They just aren't used any more.

But, I agree, a steel ATC for canyoneering on the Colorado Plateau? Nice.

Make a mini "Totem" out of steel? Or something like the Petzl Pirhana? That'd be nice.

You'll sell maybe 10, but, nice.

CMC Rescue pretty much has the things I have needed.

I believe aluminum doesn't have any reliable/ascertainable measure of rating from fatigue; which is where the steel comes into play. Though steel doesn't recover from fatigue either, it can be relied upon better with the proper equipment replacement program. This probably doesn't make sense. Maybe some others could offer the metal/fatigue problem better.

For operation

What the rescue 8 provides to me is option flexibility while on the wall and working with personal rappels/belays, stabilizing & evac'ing an injured climber, and then going into a full rescue load with a squad, litter, & patient; it can also be used as a multi-point anchor load distributor with webbing. It is relatively lightweight in comparison to other rescue braking devices; ideal for committing mountain routes and keeping rescuers fast and system safe.

What it really lacks is braking control, to where I need to double wrap it, but then this gives a pop/jerk every so often; not ideal for a evacuating a climber with spinal injury and/or some type of crepitus that could cause serious vascular damage.

What I thought was really insightful was testing in using the BD Guide. It can be used singular for buddy evac and in tandem for litter team. The device handled rescue load static drops very well and it does offer me better friction control and a smoother weight transition than the 8 does. The Guide is also more flexible in recreational lowers to into the Ice Park and then switching to the autoblocking mode for the climber.

Anyway, my thoughts; good luck with it.

Thank you everyone for your input, i have forwarded it to the team for consideration. As the sport has been evolving I understand the figure 8 is becoming less used in climbing and more for safety organizations and camps where the focus on durability is priority.

Mark Nelson wrote:What I thought was really insightful was testing in using the BD Guide. It can be used singular for buddy evac and in tandem for litter team. The device handled rescue load static drops very well and it does offer me better friction control and a smoother weight transition than the 8 does.

Hey Mark, where can I find the info on this testing? We might be interested in looking into this

Thanks

Derek

+1 The Larry

Hey Derek -- I sent you a PM that might point you in a better direction to get the info; let me know if I can help further.