|
notapplicable
Mar 28, 2010, 11:42 PM
Post #326 of 360
(10137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
jt512 wrote: whipper wrote: Why do people love using their guides in guide mode... Because it has the word "guide" in it. Jay
I'm thinking the "guide" function may serve as a (possibly subconscious) security blanket for many new climbers as well. When belaying off your harness you are literally holding the climbers life in your hands (quite the heady notion), in "guide" mode that burden is transferred to the belay device, literally and perhaps psychologically. Even if you get distracted or make a mistake, the "guide" will catch the climber for you.
Shared responsibility can be a comforting thing.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Mar 29, 2010, 1:13 AM
Post #327 of 360
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Ha, I seem to be part of this argument without ever having posted here. Frankly, I'm not as adamant as some of you. I do think autoblock belaying off the anchor is less than ideal, but I've also climbed with a number of people who do it and will certainly continue to do so.
As a second, I dislike those belays for all the reasons Jay says. Folks here say they can pay out slack, but this is not my experience with quite a few different belayers, all of them experienced users of autolock devices. I'd say that maybe half the time when I step down, I end up partially hanging, and if the rope happens to diagonal off to the side a bit or run out over a roof just above, I'm fighting not to be pulled off. Once this happens, the device is partially locked, and when I scream for slack, it is, as often as not, very slow in coming. Although these unpleasant experiences can be prevented by attentiveness by the belayer (and proper set-up of the device ahead of time), the fact that they are eating, drinking, re-racking, and tweezing their eyebrows means that the required attention may not be available.
My guess is that many people are like me and aren't going to bawl out the belayer for a rotten belay when we get to the stance. Climbing has its discomforts, and people who make a fuss over them make the whole experience unpleasant. I just grab the rack and carry on, and I'm sure I'm not alone. The result is that there are a lot of people out there giving rotten belays with autoblock who don't even realize it, and yes, that includes some of you who claim you can do it with no problem.
Add to this that hanging on the rope has become a perfectly ordinary way to climb a pitch, and that there are many people who learn from guides who, for their own good reasons, want to keep the rope tight, and there may be a whole generation of climbers who think of being short-roped while seconding as a normal part of the experience. Indeed, considering the popularity of the guide devices, I suspect that being short-roped while seconding is likely to become the norm, and complaints like these will be dismissed as the the absurd pickiness of an older generation. I've heard a thing or two that suggests we might already be there.
I have a Reverso 3 and have at least tried it out in autoblock mode (for a total of perhaps twenty times plus some testing at home). I'm pretty convinced of its locking ability (I did some moderate drop tests with a not-new 8.5mm rope) and am not overly concerned about the concept of hands-free belaying, except for the inattentiveness mentioned above that invariably goes with it. The fact is that you never actually have to drop the rope, your sandwich can be consumed and pictures shot with the rope still in your hands, which are then available for backing up the autoblock if, for some reason, it doesn't work as advertised. Of course, this might involve dropping your sandwich, a prospect that might pose a considerable dilemma for some. Presumably, the camera is on a leash.
One thing I learned right away is that you will, in general, stumble when trying to pay out slack if you don't have your device already rigged for releasing. In the case of the Reverso 3, I'm able to clip a quick draw (made up with small ultra-light biners) into the release hole as soon as the belay is set up and can yank up on it at a moment's notice to pay out slack. The BD ATC-Guide has a smaller hole and should, in my opinion, be equipped with a small loop of cord so that a draw or biner can be clipped to it as well. Using a nut tool or wedged biner as a lever is not going to be effective during ordinary belay motions, and might result in dropping whatever you are levering with.
Another drawback of the autolocker on the anchor is that it can be fairly tiring to haul the rope through it. I know some guides with medial epicondylitis (golfer's elbow) who are convinced they got it from belaying this way. I just found it to be tiring in some cases, and didn't appreciate getting pumped while supposedly recovering from my leading efforts. A corollary to this is my inability to keep up with someone moving fast, a particularly unfortunate side-effect considering speed is one of the reasons for using autolockers. I might add that these problems can occur with a redirected belay as well, and could be attributed to my inexperience with the device. However, my more experienced partners can't keep up with me either when I'm moving fast (and at nearLY 67, my fast is (sob) pretty damn slow), so I think the observation is generally valid.
