I am finally getting around to owning my own climbing gear, and I have been doing some research on the various ascension systems. I only have hands-on experience with the Frog system, which seems to be pretty popular. The Frog is simple and seems to be the most gear-minimal system out there (second only to just using prussiks). I anticipate that the rappelling/ascending I will do will involve free hanging vertical drops much more so than angled slopes. It is for this reason that I find the Mitchell system to be really attractive. I know from experience that the sit-stand technique of the Frog can be extremely tiring when doing multiple or long ascents, but the Mitchell, being a rope-walking system, seems to make straight-up ascents pretty easy. The Mitchell is supposed to suck for going up slopes since the rope is attached so close to your chest, but it can easily convert into the Texas system when needed...just drop the chest harness and a foot loop and do the slope that way. The only downsides of the Mitchell that I am seeing is that it requires a little more gear than the Frog, but really, most of the weight and bulk in your gear bag comes from the rope anyways, so the addition of an extra ascender and chest box seems to be pretty negligible. I guess my biggest hesitation about going with the Mitchell system is that I haven't tried it out in person yet, whereas the Frog is already familiar. Anyone here tried out the Mitchell? What was your experience like? Anyone have experience with the Texas and how it compares to the Frog on slopes?
[last edit 8/29/2017 2:38 AM by Amos - edited 1 times]