UKH

Evening all,
The old gal has finally moved on and it's time for a new belay device. What does the collective wisdom of UKC recommend out of the current lot? Here's the shopping list-

-It must take fat singles down down to thinish halfs. Say 10.5 to 8ish.

-Must be able to abseil on a retrievable abseil set-up.

-Not a gri gri or similar.

-Be Ok for trad, sport, winter ect. Basically anything that involves a rope and some rock.

I'm thinking tube device like a dmm bug but wanted to know if people find something like a dmm pivot any better. Grateful for any other suggestions.
Cheers
Greasy

In reply to Greasy Prusiks: I'm using a pivot and have no complaints. It's a bit easier to use than a bug, and I prefer it to a BD Atc or wild country belay plate I previously used

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

DMM Pivot for me. Guide type devices have many advantages and the Pivot alleviates some of the issues experienced with similar devices.

Al

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

I used to use a bug, but swapped to a pivot this year and prefer it. It works better with thinner ropes and has a little more 'bite' when belaying, which I prefer. It'd be worth checking the recommended rope diameters for the bug-I'm not sure if it goes as low as the 8mm you require.

The pivot does have the guide mode option, but even if you don't use this much it's still a great belay device.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Thanks everyone. I'll try and have a look at a pivot.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Jim Titt has tested a number of belay devices (objectively rather than subjectively, he has constructed a rig to take measurements) and has this to say:

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=621913&v=1#x8106574

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Petzl reverso

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Petzl Reverso for me, works a treat, looks good and is light. Using it in guide mode is superb.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

I like the symmetrical belay devices personally. nice, simple and pretty idiot proof. why not ask to try a few different types at your climbing wall to see what you prefer? most people will be quite happy to chat about gear and let you give it a go.

In reply to thommi:

The plot thickens I hadn't thought of petzl. Does anyone have any experience of wild Country or elderid devices?

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Recently went for a Climbing technology Be Up, very impressed, goes down to 7.3 in halfs, easy pay out on a fat old fury rope yet good bite on skinny ropes, not uses guide mode in anger but have played with a set up rig and it worked well and released easy

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

The Wild Country VC Pro 2 is a horrible device to belay with because it seems to grab at all of the wrong times, as far as I'm aware their guide plate is based on it so probably a good one to give a miss.
I regularly use a mega jul for sport, indoor and top roping, it's a nice device to use, not used it extensively for trad.
Black Diamond ATC guide - My choice for trad, it behaves nicely and generally works pretty well. I don't tend to use guide mode much.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Hi, just to say that in guide mode reverso is best with thin ropes, BD guide with slightly thicker

In reply to spenser:


If I read the Mega Jul instructions correctly, item 14 says that when climbing multi-pitch routes there must always be at least one runner between the belayer and the leader (the translation into English is a little ambiguous so I'm working off the French version here) I interpret that to mean the device is not meant to take fall factor 2 whippers! I'll be sticking to my BD ATC XP.

In reply to EddInaBox:


This is good practice for any device or system, always having an upward load to arrest in the event of a leader fall.

In reply to Rick Graham:

Of course, and I try to practice this myself when setting up a belay by directing the ropes through a couple of runners above me in anticipation of my partner leading the next pitch, however I haven't come across any similar warning in the instructions for other devices, although admittedly that's a rather limited number.

In reply to EddInaBox:

I believe Jim Titt did some testing where he found the slipping force (ie the maximum force it can bring to a stop without slip) of the mega jul was slightly lower than some belay plates. Having used it and held some reasonable whippers with it I'm comfortable belaying with it and my climbing partners are happy being belayed with it.

In reply to spenser:

Not doubt I´d have used the word "slightly" in that context, either "somewhat" or "massively" depending on the rope in question.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


Personally wouldn't contemplate using the same belay device over that range of diameters (whatever the manufacturers say).

In reply to Robert Durran:


How would an old fashioned (and I mean *old*) sticht plate perform over this range?

