Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 57 of total 57 in this topic |
et
climber
Bozeman, MT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jun 12, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
|
We commonly use self-locking belay devices for ascending ropes. During some crevasse rescue training today we had a Reverso 3 fail to self-lock, as the weighted side squeezed past the break end to where it looked like it was loaded incorrectly. This happened twice - luckily with no injury. The rope being used was an 8.4 Sterling.
Has anyone encountered such a problem?
Cheers, Et
|
|
rlf
Trad climber
Josh, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2010 - 11:30pm PT
|
That's possible. Was it a dry treated rope? New ones are slick.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2010 - 11:54pm PT
|
I've never used a R3, but I tried the original Reverso and gave up on it almost right away. We usually use skinny ropes, and the Reverso just doesn't work well with them. The turning point was an overhanging rappel at RR. "Frictionless" and "Rappel Device" shouldn't ever appear in the same sentence.
But since the reverso seemed to work well with fat ropes I tried a Reversino, which Petzl designed specifically for thin ropes. Still not enough friction (and I'm not exactly a heavy guy). So they've sat in the closet ever since.
Kind of weird, really, cuz the ropes we use are Petzls. You'd think if they were selling a skinny rope, they'd make sure they had a belay device that worked well with it.
But something in the OP is kind of baffling:
We commonly use self-locking belay devices for ascending ropes.
Not sure just what you're talking about here. Ascending ropes with a belay device? I know that you can brute-force your way up a rope with a descender, but if you're in a crevasse you presumably have prussiks. Or Tibloks.Or shoelaces. There are a lot of ways to get up a rope, and just about all of them are easier than using a belay device. Can you clarify this?
D
|
|
et
climber
Bozeman, MT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2010 - 12:39am PT
|
Thanks for the feedback -
I guess, to my surprise, the Reverso can't handle that thin a rope by itself. I can't believe that they have different standards for single or double ropes. Say you are ice climbing with two ropes (less than 8.9 of course) and want to belay up two partners. I think Petzl will say that will constitute two single lines - no? That is pretty much what we were doing. Being an old Reversino user I was aware of the original limitations. And I have recently switched to the ATC Guide which is good to 7.7 on any rope. This is my first experience with the R3. And now I am looking even closer at it and found that if belaying two people at the same time and one person weights the rope, the second person will not be auto-locked. That is sketchy at best.
As for the set-up, it's real simple. Rap down into the crevasse with the belay device extended and backed up with a prusik off your belay loop. To switch to ascend you tie a friction hitch (Prusik, Kleimheist) above your device with a cordelette. Tie the tail of your cordelette to your belay loop with a Munter/Mule. Rap onto your Munter/Mule so there is slack in your belay device. Clip the Auto-Locking belay device to your belay loop and take in slack. Undo your back-up Prusik. Next, release the Munter/Mule so you are now on your belay device. With the free cordelette now hanging off a friction hitch, tie a knot in to step in. Now, step up, and as you do, pull the brake end of the belay device.
Oh, and it was an old fuzzy rope.
|
|
The Wedge
Boulder climber
Santa Rosa & Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 03:59am PT
|
YA, don't use it on ropes smaller than what the manufacture says. Wow....it almost failed...luckly no one got injured.... because you cant read direction. I hope you are not some "guide".
Plaquette, look it up, or ask a guide.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 05:38am PT
|
Consider a Kong Ghost, instead for smaller ropes.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 06:24am PT
|
et wrote:
Clip the Auto-Locking belay device to your belay loop and take in slack.
Honest question, did you clip the belay device (R3) to your belay loop correctly? (in auto-locking mode)
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 06:29am PT
|
I currently use the ATC guide, but have used both the R3, the original Reverso, the Reversino (with ropes as small as 7,7 twins) and the R2. Never had any problems in auto-locking mode when belaying a second. When belaying a leader or when on rappel, if I felt that there was not enough friction to my liking, I would add a biner.
However, my general laziness and penchant for procrastination (why do today what I can do tomorrow?), I have failed to follow through with rgold's repeated (intelligent and experienced) recommendation to wear gloves when belaying.
|
|
et
climber
Bozeman, MT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2010 - 08:01am PT
|
Yes, I am "some guide" and we were training on a tree a few feet off the ground. The belay device belongs to a client. When it failed he simply lowered himself down like he was rappelling. Please don't think less of "us guides" for posting this.
