Releasing from Loaded Guide Mode: Reliable Techniques?

David Kerkeslager wrote:

In the documentary Valley Uprising, there's a bit where some 70s climbers climbed big walls on LSD. I guess maybe they were so good at climbing they never needed to be lowered?

EDIT: This page says it was Jim Bridwell, although the reliability of that source is questionable since they spelled his name "Birdwell".

You children may find this shocking, but us geriatrics who were young in the 60's and 70's ARE the sex, drugs and rock n roll generation. Although my personal preference was only two of the three.... 

;-) OLH

Old lady H wrote:

You children may find this shocking, but us geriatrics who were young in the 60's and 70's ARE the sex, drugs and rock n roll generation. Although my personal preference was only two of the three.... 

;-) OLH

That doesn't shock me at all. Although I am shocked that you don't like rock n roll. :P

Bill Lawry wrote:

Below is a video of the failure with one strand (8.9mm) with technique D.0 - flip device into normal friction mode while loaded.  Hopefully it comes across.  Note that this is not a catastrophic failure.  It is just a failure that ups the ante for quickly lowering a second a long-ish distance.  

http://www.cs.unm.edu/~bill/stuff/guide_mode_fail.mov

For pulling the eyelet, a 7mm cord redirected from above, with a second person weighting that.  And the brake strand was redirected to a munter on the belay loop.  

It was really easy to get this to occur.  Allowing some tension on the redirected brake strand helps - but not an unrealistic amount. Some tension is prudent. Edit: or maybe any tension is no bueno.

I could not get this to occur with two strands and one person's weight split between the two strands.  But if I had two seconds with one weighting a strand and the other not, I think it reasonable that this would occur.   Soberingly, for a threesome, double 8.9mm are my go-to pair doubles.

Thanks for the video, that helped with the visualization. My thought on this is that when you redirected the belay strand if you run it down through the v-notch of the ATC Guide, and then up to an anchor point higher and to the wire side of the device, it should prevent this problem from happening. Like you said, it's not a catastrophic failure since the blocking biner can't rotate freely due to the keeper wire, but it is the precursor to that failure mode.

Yo Bill! Thanks for the quick vid....I use the Edelrid Swifts often, too--awesome rope, but indeed, they are skinny when used singly in a Reverso/ATC Guide....

Why do you have the brake strand redirected upwards? Maybe I'm missing something. Sorry...my buddy Andy missed the LSD reference and I may have missed the reason for redirecting the brake strand. 

Hansen--you good to snag some pitches tonight on mushrooms? Angel Dust? Whatever works, brudda, you're a slayer and I'm ready to party. Oh yeah!

Anytime I get a chance to get Rob out of the house and take illicit substances and climb a few 5.11x pitches is a good day. 

aikibujin wrote:

My thought on this is that when you redirected the belay strand if you run it down through the v-notch of the ATC Guide, and then up to an anchor point higher and to the wire side of the device, it should prevent this problem from happening.

Ahhh ... that is a great tip.

coppolillo wrote:

Why do you have the brake strand redirected upwards?

It is part of a sequence that some advocate for switching out of guide mode into using the device in normal friction mode (plate?) for lowering.

Bill Lawry wrote:

It is part of a sequence that some advocate for switching out of good mode into using the device in normal friction mode (plate?) for lowering.

Maybe I'm not seeing it correctly in that video, but why isn't the brake strand redirected behind the device, so that it runs over the teeth of the belay device?

Pavel Burov wrote:

Releasing from loaded guide mode:

Pavel:  Thanks.  I added your suggestion to H) replace device with munter using temporary load transfer to release;

 Can you clarify Note 2 below? Do you just mean that something else is needed to protect your partner besides the hitch of the technical ledge?

Note 2. Do not forget about why knot if forming the technical ledge using a cordalette.

FrankPS wrote:

Maybe I'm not seeing it correctly in that video, but why isn't the brake strand redirected behind the device, so that it runs over the teeth of the belay device?

Yep - aikibujin noticed that as well. Glad you guys pointed that out.

coppolillo wrote:

..I use the Edelrid Swifts often, too--awesome rope, but indeed, they are skinny when used singly in a Reverso/ATC Guide....

Good eye!