In reply to Willi Crater:

Don't know. Can't remember. And I was probably less conscious of my own mortality in those days. Anyway there were no ropes as skinny as 8mm then.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Not single, but pretty sure the doubles were around that then.

In reply to Willi Crater:

The Sticht for double 9mm ropes would probably handle the 8mm ok if you used two crabs of the same size and shape.

In reply to Willi Crater:


Don't know. Everyone just called them 9's and 11's if I remember rightly.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The Sticht plates have been around since the early 70s. I bought one when we switched from hawser laid to kernmantle rope in the late 70s.

In reply to jimtitt:

Ok, my apologies, I'd misremembered the results, having read over them again it explains why I decided not to use the Megajul for trad shortly after buying it (I don't really do multipitch sport and only use 9.8mm single ropes for sport as that is what my friends and I own).
For anyone interested in the actual decrease in breaking force measured by Jim check pages 4 and 5 of this thread for some of the charts he produced:
http://www.mountainproject.com/v/edelrid-megajul-belay-device/109133730__5
There's also a very circular argument with a guy not accepting he's wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence from Jim...

In reply to Robert Durran:


Yes - rings a (strong) bell. I'm almost certainly talking bollocks. Again.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

petzl reverso 4, you can pick one up for around £21, there spot on.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Megajul does everything sport single, trad twin , abing,prussiking.
Great bit of kit and light.
Keith

In reply to spenser:



I'm not doubting the data, but that graph showing the braking force dramatically flattening off (it's not actually a decrease) for bigger loads does seem totally counterintuitive to me. The geometry/mechanism of the Megajul suggests that the braking force should go on increasing with load. I'd be interested in an explanation!

I have a megajul and like it. I don't always use it but I particularly like it in situations with a lot of abseiling such as alpine rock or big sea cliffs - real security without the faff of a prussik.

In reply to Willi Crater:


I think the terms single and double came in with the sport climbing boom. I seem to remember beginners and Americans using 11's and everyone else using 9's. But I may be talking bollocks too.

In reply to keith sanders:
All the Megajules I've seen, not many admittedly, have had running repairs done to them. Nothing that would affect safety but all the same seeing a belay device wrapped in duct tape is not reassuring.

I had a Petzl 3 which was beginning to show signs of wear so I've replaced it with a DMM Pivot. I have to say it seems better in both build quality and improved handling especially when used in guide mode but I do like the idea of "fail safe" devices for both sport and trad and the Megajule appears to achieve that.

Al

In reply to ipfreely:

I don't normally like to promote stores, but Go Outdoors are doing the Reverso 4 for £19.00 at the moment.

In reply to Robert Durran:




With a normal plate the braking force you achieve is (roughly) proportional to the force the belayers hand applies. With devices like the MegaJul the total braking force is made up from a) the device jamming the rope b) the normal hand force multiplication as with a standard plate. The amount of braking force the device itself produces is a fixed amount and is added to the normal braking force which increases with hand force to produce the total braking effect. The MJ itself is an extremely ineffective belay plate when it comes to the hand-force generated braking effect and so the sum of the combined forces is suprisingly low at higher loads. The Smart Alpine has a higher rope jamming component and by virtue of it´s design (it is designed for a lower rope diameter range than the MJ which attempts to cover far too large a variation in rope diameter) is a more powerful belay device in it´s own right so performs considerably better with thin ropes.
The traditional way of viewing belay plate effectiveness is the ratio between the hand force applied and the resulting braking force and with twin 7.8mm ropes the difference is dramatic, removing the jamming part of the braking force the MegaJul achieves a ratio of 1:3 and the ATC XP a ratio of 1:16, with thin ropes like this the jamming effect is also minimal so the overall braking effect is poor. In a situation where maximum braking force is required the ATC XP provides 4 times as much power as the MegaJul.
The Alpine Up on the other hand is an astoundingly weak belay device (try the "dynamic" mode to see how bad) BUT has an enormous jamming effect so when it comes to braking force far superior to any of the other devices of this type.
I´ve an extensive collection of belay devices which I have tested over the years and use an ATC XP or GriGri as appropriate.