I made a very wrong assumption, however, that this device could handle an 8.4 mm rope by itself. It was based on another assumption that you could use the R3 ice climbing and belay up two people. It is now my opinion that you can't, because not many folks climb ice these days with two ropes greater than or equal to 8.9 mm. And that makes this device not only junk, but downright misleading.
This does not even address my second concern regarding the lack of aut-locking ability on one side when a person weights the rope on the other.
And to answer Degaine's honest question, it was attached correctly.
I look forward to more great responses.
Cheers, Et
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 11:50am PT
|
Consider a Kong Ghost, instead for smaller ropes.
Ha. Got my laugh for the day!
My first thought on reading Healyje's post was "Why is Joseph directing this specifically at me?" But, what the heck, I'll check it out. Can't remember the name of the Kong belay device, something like Gri-Gri, but it doesn't matter. Just google "kong belay device" and I'm sure I'll find it.
So I google "kong belay device" and what do I get? "Kong Ghost Belay Device"
Kong also makes the Gi-Gi, but I guess they decided they should make something specifically for belaying me.
Back on topic, though. As both rgold and I have mumbled on many belay threads in the past, a German-made device called the TRE Sirius solved all the problems. Even on skinny ropes on an overhanging rappel, you can simply let go. So, naturally, TRE's gone out of business and we're left with the usual Reverso vs. ATC-style debate.
Why can't somebody make and market a device that does for two ropes what the Gri-gri does for one?
D
|
|
Trad
Trad climber
northern CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 12:43pm PT
|
This does not even address my second concern regarding the lack of aut-locking ability on one side when a person weights the rope on the other.
Did you check the information on the Petzl site yet? It looks like they specifically warn against using the Reverso 3 that way.
It seems a little unfair to label something as a "junk product" if it's being used in ways that the manufacturer did not intend.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
|
May I repeat myself?
This is just another of the potentially dangerous complexities of the so-called "hands-off" belaying systems.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 01:15pm PT
|
they improved the friction on the R3, it works great on a pair of 9mm ropes,
not much effort from the braking hand required,
the auto brake also seems to work well, i had more of a problem getting it to unbrake.
the hole they give you to stick a biner in as a lever to unbrake is too small for a biner!
full props going out to petzl engineers for reading the metric drill chart instead of the english. did these guys work on the hubble lens?
so screw the auto brake, but as a standard rap/belay device, i see no problems with this product.
one other thing about the auto brake mode that is scary is that you hang the R3 from your harness with a biner that goes thru a large hole,
well, if that loops breaks in the R3, then you could go for a ride if you arer not backed up. unless i am rigging the autobrake wrong, which is highly possible considering the daily amounts of cannabis that are copiusly injested,
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 02:53pm PT
|
dr spock wrote:
the hole they give you to stick a biner in as a lever to unbrake is too small for a biner!
A Petzl non-locking biner from a quickdraw fits perfectly into that hole (designed that way on purpose).
dr spock wrote:
one other thing about the auto brake mode that is scary is that you hang the R3 from your harness with a biner that goes thru a large hole,
Please correct me if I have indeed misunderstood, but it reads as if you are hanging the R3 off your harness in auto-lock mode, which you should not be doing. The "plaquette" type of auto-locking device for belaying up a second (or seconds) was designed to be clipped into the anchor (in order to belay directly off the anchor).
|
|
et
climber
Bozeman, MT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2010 - 04:44pm PT
|
Trad ~
The reason I am calling it junk is because the older models (1 & 2) did not have this limitation and they went down to 8mm single ropes. Sure, the R3 brakes better and is lighter, but it is not a better product.
Et
|
|
Trad
Trad climber
northern CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 11:54pm PT
|
Apologies if I misinterpreted your posts, Ec. I use the Reverso 3 so this thread caught my eye because if it has an inherent flaw I definitely don't want to use it.
But after looking at Petzl's literature it still looks to me like the Reverso 3, in and of itself, is safe when used according to manufacturer's specs.
