Talk:Prusik

Photos of How to Tie Prusic May Lead to Accidents

If I remember correctly, prusiks should not be made in spectra or dyneema as these materials have low coefficients of sliding and static friction compared to that of nylon. The pictures look like they show prusiks being tied with spectra runners (very popular amongst rock climbers). Many climbers will recognize them as spectra. I think a not should at least be added saying that spectra is not recommended and the photos are for instructional purposes only. 76.104.194.183 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)mathfu

This is a very, very important point. The main problem with using spectra or dyneema slings to tie prusiks is that they have a very low melting point in addition to the points made above. Therefore it will fail much ealier and be damaged much more easily than a nylon cord or sling. These photos really need to be removed until something more suitable can be shown as they clearly show a dangerous setup. Climbing and mountaineering is a largely self-regulated sport / business. Simple things like this introduce dodgy techniques from seemingly reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.209.216.244 (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Move under Prusik

About proposed Merge with Prusik_knot (including Prusik_hitch and Prussick):

Yes! Let's put the material under "Prusik" with links from other spellings.

grogono (March 1st 2006)

---

Comments about proposed Merge with Prusik_knot (including Prusik_hitch and Prussick):

10-31-05 I beefed up the article on Prusiks under this article 'Prussik', and incorporated most of the information from the longer-running article "Prusik_knot". The preferred spelling is Prusik, but Prussik is also in common usage. Probably the best thing would be to move the current (merged) article under "Prussik" into "Prusik_knot", capturing the history from there also, and have a bunch of redirects into it from: Prussik, Prusik, Prussik_knot, Prussik_hitch, Prusik_hitch.

ratagonia

Removed from article. Replaced by "When to Carry" section - Charlie Williams

Fashion (Controversial)

Prusiks are carried by some climbers and not carried by others. They are fashionable in an anti-fashion sense - being popular among (less-fashionable) Trad Climbers and disdained by more fashionable Sport Climbers. They are a popular technique to teach at college outing club and large mountain club groups. Choosing to carry prusik loops is a personal choice, and does not differentiate more-skilled or more-prepared climbers from less-skilled or less-prepared, though proponents and opponents may argue otherwise. End Quote

Yes, thank you, that paragraph was not very good. I re-wrote and expanded your re-write, trying to get to a NPV. Denigrated the rappel backup ABOVE (see Storrick link), edited the language a fair amount.

198.60.22.24 03:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC) ratagonia

Self-Belay Above The Device

I just recently reverted a change to the "Self-Delay Above The Device" entry in the "Applications" section.

An anonymous user at 198.60.22.24 had removed the following text:

"This configuration allows for easier and faster transition from rappeling to climbing the rope, but can also result in the prusik locking tight as the amount of friction required to hold the load at that point is far higher than that experienced by a self-belay below the device"

and had replaced it with

"This technique has been demonstrated to be both ineffective and dangerous, and is no longer used"

I reverted this change as this technique is still both trained and precticed by a number of organisations and individuals (including professional mountaineering schools) and as such instead of simply stating that it is no longer used (which is false), I believe that highlighting the possible drawbacks of that technique is far more inline with the ideals of Wikipedia. Further there were no references to sources confirming this statement - I have used it numerous times and have not found it to be dangerous nor ineffective, as I am still here!

Anyone caring to contribute? --Lucanos 05:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That was me, Lucanos, and while I adamantly disagree with it's safety, the Wiki is not the place to fight it out, now is it. (Now that I know how to use the stamp:) Ratagonia 03:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I respect your right to disagree with the safety of that technique, however to state that it is unsafe and no longer used without reference or resources to support that statement is not what Wikipedia is for either. I was trained in the use of that technique at the Australian School of Mountaineering, and it is still a valid and actively trained and utilised technique. The edit you made indicated that this technique is no longer used anywhere, and that, simply, is incorrect.

--Lucanos 09:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Prussik in image is made of Spectra

The webbing used in the photos in this article is made of Spectra/Dyneema (different brand name, same thing). Spectra slings/webbing should not be used for prussiks.

I've been rock climbing for 9 years, if that's not a spectra sling then it sure fooled me. Nylon slings tend to be one color with little to no patterns. Spectra slings are thinner, shinier and are patterned - generally with a combination of white (the spectra) and some other color (some nylon).