Have used much fatter ropes in ATC Guide for two followers. Can be a real energy drain just bringing two fast followers up with the added friction.

Bill Lawry wrote:

Can you clarify Note 2 below?

Sometimes it is hard to release a friction hitch. Why knot is an overhand tied as close to the friction hitch as possible so one has an option to clip a binner in between the friction hitch and the why not to loosen the former.

Eight pages - about right I guess. Best advice? Don't use guide mode; belaying off the anchor totally sucks balls.

Healyje wrote:

Eight pages - about right I guess. Best advice? Don't use guide mode; belaying off the anchor totally sucks balls.

This.

Guide mode belay is good when you know your partner(s) will make it to the chains. When in doubt use a belay technique allowing efficient transfer to resque mode (e.g. Grigri or Munter hitch from the anchor or redirected belay from the harness, etc). Unloading locked plate (especially when you have two followers) is too much pain in the arse.

Healyje wrote:

Eight pages - about right I guess. Best advice? Don't use guide mode; belaying off the anchor totally sucks balls.

I´ll go for that as well as a generalisation (I belay off the anchor with a Munter on the odd occasion on easier Alpine style routes.)

Only reason I belay off the anchor in guide mode is with two concurrently climbing followers .... for climb efficiency on longish routes ... and assuming no lower while weighted.

I would go to something else that still allows different climb rates for the two climbers with reasonable and efficient belay mechanics. Is there something else?

Or, I suppose the other answer is just don't do that with a threesome. :-)

The idea that you need a guide plate to belay two simultaneous followers is one of several belaying myths.  As you probably already know, I almost always belay two followers off a rope-loop harness belay.  Ordinary device or assisted-locking device clipped to rope loop with tie-in tensioned so that the load goes straight to the anchor.  This eliminates the strain of hauling two ropes through a guide plate and it is considerably easier to keep up with people who are moving rapidly.  Lowering is a snap (*),  and I nine times of ten  my second will be down before the guideplate user has finished the complicated rigging discussed above.

(*) Well, okay, there is one situation (I've never had to deal with in the field) that requires some faffery, and that is lowering one climber while both are fully hanging.  But I think the guide plates (except for the Gigi's) have the same issue.

rgold wrote:

This eliminates the strain of hauling two ropes through a guide plate and it is considerably easier to keep up with people who are moving rapidly.  Lowering is a snap (*),  and I nine times of ten  my second will be down before the guideplate user has finished the complicated rigging discussed above.

Rich, I respect your years and years of climbing experience, so my question simply come from my curiosity: when you belay two followers who climb at different speeds (in my experience that’s majority of the time), do you still find belaying directly from your harness easier? Have you held two falling followers at the same time (I know you transfer their weight to the anchor with the tie-in loop, but you still need to hold the brake strand)? When you lower, do you lower both at the same time?

Climbing in threesomes also entirely sucks, regardless of whether they second one at a time or simultaneously.

aikibujin wrote:

Rich, I respect your years and years of climbing experience, so my question simply come from my curiosity: when you belay two followers who climb at different speeds (in my experience that’s majority of the time), do you still find belaying directly from your harness easier? Have you held two falling followers at the same time (I know you transfer their weight to the anchor with the tie-in loop, but you still need to hold the brake strand)? When you lower, do you lower both at the same time?

It is absolutely easier to belay two followers who are climbing at different speeds.  And if one is climbing up and the other is backing down, it is exponentially easier.  Plus I can keep up when one person is climbing very fast, and in my experience a guide-mode belayer cannot.  

I have never in a real situation held two falling followers, but have done so in a practice set-up (as in "hey guys, how 'bout bothing jumping off now?), but in that situation I was using an assisted locker (CT Alpine Up) and had no trouble with it.  If I was using an ATC style device I'd belay with two carabiners to add some friction.  This would involve the same level of control as a tandem rappel, which I have practiced with an ATC and so know that I can handle.

I conceded that lowering could be tricky if both followers are hanging but only one needs to be lowered.  In that (unusual) situation, I'd put an autoblock on the non-lowering follower's strand and back it up above the device with a catastophe knot.  If one of the followers can maintain their position without weighting the rope, then lowering the other follower is not problematic.