Whether or not it's different/worse/better than the reverso 1 or 2 is another matter, as well as rgold's point about the complexities of "hands-off" belaying systems. Maybe there should be threads on those topics (if there aren't already!).
Tom
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 12:00am PT
|
This is just another of the potentially dangerous complexities of the so-called "hands-off" belaying systems. Or perhaps of a relatively complex, specialized 'solution' to a simple problem?
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 12:21am PT
|
Quit saying "failed" unless you can prove the device failed...
|
|
JimT
climber
Munich
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 04:06am PT
|
I did some pull tests on guide plates (related to using them for roped-soloing):-
When you overload guide plates they do funny things.
The first is that the trapped rope escapes sideways from under the tensioned rope and gets trapped between the tensioned rope and the side of the slot.This is very difficult to free off and you have to dismantle everything and twist the locking krab brutally to release the rope.
Apply yet more load and the trapped rope where it crosses the tensioned rope goes down through the slot with a bang. At this point the holding power drops off considerably but not catastrophically, though pretty near!
Easy to releasse, just unclip the krab when unweighted.
ATC Guide. 8.2mm Edelrid, new,treated. First fail mode 2.05kN. Max fail load 4.06kN. Residual load 1.2kN
ATC Guide. 9mm Edelrid, used, non treated. First fail mode 2.96kN. Max fail load 5.58kN. Residual load 1.6kN
Reversoģ. 8.2mm Edelrid, new,treated. First fail mode 1.6kN. Max fail load 2.38kN. Residual load 0.7kN
Reversoģ. 9mm Edelrid, used, non treated. First fail mode 2.25kN. Max fail load 3.60kN. Residual load 0.9kN
Reversoģ. 10.2 Mammut, used, non treated. First fail mode 3.68kN. Stopped test at 7kN as I didnīt have the tester guards on and things start breaking over these sort of loads!
All with Petzl Attache 12mm round profile karabiner.
Iīve some more results somewhere but canīt lay my hands on them at the moment, anyway I guess the picture is clear enough!
|
|
HMS
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 04:39am PT
|
In reply to Gost: ' the TRE Sirius solved all the problems. Even on skinny ropes on an overhanging rappel, you can simply let go'
Unfortunately the Tre is not that good. On overhanging rappel with brand-new 7.5 mm twin-ropes and on overhanging rappel with new 8.0 mm double ropes, it simply did NOT lock completely. Wet ropes made things a lot worse and made rappelling quite scary.
I normally use the original Magic Plate by New Alp (same type of device as the Kong GiGi or Camp Ovo) with 7.5 mm twinropes when climbing multipitch rockclimbs. I love the simplicity of the design, BUT even a device as simple as the Plate has failed on one occasion (in auto-block mode belaying a second). The rope going down to the climber was squeezed past the other: i.e. normally the rope leading to climber blocks bottom rope, but this time the rope squeezed past the rope it was supposed to block. As it happened to just one of the ropes, the autoblock function(of the other rope) was not impaired. But it shows that belaying/climbing with skinny ropes is dangerous.
Ergo: belay devices versus skinny ropes = DANGER.
On a belay-device the slot through which the rope goes has to be large enough for a furry 10.2 mm rope. But it has to be small enough to avoid a new 7.5 mm to squueze past itself. It seems this is simply not possible to achieve. Manufacturers of belay devices should stop selling devices for a wide range of rope diameters. They should also inform about the dangers of belaying with skinny (dry-treated) ropes. Often the belayer gets the blame for dropping a climber, but often its the device at fault.
Read more on belay devices and friction here: http://www.bolt-products.com/Glue-inBoltDesign.htm
edit: See previous post.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 06:40am PT
|
Hello HMS,
Just as a preface to my upcoming question / comment :
*Ive used the Kong Gigi, the NewAlp plaquette, all three reverso models as well as the ATC guide.
*I have more experience than some, less than others, would never claim to be smarter than anyone or to have THE answer.
So here goes. You wrote:
BUT even a device as simple as the Plate has failed on one occasion (in auto-block mode belaying a second). The rope going down to the climber was squeezed past the other: i.e. normally the rope leading to climber blocks bottom rope, but this time the rope squeezed past the rope it was supposed to block.