Here's a link a photo of a traditional nylon sling http://www.bdel.com/images/gear/nylon_runners.jpg

And here's a patterned nylon sling sewn into a daisy chain http://www.wildcountry.co.uk/imgs/1743i1244.jpg

And a here's a Dyneema/Spectra sewn into a daisy chain http://www.wildcountry.co.uk/imgs/1743i1245.jpg

As the article states, "some suggest avoiding spectra slings, due to their high potential for melting when the hitch slips." I would be more emphatic than that. I've never heard anyone say anything other than "Don't Do It!" when it comes to making a prussik out of spectra webbing. Here's a link to a "Tech Tip" from "Climbing" magazine discussing rappel backup techniques, notice their comment re: prussik construction, "don’t use Spectra webbing."

http://www.climbing.com/print/techtips/tttrad224/

Will24.92.249.105 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a 50% spectra, 50% nylon sling. Yes, you have found a RS WP:RS that says you should not use spectra. The pictures shown are not very good. If you have the time and capability, it would be great if you could make, upload and license, and link better pictures. Using a traditional cord prusik would be the best idea, I think.

• Personally, I usually use 50% spectra slings for prusiks and other ascending knots, because they work better (better ratio of grip to release). however, my personal experience is not a RS. They work great. No, they don't melt through, but then again, I have never 'ridden' an ascending knot more than an inch or two. Ratagonia 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wet prusiks work

I am a member of an MRA-accredited mountain rescue team in a temperate rainforest (southeast Alaska). We use prusiks on almost every mission and training event, and most of the time our ropes are quite wet. So the statement,

Prusiks are ineffective[citation needed] upon wet or frozen ropes. Mechanical devices (such as jumars) to grab the rope are available that are easier and faster to use, but heavier, more expensive and bulkier.

is not accurate regarding wet ropes. I'll take out the reference to wet ropes, and leave the frozen ropes for someone else to judge.

Japhyr 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Autobloc/French Prusik

I've just included the alternative (more European!) name and referenced it. Given that this is probably the most widely used type of prusik (I even use it in conjunction with a safer alternative when ascending a rope) someone needs to write an article - Only needs to be short, given what the knot actually entails! Ben1983 (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hunting

In North American whitetail deer hunting, frequently hunters work out of tree stands. The hunter in the stand wears a safety harness, and more frequently prusik knots are being used to attatch these harnesses to lifelines.

An example can be found at http://www.huntersafetysystem.com

I think the number of bowhunters warrants a mention of this type of use. Gawnemark (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(I took the ref tags off your link to it would be easier for people to use). Lots of people use Prusiks, can't list them all. Your point is well-taken, but... IF you can find a citation to a worthy publication (not a commercial website) then we could work it into the article. Ratagonia (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In German and in Czech (it is name with Czech origin) Prusik is pronounced as /ˈprʊsɪk/. Is that English pronunciation certainly correct? --85.13.123.133 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• mostly as shown, but sometimes as in German, at least, around here (Utah). Ratagonia (talk)

HELP!!!

Could anyone tell me what is "prusik" in chinese ? I couldn't find any information about the word "prusik" in chinese. Is it a kind of knot ? If not , then , what is it ? Do any of you have it's photo ? Please send it to me . My e-mail is : iris6326@yahoo.com.tw

Thank you very very very much!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 恭瑾 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a photo in the article. kwami (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not safe in some applications

okay, FROM PERSONAL EXPERINCE , since someone keeps deleting my edit, here me out, I just want to let it be known, the prusik is used by many window washing company's as a safety device, and is even an approved safety device with WCB of bc Canada, hope that is about to change, I was using the prusik as my safety device, for 3 years, then on aug 20 /2010 I fell 11 floors when my working line broke, at the time of my working line breaking I was in the process of repelling from one floor to the next floor, when my rope broke I was holding onto my prusik, sliding it down my safety line with me to the next floor, when I started falling I was unable to let go of the hitch. even though I knew to let go, using the prusik as a safety device is a dangerous practice, I was hoping to have this on the web so people would know. --- feel free to rewrite it any way you can, but I believe that it should be known, I wish there was an article on this, so you can reference it, but unfortunately since I survived and I didn't die, the news did not grab on to it, only a small mention apparently was made, I don't know I was in the hospital for 84 days. below is what I think should be added or wording changed but changed so that people know.

Prusiks are also ineffective and dangerous if the user holds on to the hitch while falling, if they are using only one hitch as a safety device as many window washers do. holding on to the hitch while falling the chances of this happening increases with adrenalin, it can and will be dangerous . any thoughts?