In reply to jimtitt:
Very informative

Have you had a chance to assess the microjul?

In reply to John Kelly:

No, I don´t own the thinnest ropes it´s rated for (6.9mm). The MegaJul is recommended by Edelrid for 7.8´s and therefore gets tested with them and realistically I´m not going to buy yet another belay device which will probably dissapoint or some ropes I´d never use. If someone gives me one I´ll test it but otherwise I´ll stick with what works.

In reply to jimtitt:

I was disappointed by megajul on 8mm Phoenix, wouldn't lock up with my 85kg hanging without significant input.
Due to a unfortunate incident (kit left at home) I had the 'opportunity' to requip and bought the micro, that will lock on 7.9mm with 85kg hanging.
I actually bought these bits of kit to climb with smaller, slightly weaker partner but your warning that the braking efficiency is poor not withstanding the locking element gives me pause for though
By the by my bugette always feels great

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think the geometry suggests the opposite conclusion. (Jim will correct me about this if I've got it wrong...) The pinching effect that makes the assisted-braking devices "lock" (when they do) requires that the device carabiner travel further up towards the top of the device than is usual for standard tubes, in order to literally pinch off the space the rope travels through. This is most apparent in devices like the Metolius BRD and the Mega- and micro Juls, in which a slot is cut into the body of the tube to allow the carabiner to travel further upwards.

An effect of the proximity of the device carabiner to the top of the device is that the angles the rope makes going through the device are decreased. Friction being exponential with the wrapping angle, a small decrease in angle could still, in principle, have a significant effect, decreasing the force-multiplying power of the device, viewed simply as a tube.

Jim's graphs make it evident that the assisted lockers have little in the way of force-multiplying power; they rely on the physical pinching of the rope in an opening that ins constricted under load by the motion of the device carabiner. Jim says (which is to say his data suggests) that the pinching effect does not scale with grip strength but rather is nearly constant as the load increases, and of course this more-or-less constant contribution becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of the total load as that load increases.

At high loads with thin ropes, I think it possible another effect could be at work, which is that as the rope stretches, its diameter decreases, and this could actually decrease the pinching contribution if carabiner reaches the upper limit of its travel and the rope keeps stretching.

I think our intuitions ( I should just speak for myself here so will change pronouns) have been shaped by the performance of standard tubes that act fairly consistently as force multpliers throughout their loading range. I think (incorrectly) that if I have a lot of braking power at relatively low loads, then the force-multiplying effect of the device will scale linearly from the initial high value, but that isn't what happens, as explained above, in Jim's post, and in his graphs.

Practically speaking, it seems to me that the assisted-locking devices will be fine for single-pitch belaying, where the possibility of high fall-factors is limited by the presence of the ground. The real question about assisted-braking device use comes in multipitch context, and even there we are speaking of the rare situations in which the leader falls well past the belay. These are the occasions in which the assisted-braking devices seem to perform poorly compared to, say gold-standard ATC-XP. If one is going to use these devices for such climbs, I think at the very least one ought to be gloved, and if the ropes are at the thin end of the range, I would be especially wary about the effectiveness of the MegaJul.

A number of people have mentioned the convenience of locking during rappels. Once again, extreme caution is advisable, because the locking capabilities may depend to some extent on the rope weight below the device, possibly making the device least likely to lock when the rappeller is near the end of the ropes. I'd suggest some very careful testing of the device---with the exact carabiner and thinnest ropes you intend to use---in a safe situation.

Speaking of carabiners, one of the most unfortunate features of the assisted-locking devices is the variation in their performance depending on the rope-carabiner combination. Only the Alpine Up addresses this issue by including an appropriate (should we say mandated?) carabiner with the device. For the rest, performance will depend to some extend on the carabiner type, and from what I've heard from people who have tried, this is not only a question of the carabiner cross-section but may even be influenced by the amount of curve in the carabiner basket.

In reply to rgold:

Thanks to you and Jim for the effort and time of considered replies.