I just dont get how this can happen. Normally when a second hangs his end of the rope weights the carabiner in place, which in turn pinches the belay hand end of the rope (hope Im clear). Heres a photo:
http://www.decathlon.co.uk/products-pictures/gd-asset_11458904.jpg
Even if the two sides of the rope nestle up side by side, I still dont see how the rope going down to the climber would not pinch of the other side of the rope when weighting the carabiner.
Please dont take this as an aggressive or defensive post, just trying to better understand.
Cheers.
|
|
JimT
climber
Munich
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 08:20am PT
|
As I said above, the upper loaded rope forces itīs way down past the braking strand and in the end the positions are reversed so that the loaded rope is underneath and the braking rope on top (and obviously not doing a lot of braking). The thinner guide plates tend to go straight to this reversed position whereas the deeper belay devices have an intermediate stage when the two ropes cross each other inside the device.
You can see this happening easily if you put a length of 5/6mm cord in a belay device in guide mode and give it a pull.
|
|
sieczk
Mountain climber
Reno, NV
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 09:52am PT
|
dr spock wrote:
the hole they give you to stick a biner in as a lever to unbrake is too small for a biner!
A Petzl non-locking biner from a quickdraw fits perfectly into that hole (designed that way on purpose).
Wrong, and wrong. The hole is meant to accept the 'tooth' of a carabineer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93YDB1jj21s @ 4:19.
The system, when used correctly, is idiot proof. Seeing as how you claim to be a guide and will never admit to doing anything wrong, I will tell you publicly that you did mess up somewhere in utilizing the auto-block function of the reverso. This is what may have happened:
-The orientation of the hanging device was twisting the ropes as they passed through the friction slots. This is easy to do if you're belaying off the shelf of an anchor and the reverso is cantered in a sideways manner. The twisting of the ropes will make thin ones "flip" inside the slot, especially when icy/wet.
-You tried to release the follower by simply passing the rope back through the feeder. Congratulations on defeating all safety systems and principles associated with the device in one fell swoop.
-You put the rope bights in backwards. The weight of the load-bearing rope is meant to seize the belay by jamming it into the friction slots. Try it in reverse and you'll see that there is NO friction without the aforementioned rope play.
-The orientation of the belay device prevented the load rope to fully compress the belay end. Upside-down, free hanging anchors will do this. Don't build an anchor in a roof.
There are more ways to eff this up out there but I am quickly running out of test subjects here to find them all. Regardless, when used correctly, the Reverso3 is a great tool and is not to be chastised because of user error.
|
|
slobmonster
Trad climber
OAK (nee NH)
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 12:05pm PT
|
Even if the two sides of the rope nestle up side by side, I still dont see how the rope going down to the climber would not pinch of the other side of the rope when weighting the carabiner.
I can back up the OP. Although I have not witnessed this happen "on its own," there was a not uncommon guiding trick (probably frowned on, now) that we'd occasionally with the Gi-Gi: you can "pop" the ropes by each other ON PURPOSE with a deft twist of the blocking carabiner, facilitating a lowering setup.
Please note that the wire loop (a la Reverso, Guide ATC, et al.) SHOULD effectively prevent this from happening... as the blocking carabiner needs to make a 180 in order to pop.
|
|
J. Werlin
Social climber
Cedaredge, CO
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 12:07pm PT
|
Thanks for the tech info JimT. Question: are the failure loads you describe consistent with the forces generated by the fall of a second?
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 12:08pm PT
|
I wrote:
A Petzl non-locking biner from a quickdraw fits perfectly into that hole (designed that way on purpose).
In response sieczk wrote:
Wrong, and wrong. The hole is meant to accept the 'tooth' of a carabineer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93YDB1jj21s @ 4:19.
Actually, I'm right, I've done it for realsies. But if you don't believe me, just call Petzl.
You are, however, correct that shows how any biner will work, but that particular hole in the R3 was designed so that certain Petzl biners fit perfectly.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 12:12pm PT
|
JimT wrote:
As I said above, the upper loaded rope forces itīs way down past the braking strand and in the end the positions are reversed so that the loaded rope is underneath and the braking rope on top (and obviously not doing a lot of braking).
