Wild country REVO

Noah Yetter wrote:Cams have replaceable parts, why can't a belay device? Think for 60 seconds and you can conjure up a dozen other very dangerous, highly liability-prone things that can be disassembled, reassembled, and serviced by the owner. Cars, guns, major appliances, etc etc etc...

A broken trigger wire will never make a cam fail, also cars have to pass a regular safety inspection same as the gun there is no real way to make it horrifically fail (tire pressure and blocked barrel would be the only catastrophic failures i could think of). If grigri lacks any parts it's a catastrophic failure that would result in death.

Noah Yetter wrote:Cams have replaceable parts, why can't a belay device? Think for 60 seconds and you can conjure up a dozen other very dangerous, highly liability-prone things that can be disassembled, reassembled, and serviced by the owner. Cars, guns, major appliances, etc etc etc...

Mostly because those aren't life saving devices. I can't think of an example of a device meant solely to prevent damage to life limb that is supposed to be user serviceable.

More importantly, unless the service is simple I wouldn't trust it. And no company wants a bad reputation. The second there was an accident because someone screwed up the service, is the second you can't trust any's device unless you know it's history. Who would want that?

Anna Paxton wrote:Hi, I had the chance to test the new #REVO belay device at the product launch today. Not sure if this link will work but you can read a write up on my blog wp.me/p5f31F-if or alpsoutdoorslife.com Hope it's useful! Anna

In Anna's blog she wrote, "A belayer should never let go of the rope, but many climbing accidents are caused that way, and the Revo eliminates that risk."

I think it's safe to subdivide dropped leader accidents into two groups: Those that were caused by the belayer being incapacitated, and those that were the result of belayer negligence.

While not an authority on climbing accidents, I'm quite sure the former group is a small fraction of all dropped leader accidents. The danger of rockfall knocking out the belayer might be enough to justify using an autolocking device. (There are certainly other reasons to use one, e.g. sport climbing.)

However, the issue of belayer negligence transcends technology and perhaps should be addressed through education. Perhaps not; if a person simply can't wrap his head around the fundamental mechanics of roped climbing he's bound to cause an accident despite education, and for that that matter, technological advances in climbing gear.

gjmike wrote: However, the issue of belayer negligence transcends technology and perhaps should be addressed through education. Perhaps not; if a person simply can't wrap his head around the fundamental mechanics of roped climbing he's bound to cause an accident despite education, and for that that matter, technological advances in climbing gear.

I don't disagree with you, but the reality is you can't educate everyone. People have been making the same argument against gun control for decades. Where is this "education and responsibility" that's supposed to have eliminated those accidents?

The truth is you can't stop them climbing, and you can't stop them belaying people (although you may be able to stop them from belaying YOU). If a device CAN prevent it, I'd prefer those people use it, rather than not.

Brian, you make a good point, one that can be extended to driving cars, riding bikes, even plugging in a lamp. And I applaud Wild Country for making awesome climbing gear! But the quest to make climbing safe and accessible for everyone regardless of mental competence will result in even more incompetent people believing they are perfectly safe.

The logical extension of this must be bolts every five feet on every route, mandatory helmet laws, railings on steep approaches, blah blah. I know this is hyperbole but what if climbing was still regarded as an activity that should be practiced only by mentally sharp people?

I have seen the grigri 2 defeated when a belayer grabs the rope in front of the device during a fall. I wonder if this device suffers that same issue?

djh860 wrote:I have seen the grigri 2 defeated when a belayer grabs the rope in front of the device during a fall. I wonder if this device suffers that same issue?

Yes grabbing the rope infront of the GriGri will defeat the auto locking but ONLY if you also let go of the brake.

Put a GriGri on your belay loop. Hold the brake strand normally and have someone pull the other end of the rope slowly out of the device. It will lock up.

djh860 wrote:I have seen the grigri 2 defeated when a belayer grabs the rope in front of the device during a fall. I wonder if this device suffers that same issue?

Device incorporates centrifugal trigger - once pulley goes over certain RPMs, trigger pops-out, device locks up. If climber's end is being held and is slipping through holding hand nothing should happen until pulley is rotating fast enough, then it will lock up.

I can tell you from personal experience (R&I weekend whipper, I was dropped via Grigri) that when your belayer tries to hold the rope, it will burn their hand and they will let go. In other words at the point of burnt hands, this device will lock. The device seems actually quite simple, it uses a inertia lock system like a car seat belt. Certain things have to happen for it activate obviously. As far as feeding slack, how fast you can pull before it locks,,, I think that remains to be seen.

New video that I don't think has been posted. It's in the article:

thebmc.co.uk/outdoor-climbi…

The more I see this device, the more I like it - from an engineering perspective.

Forgive my ignorance, but maybe someone who understands the device better can clear this up for me.

It looks like to disengage the lock, you pull the rope to the regular brake position. Does this mean that if the rope is already held in the brake position, the auto lock will not engage? It seems like it wouldn't need to, but I'm wondering if it would.

Personally, I'm much more interested in this than the new Grigri, but I'd need to see how it handles feeding slack quickly and lowering first. Looks very promising.

SarahfG wrote:Does this mean that if the rope is already held in the brake position, the auto lock will not engage? It seems like it wouldn't need to, but I'm wondering if it would.

It is a bit difficult to guess how the device will perform in real life situations. My interpretation is the following - the only way to make autolock engage is to let the rope slip quickly through the device - quick enough rotation of central core/spindle will cause the trigger to pop out. If the rope is moving slowly or not moving at all, autolock should not engage.

SarahfG wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but maybe someone who understands the device better can clear this up for me. It looks like to disengage the lock, you pull the rope to the regular brake position. Does this mean that if the rope is already held in the brake position, the auto lock will not engage? It seems like it wouldn't need to, but I'm wondering if it would. Personally, I'm much more interested in this than the new Grigri, but I'd need to see how it handles feeding slack quickly and lowering first. Looks very promising.

Watch the video loafcrimp posted above. He shows what happens if the trigger is held down (same as holding the rope in the locked position). The device still locks.

In order to unlock, the trigger has to move up, then back down, but the device can lock with the trigger still in the down position.\

But you're right, just like with a tube, if you're holding the rope securely in the locked position, it looks like it should brake without the autolock engaging anyway, unless there was significant rope slippage to engage the centrifugal trigger.

youtube.com/watch?v=MtVTTTH…

I'm getting one just as soon as they're available.

The more and more i look at this device the more and more i think it will only be useful for soloing, the assisted breaking is nice for catching falls though seems to give no locking ability when your partners hanging on the rope while working his way up.

that guy named seb wrote:The more and more i look at this device the more and more i think it will only be useful for soloing, the assisted breaking is nice for catching falls though seems to give no locking ability when your partners hanging on the rope while working his way up.

That's what your brake hand is for.

Brian L. wrote: That's what your brake hand is for.

clearly you have never belayed someone who rests on every single bolt for about 5 minutes at a time, things get boring really fast after the second bolt.

Lol, you are ridiculous. Yeah, this will be used for solo only because of the insignificant use case you describe. Right.

Anyway, don't put people in that situation consistantly if you don't want to deal with it.

Climb easier routes
Don't climb with those people
Have them toprope the route