(Previous edit by 174.6.8.236 )

• Wow, quite a fall. Was it covered in the news? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on cite-able, reliable sources. see WP:RS If we had a newspaper or magazine article that talked about your event, it could be included in the wiki. Without that, your personal experience is an amazing story, but not citable. I also feel that the rappel backup above the device is an antiquated and dangerous system. I seem to remember a test document on Gary Storrick's site saying the same, but alas, he has taken his site down and I have not yet found the Test Document anywhere else. There are still "reliable sources" that teach and use the prusik above - and there are few if any that clearly state it is not a good idea. One of the limitations of the Wiki is that statements need to be sourced - but overall it becomes one of the Wiki's strengths. Ratagonia (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ya, it was and is still a hell of experiance, but unfortuantly, i still have not been able to find any thing on the news or any articals, and if anything it would not cover the whole story. the prussic i was using was on its own dedicated safty line, NOT on my working line above or below my fisk.

but i will continue to look for some kind of reliable source, i think this is information that is needed to know. PAT SMITH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.8.236 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to lark's head?

Should this page mention the structural relationship the Prusik hitch shares with the lark's head hitch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.68.56 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Do reliable sources talk about it? If so, yes. WTucker (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prusik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050914112957/http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/Misc/RappelSafetyPost.html to http://storrick.cnchost.com/VerticalDevicesPage/Misc/RappelSafetyPost.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Prussic" redirects here erroneously

I must confess I'm not experienced enough an editor to fix this, but just to let you guys know, "prussic" is used of prussic acid rather than this knot, despite the usual misspellings and the like. But now, when you type "prussic" into the search box on the left-hand navigation menu, it just redirects to this article rather than the prussic acid page, and I don't yet know how to correct it because I came here straight from the search box (perhaps there should be a disambiguation page somewhere). If someone else knows how to fix it, that'd be great.--Snowgrouse (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

tech issue with the info box ... I think?

The info box has an item, "origin" with "Karl Prusik, 1939" after it, which is all well and good. But ...

The "Karl Prusik" text is a wikilink, as in "[[ ]]" and I figured it would point to the WP article on Karl Prusik. But it doesn't. Instead it points to the WP article: "History of Knotting", which while it is quite interesting, is not where I expected it to go. "Well that's an easy fix!", I hear you say, just as I said at the time. But ...

In edit mode the text does not have [[ ]] around it, and when I put them around the text, the result displayed (in the Preview, at least) is:
[ [ History of knotting|Karl Prusik, 1931 ] ] ... (with the brackets actually displayed)

And when I got really clever and put "[ [Karl Prusik|Karl Prusik ] ]" I got: [ [History of knotting|Karl Prusik, 1931 ] ] , but with "Karl Prusik" as a wikilink.

So ... I can't for the life of me figure out where the "History of Knotting" link is coming from. (But then, to borrow a phrase, I am 'a creature of very little brain') A plain search for Karl Prusik doesn't redirect, and when the name was wikilinked in my second attempt, that link worked fine.

So if you can sort it out, please do. I'm going to resign, baffled.

Wayne 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment from @TreeTramp:

User:TreeTramp posted this comment in this edit of the article page:

This is kind of inaccurate or should be since the actual prusik is a type of hitch and the cord one would tie a prusik with is a hitch cord an eye and eye or an eye and tail which can also be used to tie other hitches like the VT, the schwaebish and the distel. It kinda sounds funny and is a little confusing to say I'm going to tie a distel hitch using a prusik.

I'm copying it here, to the talk page, for other editors to decide how to incorporate its content into the article. Finding a source for it would be the first step, of course. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2024

Moved from Talk:Prusik knot

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Prusik. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Prusik knot → Prusik hitch – the Prusik is a hitch, not a knot. Mtnguideben (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Raladic (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• A hitch is a type of knot, so I'm not convinced the proposed move would particularly be an improvement. However, what I do think woudl be sensible would be to simply move to Prusik. There's no ambiguity, it's more concise, and per ngrams it seems the simple form enjoys a very large lead over both ... knot and ... hitch combined.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Revert back to Prusik, undoing an undiscussed move from 2021. 162 etc. (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mtnguideben Appears contentious. Will probably benefit from a full RM discussion to see community input. Raladic (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Prusik to avoid ambiguous terminology. Theparties (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Knots has been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.