My apologies, JimT, I just simply don't understand your explanation. The biner in the photo is in the way (and serving its purpose) - it blocks one strand from going below the other(and with two ropes in the device I do not see how it would be possible).
I'll admit that I perhaps do not understand what you mean by "the upper loaded rope forces its way down past the braking strand".
|
|
slobmonster
Trad climber
OAK (nee NH)
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 12:15pm PT
|
Degaine: the (blocking) carabiner has to twist ~180° for the scenario to occur as described.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 12:25pm PT
|
HMS -- I should probably have been a little more careful with my language. That is, the TRE solved all the problems for me. My skinny ropes are Petzl Dragonflies which, at 8.2mm are slightly thicker than the ropes you've been using. And although I've put on a couple of pounds in my old age, I'm still not very heavy and my partner is even lighter. So, in our case at least, the TRE does lock up when released on a free-hanging rappel.
I certainly don't dispute that you, with your skinnier ropes found that it didn't.
And I fully agree with you that "belay devices vs. skinny ropes = Danger." Or maybe "= potential danger."
The TRE also functions beautifully as a belay device both for belaying the leader or second, as long as you're using thin ropes. But despite being wonderful to use with skinny ropes, the TRE absolutely SUCKS DEAD RATS when used with fat ropes.
But it's all moot, because the TRE is dead.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
|
slobmonster wrote:
Degaine: the (blocking) carabiner has to twist ~180° for the scenario to occur as described.
That's impossible if climbing with two ropes (meaning two ropes of a double rope or a twin rope setup).
Thanks for the response.
|
|
slobmonster
Trad climber
OAK (nee NH)
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 02:18pm PT
|
That's impossible if climbing with two ropes (meaning two ropes of a double rope or a twin rope setup).
Absolutely.
But from my reading, the OP was using a skinny rope SINGLY.
|
|
JimT
climber
Munich
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 03:11pm PT
|
The karabiner doesnīt `haveīto twist at all, you could weld the sucker in place! I canīt see how I can explain it any more simply or clearly, the loaded rope squeezes the unloaded rope (which is underneath) out of the slot. The karabiner doesnīt move. You can have one or two ropes, it changes nothing.
Iīve watched this happen about 40 times on the test rig and like I said, get a piece of thin cord and try it for yourself.
As regards the forces from falling seconding they could be virtually anything but up to 5kN is realistically feasible. There is an American website out there with some tests on this which Iīll see if I can find a link to.
|
|
J. Werlin
Social climber
Cedaredge, CO
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 03:59pm PT
|
Thanks JimT.
Can someone help me draw a general conclusion to all this data?
Is the bottom line that using a Reverso3 in autoblock mode (1 rope or 2, regardless of diameter) unsafe with hands off?
|
|
et
climber
Bozeman, MT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2010 - 11:46pm PT
|
Jim T. ~
That is great info - thanks for posting. It is extremely easy to generate those failing forces if the second falls with a little slack in the line.
Check out this video put out by BD. http://vimeo.com/10584731
BD does note, however, that you should never take your hand off the brake. Given the power of video though, they are sending mixed messages.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 12:09am PT
|
hey Jim, if i pay for a reverso 3, will you fail test the big loop?
i would really like to know how many pounds that skinny alloy can take.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 01:35am PT
|
One should perhaps add as a footnote to Jim's tests that a guide plate enabled multitasking belayer, for whom managing the belay momentarily takes second place to spreading the pate de fois gras on his baguette, is considerably more likely to let some slack accumulate and so create a situation in which the second takes a leader fall, thereby "overloading" the "hands-off" device with consequences likely to spoil everyone's lunch.
|
|
Trad
Trad climber
northern CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 01:50am PT
|
J. Werling wrote:
Can someone help me draw a general conclusion to all this data?
Is the bottom line that using a Reverso3 in autoblock mode (1 rope or 2, regardless of diameter) unsafe with hands off?