Fair comment but readers should not assume that even say a factor 0.5 fall is to be taken lightly.
It is still a big jolt to any system especially if the leader is heavier than the belayer.

Looking back all the big falls I have held have ( luckily ) been using old style Stitch plates or the XP, no gloves or problems ( apart from broken bones and partial belay failures ).

I think I will continue using the ATC XP.

In reply to jimtitt and rgold:

Thanks for the really excellent replies which clarify several things for me. I still find it totally counterintuitive though that a conventional plate like the ATC could be less effective than the Megajul which seems to pinch the rope harder the more it is loaded. I'll have a think about it and maybe experiment befoprew deciding whether or not to bin the Megajul. I've in fact completely gone off fat conventional plates like the ATC for double ropes; the force needed with the hand just to maintain position while abseiling does not inspire confidence at all for me - I use a narrower HB device for summer use (and have a spare which I sometimes insist a partner with an ATC or similar uses (it's my life after all) and a tiny Buguette thing with skinny, maybe icy ropes and the possible clumsiness of cold hands and slippery gloves in winter. I can tolerate an ATC with a single rope, but now only really feel happy belaying or being belayed with the brilliant Click-Up.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The original ATC (not the ATC-XP) doesn't supply enough friction for certain top-roping situations, much less holding leader falls. But even if you mean the ATC-XP, I still totally agree with this. I've ended up mostly using the Alpine Up, in large part for the reasons you describe.

I think one of the big fallacies going, perpetuated by the manufacturers, is that you can have a single belay device for a wide range of ropes. All of the many devices I've tried have handling issues for ropes at the big end of their supposed ranges and inadequate friction issues at the small end. I thing the reality is that one needs two or three devices to handle everything from 10.5 singles to 8 mm half ropes and the smaller twins.

I think a minimal test for a device is whether you can do a single-strand free-hanging rappel with it and not have an epic struggle. If your device can't manage that with the ropes you are using, how could it possibly be expected to hold a big fall?

In reply to rgold:



I agree absolutely with all of this (Hence my reply to the OP at 19.09 yesterday).

In reply to rgold:







That´s about it really. Tube-style devices took over from simple plates because the extra height gave better braking performance which allowed the manufacturers to then make the device more usable by opening the slots to give better feeding and reduce the grabbiness Sticht plates tend to exhibit. Taller devices like the ATC have always performed better than say the Reversos, the penalty for saving weight and a "sexier" design.
Having a shallower plate certainly reduces the wrap angle but more critically there is a point where separateing the bends increases the bending resistance of the rope, moving the radii apart by a multiple of 7 diameters seems to be roughly the optimum and the better conventional plates seem to follow this roughly. With the current crop of assisted plates the problem is worse because the locking slot allows the karabiner to go even higher than normal and the plate has anyway to be de-powered by enlarging the slots since grabbiness isn´t just inconvenient any more like it is with normal plates but a real problem if unlocking is awkward. Unfortunately some of the better ways of overcoming involountary locking are protected by patent which only CT have found a way round so far.

To prevent the plate locking to the extent it is unreleasable or starts to damage the rope there has to be a gap left between the karabiner and the body of the plate in the locked position, with the Megajul it is possible to pass a 6mm dia steel rod through the gap which is more than any other device and explains the poor performance under high forces, we dye-tested the contact areas and with my thin ropes at high loads there is no locking effect whatsoever which is why the overall braking is so poor. CT went the other way by phsically preventing involountary locking which allowed them to vastly increase the jamming effect, the downside is unlocking means the device has to be physically large to get the nescessary leverage, rope feed is poorer than a normal device and when loaded to extremes the rope starts to suffer.

In reply to rgold:

I bow to your perseverance in testing and reporting, I have used only 3 types, a early stitch plate, and this. Hope the link works, and the 3rd is to painful to contemplate,
do you have a view on the SBG can one size fits all?
http://www.omegapac.com/upload_content/op_SBGII_Hang_Tag.pdf
.

Yes!

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Petzl reverso.

So long as not using greater than 10mm. Light, compact, grip, great in guide mode. Sweet device.

