I've used 8 oz bags with my Big Shot. It extends the range to about 130ft (VERY rough guess). I'm pretty sure that 250ft or even 200 ft is beyond the Big Shot. It's down to how fast the rubber hose can contract (don't forget the rubber itself is fairly heavy and there is also the hysteresis energy loss in the rubber) I'm guessing that 170ft would be about the limit.

Now somebody is bound to reply saying they've shot 220ft

Michael

michaeljspraggon wrote:
I've used 8 oz bags with my Big Shot. It extends the range to about 130ft (VERY rough guess). I'm pretty sure that 250ft or even 200 ft is beyond the Big Shot. It's down to how fast the rubber hose can contract (don't forget the rubber itself is fairly heavy and there is also the hysteresis energy loss in the rubber) I'm guessing that 170ft would be about the limit.

Now somebody is bound to reply saying they've shot 220ft

Michael

MEA, thanks for hanging in there in the discussion overall and please bear with us during this slight digression into big slingshot range

Michael, I'm thinking about say a 3 oz weight with fishing line, I wonder how high that would go from a big slingshot?

Also, thanks for challenging my vocabulary! I looked it up here:
Hysteresis

Apparently you're referring to elasticity "lag" or dynamic loss of energy while the sling is in an extended state?

I noticed that the "Ascending the Giants" climbers were using a fishing reel with their big shot. The question is were they taking the lowest available branch because they could visually assess it or was it because it was in their limited firing range? MEA's suggestion that it's best to place the line on the highest reachable branch to lower climber impact on epiphytes makes a heap of sense. It also raises the bar on rope placement and TIP assessment skills since I expect that the TIP will not be visible from the ground.
-moss

Ignoring the weight of the rubber itself (way more than 3 oz I'd say) and the hysteresis loss (energy lost from the system as heat during the stretching-contraction of the rubber), which would be the same regardless of the size of shot bag used, the mass of the 3 oz bag + half of the fishing line between you and the branch would probably be less than half of the mass of the 8 oz bag plus half of the nylon throwline I use.

Therefore as potential energy gained = mass x g x height, then the height would be more than twice 130ft. So 280ft would be possible. However the rubber IS a big factor. Another big factor is the increased air resistance-to-mass ratio of the smaller bag, (which is also travelling at a higher average velocity as it needs to reach a greater height) - think of how fast a human free-falls compared with how fast an ant free-falls - smaller _object_s of similar shape and density slow down faster in the air.

Right, that's enough high school physics. Sorry for the digression

Michael

Excellent Michael, appreciate the physics lesson. Another factor to lower the theoretical height limit is increased wind/air drag on the throwline.
-moss

Hello there, this is will and brian from ascending the giants. We were told about this thread from a good friend of ours, and felt that we ought to respond.
The comment about helping canopy researches was taken a little out of context in the video editing, and in retrospect we can understand how it could be interpreted as a put-down. Sorry. We have nothing but respect for full time canopy researchers, or anybody who climbs everyday, and are aware of many of their techniques and how well suited they are to the specific demands of their work. We wanted to help some less experienced biologists who are not going to need to climb everyday. We were meeting some such people at the time, and have met more since then. It seems hard for many of these folks to get trustworthy advice on tree climbing techniques, and we are happy to share our knowledge with good people.
As far as the big shot is concerned, we agree that it is important to secure the highest safe anchor to avoid impact on the tree or its inhabitants. That being said, we have found the big shot to be a good way to do this. We use a 6 or 8 oz bag and a 20 lbs. test braided fishing line, and are able to accurately hit shots in the 200' range. I am told that by modifying the big shot with extra tubing and using a 3 to 1 mechanical advantage to pull it back, one can hit up to 230'. Sure, if you climb redwoods every day a compound bow or crossbow makes sense, but we rarely climb trees more than 250' tall, so the big shot works for us. Also, in our experience the shot pouch is much less likely to get caught up in the canopy than an arrow.
Please, don't confuse what we are doing with some tree equivalent of "peak bagging." We are working with big tree registries to update badly outdated records, and hoping that through publicizing these amazing specimeins we can get people excited about trees. So far we have had some encouraging success.
We put together a website to further this effort, it is at
www.ascendingthegiants.com

If you have any questions, you can e-mail us at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Thanks for reading
-Will and Brian

Hi Will & Brian. Thanks for clarifying that. It's not fair when you are judged by comments, which were taken out of context.

Also: your achievments with an (I'm assuming) unmodified Big Shot blow my theories out of the water The next chance I get I'm going to put my Big Shot to the test!

Coincidently, I had been thinking of doing the very same project here in Britain. I'm about to approach the Tree Register of the British Isles (TROBI) and ask permission to climb and measure the increasing number of contenders for Britain's (and therefore Northern Europe's) tallest tree. Almost all of these have never been climbed and have only been measured by laser clinometer - with inconsistent results.

I've yet to visit your website and am intrigued about how and why the media got involved. The story of the rivalry between the Scottish champion and its rival at Lake Vyrnwy, Wales, and the eventual remeasurement of the Scottish tree with lasers was the subject of a BBC TV documentary. How much more interesting would it be if I climbed these trees with a helmet camera to measure them and talked more about the history and ecology as I went? How would this actually help organisations such as TROBI and the Woodland Trust?

However, I am worried that sensationalising the climbing of these trees would lead to 'have-a-go' rock climbers etc. hacking their way up these trees and causing damage to them as well as themselves. What is your view on this?

Michael