I too would like to hear a "bottom line". Anyone? So far my conclusions are:
(a) when used according to manufacturer's specs, the Reverso 3 is safe,
(b) if you use thinner ropes, spread pate de fois gras while belaying, or otherwise tweak the system based on unfounded assumptions, the Reverso3 (and other similarly-designed devices) may fail, and
(c) there are complexities associated with hand-free belay devices so know what you're doing.
Am I on the right track here? I don't mind being told I'm wrong, but if I'm wrong I just want to know why.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 02:34am PT
|
they look cool and work great,
just keep the brake grooves on the un loaded rope and every thing is beautiful, in its own way, like a ...fading fast.......goodnight.
|
|
HMS
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 07:35am PT
|
In reply to Degaine: I think Jim aswered your question allready?
In reply to Trad:
(a) when used according to manufacturer's specs, the Reverso 3 is safe
No, it is not 100% safe. Skinny ropes, with a diameter in the range specified by the manafacturer cam still 'flip'. As Jim said: 'upper loaded rope forces itīs way down past the braking strand and in the end the positions are reversed so that the loaded rope is underneath and the braking rope on top'.
In reply to Ghost: there is certain range [of rope diameter] in which the Tre functions perfectly, I agree!
|
|
JimT
climber
Munich
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 08:17am PT
|
That thin bit of alloy is plenty strong enough, we subsequently pulled a 10.5mm rope to destruction and the Reverso showed no signs of discomfort. The rope was trashed at something over 10,8kN when the sheath stripped where it was forced against the underside of the plate. Personally I would expect the loop to hold at least 25kN which is unnescessarily strong!
As to safety, if used as instructed the Reversoģ is perfectly safe. Petzl give clear warnings about never letting go of the rope AND never allowing slack to build in the system, both of which should be normal practice for any climber using any type of belay device. Guide plates are no substitute for careful belaying nor are they intended to allow one to cook up dinner, read a magazine, rearrange ones medical support device or whatever!
|
|
et
climber
Bozeman, MT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2010 - 12:55pm PT
|
After a few emails and chat with Black Diamond, I have the following information:
When using the ATC Guide properly (belaying from above and with a rope diameter greater than or equal to 7.7 mm), the rope will NEVER slip past the brake end. However, they were unable to give out any testing data.
Jim ~
This statement contradicts your data, would you care to share the set-up of your tests?
FYI
I have not contacted Petzl as they are up front in their literature for the R3 that you need a 8.9 or larger rope for a single strand.
|
|
JimT
climber
Munich
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 01:43pm PT
|
Interesting, though I donīt quite get the bit about belaying from above.
The setup I used was a hyraulic cylinder pulling the end of the rope, with the plate attatched to a strain gauge and free to move. The rope end was not held in any way as we were testing how well the plates worked for roped soloing.
We first got the idea to test because doing something else I was hanging on a locked Reversoģ with an 8mm rope and jerked around a bit trying to get my foot in a prussik loop, this was enough to release the rope and drop me on the ground.
Perhaps BD would care to give us their test data?
|
|
et
climber
Bozeman, MT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2010 - 02:22pm PT
|
Jim ~
Belaying from above means, that you are belaying your partner (who is below) from the top of the climb.
Based on what you are saying about how you tested the device, however, it seems it does not make a difference if you are ascending a rope or belaying a partner - a kN is a kN.
It would be great if you contacted BD directly and see what they have to say. And I would say nothing about solo climbing - as that they do not advocate this use; and will focus on only that.
Cheers, Et
|
|
Al_T.Tude
Trad climber
Monterey, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 09:47pm PT
|
Petzl introduced the masses to plaquette type auto blocking belay devices with the Reverso. The Reverso 2 added ridges on the brake side to increase drag. Being able to bring up one second or two seconds up simultaneously autoblocked with a simple, inexpensive, lightweight device that also belays leaders on one or two ropes and allows for single or double strand rappelling was a great boon to recreational climbers.
>
Next, BD released the vastly superior and as yet unequalled ATC Guide. This did everything that the Reverso 2 did only better and additionally didn't turn into a rope slicing device as it wore.
>
Petzl responded with their copy of the Guide, The Reverso 3; superior to the Reverso (in most ways), but no match for the Guide. Similar devices such as the Kong Ghost have not improved the breed.
