Vertical caving terminology and methods > Prusiking systems, prusiking methods > Sit-stand systems
A sit-stand system for prusiking using components that can be constructed from parts of the Mitchell system. The legs perform a lot of the work. The arms are each used for moving an ascender upwards, but also have to be used to control balance and pull the body close to the rope since there is nothing holding the body close to the rope otherwise. It is basically an upside down frog system. Considered to be a useful system for the use of prusik loops, and is often suggested for that purpose in mountaineering, even though it really is far less convenient than the frog system. It does have the benefit that the down rope is under tension when standing, so it is easier to move the prusik loops than the frog system, but the stress on the arms when standing removes the benefit. It remains in use for vertical caving, both on its own and in cases where it has been converted from the Mitchell system, typically in regions where indestructible rope technique is used. There are two possible motions. The first has the legs tucked into a squatting position beneath the body during the sitting part of the cycle, but this significantly reduces the amount of motion per sit-stand cycle. The second has the legs kicked out in front of the body during the sitting part of the cycle, which puts more strain on the arms, but dramatically increases the height gained per sit-stand cycle. It is almost always used with the second motion.
Somewhere between the frog system and Mitchell system in terms of convenience when passing rebelays and deviations, being relatively uncomplicated for both, but not quite as convenient as the frog system. It is extremely difficult to use for passing a knot while abseiling, but relatively easy when prusiking. Reverse prusiking is relatively easy compared with some other techniques. Bottom weighting is done by manually pulling the rope below the lower jammer, or using a separate foot jammer (which is not part of the usual configuration for the this system). Another option is to push the cam open of the lower jammer, but this really is very fiddly. Mid-rope changeovers are relatively easy. Very poor energy transfer efficiency, with a clumsy motion and stressful seating position. Considered to be very strenuous on a free-hang, and tiring for the arms on long pitches. This system will temporarily leave the caver in an uncomfortable situation if the top jammer fails, as after a significant loss of height, they will be held at an awkward angle until they can remove their feet from the footloop. An incapacitated caver could be held in a very awkward position, depending on what part of the sit-stand cycle they were caught in.
Uses a top jammer without a footloop and a lower jammer with a footloop. Both ascenders have safety cords. The top jammer's safety cord is often passed through a carabiner that is clipped to the chest harness to try to pull the body a little closer to the rope. The sit harness plays an essential role both as a main support and for safety. The chest harness plays only a minor role for efficiency, and the system could be used without it.
The three phase system can operate in three modes (described in that section). When its quick attachment safety is connected directly to the rope and the top jammer is removed, it acts like a replacement top jammer, turning it into the Texas system.
In 1905, steeplejacks in New York had developed the Texas system as a safer alternative to the two-knot variation of the Gérard Alpine technique, which they had previously used to climb flagpoles for painting or servicing. Several accidents had previously happened where steeplejacks had fallen over backwards, but the Texas system allowed them to hold the body upright more reliably if the legs swung to the other side of the flagpole. In their original version, they used a pair of nooses as friction hitches to grip the flagpole. The lower noose had a footloop hanging from it, used by a single foot. The upper noose had a cord ending in a loop of canvas, which was tied around the other thigh, instead of the waist, which functioned as a sit harness. This had been developed very recently when it was first photographed in 1905, most likely in the same year, since it was developed while painting flagpoles on the Parker Building that only existed between 1900 and 1908, and only the older method was described in 1901. It was then described as a new safety enhancement in 1908, called steeplejack's flagpole slings. By 1918, the boatswain's chair had been adopted as a better sit harness than the leg loop (probably as early as 1910), and the method was advised to American steeplejacks by the American government. The lower noose still had a single footloop. In 1944, American steeplejack Laurie Young described in The Ashley Book of Knots (#454) how steeplejacks from Massachusetts, USA were climbing poles using this method, so it had clearly become common among steeplejacks on the eastern coast of the USA. While this was still used with poles such as flagpoles, the steeplejack's hitch (which the steeplejacks also used by then) would have worked just as well on ropes, and the rest was identical to what cavers would later use.
This system was in use with caving since 1960, and appears to have been redeveloped by cavers from Austin, Texas, USA, for use with prusik loops. It is essentially the same thing as the singe system, with the chest jammer put on a long tether. However, it seems to have been developed independently, as an adaptation of the Gérard Alpine technique, with the chest prusik loop moved to a sit harness, and then the pointless second foot prusik loop replaced with a single one. The result was so close to the approach used by steeplejacks, that it is possible it had some influence from that direction too, but this seems unlikely due to the very different locations, and the lack of knowledge transfer from other regions to Texan cavers at that time. Originally, it used a boatswain's chair as a sit harness. In its original format, only one foot was used in a single footloop, but the idea of using both feet together was described by American caver Tom Perera in 1962, without giving either approach a name. Both approaches may have been in use as early as 1960. Both the squatting and kicking approaches were in use already by 1962, and were most likely developed in 1960. In 1962, Tom Perera also mentioned that to get over a lip, an additional footloop and prusik loop could be used above the other prusik loops instead of the main foot prusik loop, turning it for just a moment into something closer to the frog system. He also mentioned that while the boatswain's chair was preferred, some cavers had been using a standard sit harness or improvised sit harness, probably for the last 2 years.
Some cavers had been using the Texas system with mechanical ascenders, described without giving it a name by American cavers Dick Boyd, Carl Poster and Bob Olmstead while talking about the Wisconsin system variation of the frog system in 1966, but researched the year before. The boatswain's chair was not mentioned, and may have fallen out of fashion by then. American caver William Franklin "Vertical Bill" Cuddington developed the three phase system variation some time between 1969 and 1974, at which point it became more common to use mechanical ascenders with the Texas system. Robert "Bob" Thrun classified the kicking approach as a "long kick" in Prusiking, 1973.
This history section only covers the Texas system. This article also has a detailed history of many of the other devices and techniques that are used for vertical caving.
<< Italian technique, Italian pulley system, Mao technique, Mao method, Ded-Mao, Ded-Mao-pompe, pulley method | Singe system (pronounced as French, similar to "saj"), number one Texas system, portly prusik >>
This page is not intended to be viewed this way, please load the entire article. This version exists only to make it easier for search engines to understand the contents.