Then there is the issue of device idiosyncracies. Autolocking for a second rope is disabled when the first rope is loaded. The fact that autolockers are promoted both for handling two climbers and for going hands-free means that there is a perhaps rare but critical time when a hands-free approach could be quite dangerous when there are two followers. Autolocking may also be disabled if the rope going to the follower runs off the side of the belay. One supposes the autolock wouldn't be used in that circumstance, but if a directional blows, unanticipated diagonal loading could result. Better not be enjoying the hands-free experience when that happens.
Finally, there is the issue of lowering. It is beyond contention that there can be a sudden and very substantial loss of friction if you have to pull hard on the device to unlock it, and if this does happen the correct reactions are not necessarily the natural ones. But the worst effects of this situation are easily avoided by first clipping the brake strand to a higher biner, in which case the tilted device behaves like an ordinary ATC. This precaution takes no time and should, in my opinion, be standard operating procedure.
Personally, except for special types of climbs, I don't like belaying with an autolocker on the anchor, although I do it for practice. I almost never redirect, which seems to me to have almost no advantages. But I don't really belay off my harness either. I make my tie-in snug (clovehitchology makes this almost immediate) and clip my belay device into my tie-in knot(s), not the belay loop on the harness. Any load imposed on the device goes straight to the anchor (with no force multiplication and a bit of energy absorbtion from the tie-in strand), so you can hang all day without causing me any discomfort, and can be lowered with ease at any time. My belay motions are those of the harness or hip belayer, and at least for me they are far quicker and more responsive to what the follower is doing. I have no problem belaying two seconds this way and keeping up with their relative motions, even when these are in opposite directions.
Drawbacks: if one of a pair of followers falls and is hanging, it is very hard to take in any rope for the other, so I wouldn't try this with two rank beginners. And of course, hands-free belaying is not an option, a fact that has not prevented my from fairly effective one-handed deployment of my point-and-shoot. Eyebrow-tweezing seems to be out of the question.
The posture required for the classical belaying style is not as comfortable as the casual standing position one uses belaying off the anchor. Sometimes, my back aches from leaning over to draw in rope, and I start wishing I had set up the autolocker instead.
Belay escape is marginally more difficult but is a vastly overblown consideration, so rare that I don't believe it need ever trump more immediate considerations. But if you really think belay escape matters, then the redirected belay may be a better approach than an autolocker on the anchor.
Z-hauling on a rock pitch is, as far as I can tell, frequently completely ineffective with just carabiners. With the added friction through an autolocker, there might well be no mechanical advantage left at all. Counting on this to get you out of a jam is as likely to get you in much deeper as it is to get you out.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 29, 2010, 1:23 AM
Post #328 of 360
(10091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Fantastic post RGOLD!
Glad you posted and cleared up your view after the previous contextless quoting of yourself.
Despite that I am nominally on the other side of the fence to you in this discussion, I agree with pretty much everthing you said. I too almost never redirect and employ the same method as you for my belays when I am not using the autoblock.
With regard to effort of belaying with autoblock I find that friction is massively reduced when using a large radius biner. (original reverso) This makes life much easier and makes Z-dragging quite doable. (I have done this myself and found the friction to be low)
(This post was edited by patto on Mar 29, 2010, 1:36 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Mar 29, 2010, 1:41 AM
Post #329 of 360
(10070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
Thanks for chiming in. Your post nicely unpacks some of the assumptions being made here, including both sides of the argument relating to belaying on Guides.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 29, 2010, 1:54 AM
Post #330 of 360
(10057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: Fantastic post RGOLD! Glad you posted and cleared up your view after the previous contextless quoting of yourself.
"Contextlessness" seems to be the excuse du jour. In fact, every time Rich was quoted in this thread, his post was quoted in its entirety (though there was a minor cheesetit originally).
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Mar 29, 2010, 2:14 AM
Post #331 of 360
(10043 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
As Jay says, the posted quote was complete and so not lacking in context. If my present comment somehow disagrees with the original quote, and I don't think that it does, then it may be because I do not always agree with myself.