>
The R3, as mentioned previously, is not authorized to block one fallen follower while still protecting an ascending second follower. This takes it out of the running as a device of choice for me.
I have tried to release the weight of a fallen second by hooking the tip of a petzl biner in the release hole as instructed by the mfr and was unsucessful. Girth hitching a Mammut 8mm thin sling through the hole, clipping it through a directional and weighting it (which is not recommended by the mfr) did work.
>
If the hole were larger, one could clip any biner through it. I believe that the reason the release hole is too small to insert a biner through is to prevent accidentally rigging the device upside down resulting in a possible brake failure.
>
CAUTION:
When releasing from autoblock mode to lower a second it is IMPERATIVE that you back up the belay device with a munter hitch or similar device BEFORE you even begin to rig a release cord. When the device is cocked by the release cord, it goes from full lock to freefall instantly. It is an on/ off switch. Friction cannot be modulated with this cord. That is the purpose of the PRE-RIGGED munter. If you lose your balance and weight the release cord clipped to your harness or fashioned into a foot loop and it takes 2 seconds for you to regain your footing; your partner can be free falling at 40 MPH before you release the cord and allow the device to return to auto block mode. This is assuming that there is not a kink in the release cord that prevents this or that the rope has not melted by suddenly applying the brakes on a line racing through the device.
>
Of course, if bringing up 2 followers, tie off the second one before beginning this proceedure as their belay device will also be disabled
by this process.
>
The only limitation I am aware of the Guide posessing is that for ropes above 10mm diameter, it produces a lot of drag bringing up seconds. After a day of bringing up 2 friends on separate 10.5mm ropes on Royal Arches, you won't have the arm strength left for the requisite 12 oz wrist curls at the Ahwahnee lounge.
>
This is why in this situation I carry a Kong GiGi for brining up seconds and a BD ATC Guide or ATC XP for belaying a leader. The extra weight of 2 devices is massively offset by the lower drag on thick ropes. If you insist on going ultra light weight in this scenario you can go with just the GiGi. You will probably not be belaying a leader and if you needed to you could use the GiGi or a munter hitch.
>
The OP was using a plaquette as an ascender. I find this to be the device of choice for a non-dedicated ascending device. Picking from the devices on my standard free climbing rack, it locks effectively and releases and progresses easier and with less drag than any friction knot. It grabs like a prusik and releases with less effort than a bachman knot.
>
It cannot progress on a weighted line, so a friction hitch must be used above it for the second device when ascending a rope. I choose a snapheist (a kleimheist variant that uses a carabiner to facilitate easier release) for this purpose. Between the two it makes for very efficient ascending compared to other non-dedicated tools.
>
If rappelling with a Guide (in XP mode only) one can switch to ascending very simply:
Allow autoblock cord already clipped to your leg loop to lock rappel. Place snapheist (or similar device) on rope just above head level. Clip this loop into belay loop on harness as a backup. Insert a locking biner into "teacup" handle of the Guide and clip and lock it to the belay loop. Unclip the HMS biner from the belay loop and you are now in Guide Mode - just the way that you would bring up a second except that the device is inverted to serve as an ascender.
>
Attach a long sling(s) to the snapheist sling and stick your foot or feet through it. Remove auto block rappel back up cord that is wrapped around the rope below the Guide. Stand up on foot loop releasing tension on the Guide/ascender. Pull the slack line through the Guide. Sit down in your harness weighting the Guide and slide the snapheist up the rope.
Rinse and Repeat.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 10:10pm PT
|
yeah, arre we not supposed to use the mini traxion for that?
who wants to spank my grandmother?
|
|
Al_T.Tude
Trad climber
Monterey, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 10:46pm PT
|
<you were ascending a rope in autoblock mode? recipe for disaster! at least use a back up knot.>
>
From the instructions:
Place snapheist (or similar device) on rope just above head level. Clip this loop into belay loop on harness as a backup.
>
That would be the back up knot. Pretty difficult for this device to fail as an ascender, but if you require two back ups, tie in short to back up your snapheist back up.