In reply to jimtitt:

I would like to see drop tests with belay devices with a constant hand force (not entirely sure how you would arrange this...). If the rope slips in a conventional belay plate then I usually assume that the belayer will let go. If (big big if) the MegaJul slips a bit _but subsequently stops the fall_ then this could almost be a feature (lower forces on the anchors!). Presumably all belay devices either slip or cut the rope eventually.

Given your graphs I would agree the lower limit on rope diameter for the MegaJul is highly highly optimistic. I know mine would not hold my (old) 70kg weight on a single strand of 8.5mm, and I wouldn't use it on anything less than that. For me though and the kind of (bumbly) climbing I do I suspect I will never hold a big fall, whereas I might get distracted and not notice a small one...

In reply to Name Changed 34:


Sorry, I'm not familiar with this device. Somewhat strangely, since Omega Pacific is a US company, I have never seen anyone using it. I did own an original version (maybe SBG without the II?) many years ago when single ropes were 11mm and half ropes were 9mm and there was no such thing as twins. It didn't have the hole in the stem or toothed slots as I recall. I remember thinking it had insufficient friction, and the only option for increasing friction was to use the "figure-eight" configuration, which then seemed to give too much friction and didn't handle all that well.

Other than the expense of several devices (which is creeping up), there doesn't seem to me to be any very compelling reason to have a single gadget; it's not as if you change ropes in the middle of a climb. (I guess we could invent an emergency scenario when a party is forced to use another party's ropes...)

Although I don't see climbers using them, the canyoneering folks in the US seem to be fond of the Petzl Pirana, which has the ability to adjust friction in mid-rappel and which can be threaded without disconnecting from the harness. It is marketed strictly as a rappel device, wouldn't work for half ropes, and has scary protuberances which could inflict some nasty damage during a fall.

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Both the German and Italian Alpine Clubs have constant hand force test rigs for drop testing.
As you say, all devices slip or cut the rope eventually (cutting or breaking the rope is reserved for very few though). That a plate like a MegaJul would stop a fall eventually is highly probable with the right rope BUT if the belayer has already had to let go of the rope because of rope burns the device as such is a failure, injuring EITHER climber is a fail under PPE (and by any normal thinking as well). The chances of stopping a faller without injury to both climbers is greater with a more powerful device where the slippage is kept to reasonable levels. Exactly where the various devices become more or less safe than the others has been a subject of some discussion

In reply to rgold:

Ok, here's an issue relating to braking power I really don't understand: the manufacturers give different minimal diameters for single ropes and half ropes, in spite of the fact that half-rope technique envisions catching leader falls on a single strand.

For example, the Reverso 4 lists the minimum diameter for half ropes to be 8mm and the minimum diameter for single ropes to be 8.9mm. If indeed the amount of friction available to stop a leader fall on one strand requires a strand no smaller than 8.9mm, then I read this to say that the Reverso 4 is not rated for use with every half rope pair in production.

Don't pile on Petzl though, everyone else seems to do the same thing. I suspect the rating discrepancy is because the manufacturers are viewing all double-rope systems as twin systems and expect both strands to be loaded by a leader fall. No general climbing population is more qualified than UK climbers to recognize just how wrong this is.

In reply to rgold:

I think they expect that in the half rope system some load may come on the second rope ( from other runners ).

In the single rope system the one rope only is available so a bit more margin required.


On your test about abseiling on a single skinny rope and comparing it to holding a substantial fall here is my 2P.

I often use two 8.5mm Tendon ropes ( feel quite skinny for 8.5) and an ATC XP.
On long abseils ( two ropes ) this feels quite fast and becoming uncomfortable at the bottom of a 50m free hanging ab that I feel the need to use a leg wrap. I would be very circumspect about a single rope ab, so perhaps it just fails your test.
But I have held several 12 to 15 metre 0.5 fall factor falls with a leader of 90 Kg onto one strand with no drama, hand burn or apparent slippage. Fairly clean running ropes on the pitch, just left them to stretch with the friction on the top runner, no opportunity to soft catch, and I never try to let the rope slip.
In conclusion your test is probably about right.