Although I prefer to think that this is because my positions at least sometimes moderate in the light of contrary evidence, it is just as likely that the effects of creeping senility are at work.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 29, 2010, 2:25 AM
Post #332 of 360
(10033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
rgold wrote: As Jay says, the posted quote was complete and so not lacking in context. If my present comment somehow disagrees with the original quote, and I don't think that it does, then it may be because I do not always agree with myself. Although I prefer to think that this is because my positions at least sometimes moderate in the light of contrary evidence, it is just as likely that the effects of creeping senility are at work.
Fair enough. Either way I can accept your last post quite happily. I found the previous quote more disagreeable.
That said I think I have said enough. I will plan to continue to climb safely and use autoblocking plates.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Mar 29, 2010, 8:52 AM
Post #333 of 360
(9975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
A fine thread in the best traditions of internet forums, since everyone else is having fun here´s my 2 cents worth.
In 42 years of climbing in Europe (and living by the Alps) I´ve never seen a guide use a guide plate. HMS all the way.
I fully agree with JT´s sentiments, I want contact with my second through the rope, I want to be able to smile as he fumbles on the bit I cruised and be pissed off as he climbs past the bit I struggled on without slowing. Climbing is a partner activity and as I am not a guide I don´t just winch clients up the cliff but live my partners experience.
And the techy stuff:-
We,ve tested most of the guide plates for braking power, feeding and lowering. These were both "feel" tests (climber/climber) and instrumented pull tests.
Braking power- with thin ropes you are getting petty close to the ropes swapping through and the climber being dropped, there are rope diameter recommendations for the Reverso³ (which is more sensitive to this than others) and for very good reason. With any reasonable rope diameter AND taking care not to leave any slack swapping through is not an issue and the braking power is adequate. Failing to keep the slack to a minimum (while putting your jacket on for example) is asking for trouble.
Feeding (taking in slack)- some plates took considerably more effort than others, the classic GiGi type being better than the more modern generation. Of the newer models the ease of feeding is almost directly related to the holding power We thought generally that it required too much effort particularly in comparison with an HMS. With larger single ropes the effort becomes unacceptable.
Lowering- After the first lowering test we changed to using a back-up safety line, hitting the concrete was not fun! The lowering climber was a 85kg carpenter with 40 years experience climbing of above average strength and an instructors qualification. The weight was a fat, 95kg climber of above average curiosity (me).
To achieve enough force on the lowering sling/karabiner we had to adjust the anchor point lower than desirable for taking in, anything above hip height was unrealistically difficult and the optimum height for taking in seemed at odds with the optimum height for lowering. Controlling the braking strand while applying enough force to release seemed very difficult to coordinate as with one arm you are trying to apply a considerable force while the other is trying to apply a controlled hand pressure.
With +10mm rope it was impossible to release.
My wife was unable to release me with any rope diameter.
We did a measured test on this but considered that the force required was too high anyway, having to exert 40kg force upwards in a optimised set-up is one thing, on the rock another.
The difficulty of controlling the release (if you manage to release, that is) without re-directing the rope was obvious and is easily explained. The dead rope (braking hand) is trapped by the live rope and the friction between these two provides most of the braking power as the static coefficient of friction between nylon and nylon is nearly double that of nylon/aluminium. When the plate tilts the pressure is removed andyou move into a nylon/aluminium regime, the frictional force immediately drops to slightly less than than half and you plummet groundwards until the lowerer releases the plate. Smooth this is not! Holding the braking strand upwards means it is forced against the other strand and the abrupt transition between the two coefficients is reduced.
Releasing by using a double purchase with a sling on the braking karabiner was easier but the inherent friction in the sling meant control was even worse as the braking karabiner was reluctant to move back into the braking position.
Our personal opinion was that with enough practice, an optimised set-up and within a certain weight/strength relationship the system works but is fundamentally a worthless idea. I posses 8 of these things and would never use them in any situation where there is the remotest possibility lowering may be required.