>
These are instructions for the basic proceedure. If you wish to customize them in accordance with your own level of experience and skill and risk profile, feel free to do so. In fact that's what I did. This is not exactly how it was described to me. I played with it and modified the proceedure to fit myself. There are subtleties of execution that are not included here for the sake of brevity; such as how to execute the clipping and unclipping of teacup handle biner and HMS biner while fully weighting the system.
>
Any new proceedure should be fully tested and mastered by each practicioner in a low exposure environment before use in the field.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010 - 11:26pm PT
|
<ow exposure environment before use in the field...?
good advice, we have a 100 ft redwood out front that serves well as a test bed,
if something fails, it's just,
..bang...crunch...ouch....smack...break...thud...then,
wow, those branches are weird, someting must have gone wrong, i think i'll go smoke a bowl for the pain in the main membrane,
|
|
J. Werlin
Social climber
Cedaredge, CO
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2010 - 09:37am PT
|
any AMGA guys(gals) have the official company policy on this?
|
|
et
climber
Bozeman, MT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 16, 2010 - 10:17am PT
|
I am an AMGA guide and started this thread. To my knowledge, their is no policy.
I am in conversation with a friend who works for Rigging for Rescue. Mike Gibbs did some tests in 2009 but with rescue ropes: 9.8 to 11 mm. Here is a very interesting result:
One drop test "combined a 10mm Sterling HTP rope with the Petzl Reverso 3 plaquette device and 50 cm of slack in the system. The ropes passed each other in the slot of the Reverso 3 and the load [200 kg] went to the ground."
Despite this horrifying result, Rigging for Rescue seems to be saying that plaquette devices (R3, ATC Guide, etc.) are viable tools for "hands-free" rescue work. (Let it be known that they are not using a plaquette like a normal climbing situation, but as a back up to a Descent Control Device.)
In sum, my research so far is saying that the R3 is inferior to the ATC Guide because it clearly states that it only goes to 8.9 mm single ropes. The folks at BD told me that when using the ATC Guide properly (belaying from above and with a rope diameter greater than or equal to 7.7 mm), the rope will NEVER slip past the brake end.
I am still waiting to hear from JimT who posted contradictory results; and I will post more as I hear mor from RfR.
|
|
Derek
climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2010 - 10:20am PT
|
There is no "official AMGA" policy. AMGA standards are not protocol driven, instead placing the emphasis on application, defined as "using the right tool, in the right place, at the right time". Plaquette devices are just one tool. There are lots of times when using one make sense. There are certainly times when it doesn't. The Reverso 3 works as advertised. Apply it accordingly. Carry on....
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2010 - 10:45am PT
|
i think 99 percent of the people using the R3 will never use the autobrake thing.
i still would not hang anybody i like off that big hole in the R3.
it just looks weak, gut instinct.
and two people? forget it.
if it popped and you did not have backup, then all 3 people would hit the deck, only they wouldn't be running.
autobrake seems like a bells and whistles gadget to put it over the ATC.
so for normal rap and belay and normal rope sizes, there is no difference between using the R3 or any other device as far as safety is concerned, right?
|
|
J. Werlin
Social climber
Cedaredge, CO
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2010 - 11:31am PT
|
Thanks et, interesting stuff.
|
|
JimT
climber
Munich
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2010 - 01:52pm PT
|
Not quite sure what you want to hear from me, Iīve posted the test results I obtained (and the test method) and they are consistent with the results for a number of other guide plates as well.
Anyone can reproduce the tests by simply hanging a suitable weight or a couple of buddies on their guide plate, itīs not rocket science.
Or hook the rope up to your car and see if the rope "never" slips past.
I have no intention of contacting BD about their guide plate, it is their product and for them to give recommendations for use and the limitations. If they would care to put in writing that the rope will never slip then it looks like I have 3 warranty claims to make as the three I possess DO slip. That said, I have no intention of ever using a guide plate anyway (I use a ATC XP and a Grigri)!
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2010 - 03:05pm PT
|
I bought a Reverso cause I thought it looked cool and I liked the color. I don't guide and know how to get myself up a rope if need be. I keep my brake hand on the rope.
Based on the foregoing, is there anything I need to worry about?
|
|
| Messages 1 - 57 of total 57 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
effective braking on half and twin ropes ≥ 7.5 mm
Let us know!