In reply to rgold:

Worse still, both the CAI and myself have tested and come to the conclusion that if only one of a pair is loaded the gripping ability of the belayer is reduced by ca 40%. It´s better to drop the other strand and just hold the loaded one.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Don't forget it is not just about the device, the krab importantly and the rope to a lesser extent play a part. Petzl Reverso on supple ropes (but have used on stiff ropes), has been good and will cover all you climbing needs.

In reply to Rick Graham:

>


This is one problem we (or I) have when belay devices and falls are discussed, countless people come along and say I held a huge whipper with no problems. BUT one mans whipper is anothers feeble slump. Equipment manufacturers have to look at worst case so I look at a belay device and think "will it hold a worst case fall", in a world of 60, 70 or 80m ropes taking a 12m 0.5 factor fall is a moderate fall, not a severe or extreme fall by anyones reckoning. The rest of our equipment is expected to deal with the incredibly rare but possible extremes and nowhere does it say belay devices are exempt from this.
The CAI are of the opinion that no belay device can hold a full-on 50m fall and all the testing by others show this is probably true, (GriGri and Edelrid Eddy excluded, probably the offerings from Climbing Technology can though they specifically exclude FF2 falls from their use so fail there anyway).

In reply to Rick Graham:


The only way for this to happen with ropes clipped alternately on a vertical pitch is if belayer can't control the rope through the top runner and it runs until the next runner down comes into play, as simply falling past the second runner position will not engage the second strand. Are they seriously suggesting a smaller diameter in expectation that the belayer will lose control? It seems more likely to me that they are giving recommendations for twin-rope belaying. Either way, I think half-rope belayers should beware.




How do you suppose things would go with, say, a fall factor of 1.2?

I think one of the problems with belay device evaluations is that things work ok most of the time for falls that are within some "normal range" of fall factors. But I worry about whether my gadget will be up to the task in the rare but not impossible scenarios when the fall is big. Perhaps my paranoia in this regard is enhanced by the fact that I've had to hold a factor~2 and a factor~1.8 fall.

The factor~2 was with an 11mm single rope and a hip belay, so doesn't fit well into the present context---my guess is a properly locked-off hip belay can hold higher impact loads than a tube. But the factor~1.8 was held with a tube-style device (I think a Reverso 3) on a single 8.5mm half rope strand after an overhead top piece blew with virtually no detectable resistance. (Fortunately, we were not using a single rope. If we had, the leader would have hit a ledge.)

I think things were helped considerably by the fact that the leader was a young woman who weighed perhaps 50 kg, but even so I'd guess a foot or two of rope slipped through the device and she ended up well below the belay stance. The piece that caught her was a microcam placed in a horizontal crack at the level of the belay and off to the side. Two of the four cams rotated out of the placement and her fall was held by the other two, so it was close to becoming a factor 2 situation. Of course, I got jerked violently against the anchor. (If the microcam had pulled, that initial sideways jerk would have been followed by a downward jerk, and my brake hand would have been in a bad position for holding such a fall.) I was wearing gloves (I always do) so was able to control the slip and didn't get any burns. What might have happened if I had been bare-handed, if the leader weighed 90 kg and not 50 kg, if the final piece had also come out, I don't know, but the rope-diameter ratings we've been discussing certainly give one cause to be concerned.

In reply to rgold:



I think this is probable right, I was thinking of the OP's post that said

-Be Ok for trad, sport, winter ect. Basically anything that involves a rope and some rock.

And the fact I have one and find it in my limited knowledge to be ok.
But.- reading the threads I think belaying something that I will have a second look at, is there a wall that has a test rig set up to test our belaying? I was asked to do a quick test. Harness , tie-on, and a bit of a pull on a rope to simulate a fall...the first time I visited a wall, all well and good of you go enjoy your day they said. A more realistic test would have been to drop a sand bag to see if I was reedy for a fall, just as he got another to distract me.
I think for my own peace of mind I shall rig some none scientific tests up