Apropos speed, an HMS (or two) is faster to set up and requires no change to be used for leading through. If not leading through then all that is required is to lock it as a Munter mule, this is what guides do. If you are getting twists in the rope you should re-examine your technique.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 29, 2010, 9:09 AM
Post #334 of 360
(9973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
JimTitt wrote: A fine thread in the best traditions of internet forums, since everyone else is having fun here´s my 2 cents worth.
For my 3rd cents worth it seems you failed to correctly use the device and then blamed the device for your failings.
Most of the flaws you pointed out are due to your incorrect usuage.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Mar 29, 2010, 9:35 AM
Post #335 of 360
(9970 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
Interesting, I didn´t see you there!
All the tests were exactly to the manufacturers instructions except we also used rope diameters beyond their recommendations as a way of analysing the performance.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 29, 2010, 10:45 AM
Post #336 of 360
(9958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
JimTitt wrote: Interesting, I didn´t see you there! All the tests were exactly to the manufacturers instructions except we also used rope diameters beyond their recommendations as a way of analysing the performance.
Well considering that I and many many others do not experience any of the problems you did maybe you should consider that maybe you weren't doing things correctly.
When I rig the device it feeds very smoothly and lowering is predictable and not jerky. Know your equipment, it sounds like you don't.
(This post was edited by patto on Mar 29, 2010, 10:47 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Mar 29, 2010, 10:50 AM
Post #337 of 360
(9954 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
If you say so, I know nothing about climbing equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 29, 2010, 11:37 AM
Post #338 of 360
(9945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
JimTitt wrote: If you say so, I know nothing about climbing equipment.
I am basing my comments on the evidence available. Your comments. They contain numerous inaccuracies and the methods described suggest you didn't know what you were doing.
Most of these inaccuracies have been discussed earlier in the thread so I don't wish to go into great detail. (Suffice to say if you lock off the brake strand and then fully realease the autoblock using your body weight then you can have two hands on the brake side and easy smooth lowering with plenty of friction.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
danabart
Mar 29, 2010, 12:48 PM
Post #340 of 360
(9924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2004
Posts: 159
|
Oh yeah, and keeping your hand perpetually on an autolocking belay device while you belay a second (as you claimed you would do if you had one) is stupid and superfluous. Look how it worked for the dude in the accident. You don't need to do it. That's the point.
If I found out that someone belaying me had taken the brake hand off the rope for anything less than a life threatening emergency, I would kill that person with my bare hands. Take your brake hand off, you are an idiot; there is no other explanation
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 29, 2010, 12:49 PM
Post #341 of 360
(9921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Nice post, as usual. IMHO, I think both sides might be overstating the benefits and drawbacks, but me being a curious person, I think I will do some experimenting this year. I am going to try to belay equally off the anchor and with redirect and take some notes.
One last point I will make, though, regarding using an autoblock. A point was made that it often allows the belayer to get into a more comfortable position. I don't think this is a selfish thing (yes, Jay, that still stings  ). If you are doing a lot of pitches while cragging or on a long multipitch route, things like being uncomfortable at each belay start to add up and take it's toll. Just sayin'.
If I actually follow through and take some notes, maybe I will post up next year and we can start this discussion ALL over again.
Josh
(This post was edited by blueeyedclimber on Mar 29, 2010, 12:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Mar 29, 2010, 12:51 PM
Post #342 of 360
(9918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
As I posted above. "All the tests were exactly to the manufacturers instructions".
The method you describe is specific to one manufacturer, prohibited by another, wouldn´t work on another device and not the method described on two others. 3 others came with no instructions on how to lower and this is not mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 29, 2010, 3:14 PM
Post #344 of 360
(9854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
JimTitt wrote: As I posted above. "All the tests were exactly to the manufacturers instructions". The method you describe is specific to one manufacturer, prohibited by another, wouldn´t work on another device and not the method described on two others. 3 others came with no instructions on how to lower and this is not mentioned.
Jim (and Patto),
I once participated in a self rescue clinic. This was when the original Reverso first came out, and was all the rage. I discovered something quite remarkable.
Several small women were using the device. All of them had great difficulty unblocking it with their climber hanging on the rope. A redirect of the sling through the anchor was not sufficient for all of them.
In particular, I recall one very slight woman (perhaps 105 lbs) with a very beefy partner (perhaps 190 lbs). She tried first to unblock the device by redirecting a sling through the anchor, clipping it to her belay loop and sitting down. Nothing. Next, she tried the three-to-one she'd learned. Only instead of sitting, she extended the sling and jumped up and down in it. Again, no luck. How nice for the instructor - an opportunity to teach the five-to-one! In the end, it took a five-to-one, with a little help from the weight of one of the instructors, before she could adequately unblock the device.
I suspect she never used that auto-block mode again!
Perhaps some here will say that the issue was specific to the first generation Reverso? I really can't say one way or the other. Jim, which device was your wife using when she was unable to unblock it? And to what extremes did she go to try to do so?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 29, 2010, 4:57 PM
Post #345 of 360
(9822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: Jim, which device was your wife using when she was unable to unblock it? And to what extremes did she go to try to do so?
More importantly, to what extreme should a belayer have to go to lower her partner? To my way of thinking: none.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Mar 29, 2010, 5:26 PM
Post #346 of 360
(9797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
My wife failed on all of the devices but that´s a function of the weight difference I guess, she´s 132lbs and I´m 213. On the Reverso³ we needed a force on the karabiner of nearly 40kgs to release ( that´s where a strong lad came in, not the wife!) and with a really battered 10,5 we never achieved release at all on any of the plates.
We didn´t test an original Reverso as they are no longer marketed though looking at the geometry I doubt it would be much different.
There is one device on the market which lowers by rocking the karabiner, best is with an HMS with flat sides. Lowering is however a bit of a misnomer, you drop the climber in small steps but I guess this is o.k. (as long as I´m not anywhere near this when its happening.
Compared with the alternatives (HMS, GriGri etc) we thought the whole business of guide plates and lowering was a bit too catastrophic for our tastes and in fact this project has been put on ice by the company we are working for. The opinion is that the guide plate marketing bubble has probably achieved its maximum size and incidents such as the one starting this thread will move sales away from guide plates and back to normal ones (this was put another way however, something on the lines of "they´re useless and now every beginners bought one anyway").
Our next three toys are the bees knees though, hopefully we will be contenders for another industry innovation award in September.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 29, 2010, 5:38 PM
Post #347 of 360
(9789 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
JimTitt wrote: The opinion is that the guide plate marketing bubble has probably achieved its maximum size and incidents such as the one starting this thread will move sales away from guide plates and back to normal ones (this was put another way however, something on the lines of "they´re useless and now every beginners bought one anyway").
Classic!
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Mar 29, 2010, 5:59 PM
Post #348 of 360
(9774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
I´ll bet you´ve got the odd fig. 8 in the basement gathering dust, we managed to sell them even though sticht plates were available and better. And the industry still sell "starter sets" with a fig.8 included, they are big, shiny, cheap and "proper" climbers use them.
In fact we ought to start a thread about this, one of those "most useless kitchen appliance everyone has in their cellar" type things.
I can start with a ring you tied into the bottom of the rope to stop you abseiling off the end (some Italian company made that one).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 29, 2010, 6:26 PM
Post #349 of 360
(9753 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
JimTitt wrote: I´ll bet you´ve got the odd fig. 8 in the basement gathering dust, we managed to sell them even though sticht plates were available and better. And the industry still sell "starter sets" with a fig.8 included, they are big, shiny, cheap and "proper" climbers use them.
I actually threw my figure 8 away years ago. I couldn't even justify the space it took up collecting dust. I still see n00bs walking around with them hanging from their harnesses, though.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Mar 29, 2010, 6:33 PM
Post #350 of 360
(9739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
JimTitt wrote: I´ll bet you´ve got the odd fig. 8 in the basement gathering dust, we managed to sell them even though sticht plates were available and better. And the industry still sell "starter sets" with a fig.8 included, they are big, shiny, cheap and "proper" climbers use them. In fact we ought to start a thread about this, one of those "most useless kitchen appliance everyone has in their cellar" type things. I can start with a ring you tied into the bottom of the rope to stop you abseiling off the end (some Italian company made that one).
Hexes... 
I use an autoblock, and I love it. Everyone can bag on it all they want, but when used judiciously it's a great tool to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
