Lead-belaying on a thin rope without a special device ?

FosterK wrote:

...rope running through unprotected hands has been identified as a factor in a number of accident...

Unprotected hands isn't the issue; allowing the rope to run is. Don't let let it run, ever.

Erroneous Publicus wrote:

Pretty much all paired skinny ropes nowadays are rated as both doubles and twins, so clip them however you like.

You're right.  Lots of them are.  But not all of them are.  I use a pair of Beal Icelines (8.1) for example and they are not rated as twins.  Therefore I try not to use them as twins.  Is it okay? Yeah sure it is.  Ideal? Probably not.  The Beal Gully's are rated for both though and, as the OP stated, he isn't really belaying with it anyways so using it either way is 100% alright.

Healyje wrote:

Unprotected hands isn't the issue; allowing the rope to run is. Don't let let it run, ever.

All belay devices & methods have forces at which the rope will run (or alternatively, be destroyed), some of which may be exceeded in a typical or substantial leader fall. An Italian hitch on small diameter rope is an example. You can't stop the rope from running if you can't hold on to it - gloves are key in allowing you to slow and stop a running rope without injury. 

FosterK wrote:

All belay devices & methods have forces at which the rope will run (or alternatively, be destroyed), some of which may be exceeded in a typical or substantial leader fall. An Italian hitch on small diameter rope is an example. You can't stop the rope from running if you can't hold on to it - gloves are key in allowing you to slow and stop a running rope without injury. 

Forty-three years and I've never had a rope 'run' on me even inches. If you can't hold onto the rope then you shouldn't be belaying, period.

Serge Smirnov wrote:

I wasn't satisfied with the friction provided by 2 carabiners when I tried rappelling on one 7.3mm strand.  I would use a 2nd carabiner, I just wouldn't rely on it alone.

Carabiner cross section can also play a role, using two BD vaporlocks (more square cross section) provided me far more braking power on a 7.5 than two round stock petzl attaches. 

Serge Smirnov wrote:

I wasn't satisfied with the friction provided by 2 carabiners when I tried rappelling on one 7.3mm strand.  I would use a 2nd carabiner, I just wouldn't rely on it alone.

Just to check, 1 did you have both carabiners through both the rope AND the belay loop on the harness, rather than one of them  just though the rope and not clipped through the belay loop. 2. did you try 3 carabiners?

Nick Drake wrote:

Carabiner cross section can also play a role, using two BD vaporlocks (more square cross section) provided me far more braking power on a 7.5 than two round stock petzl attaches. 

Indeed, and they must be very similar in length. Using two of the same ensures this.

JSH wrote:

Because if the rope ran even a little through the device you risk mashing your hand.

Yes, both carabiners through both the rope and the belay loop.

I remember trying 3 a few months ago and concluding for some reason that it wasn't practical.  Trying it now at home seems to work and provide plenty of friction (much more than 2), but I vaguely remember something undesirable happening during rappel - perhaps the carabiners somehow coming out of alignment and losing the friction advantage of 3.  Or maybe I had trouble finding 3 of the same size, which would make that failure mode expected..  I will try again and report back.

With two dissimilar biners, the shorter one gets most of the load while the longer one can sort of extend out into the 'shadow' of the shorter biner - not much improvement in friction.

One hazard of stacking the biners with a tube-style device is the rope can start to pinch between a biner and the tube.  Can make feeding a pain.  Not sure whether might be other issues with that kind of contact - could it make it harder to release after catching a fall?

A two-biner stack I have favored of late are two solid-gate non-lockers opposite and opposed (tsgnloo).  For me and the ropes I use, I like the amount of friction it provides which seems greater than with two fatter same-shaped lockers.  One of my partners has a 9.2 mm rope for which the tsgnloo seems to work well. 

(changed the thread title since better solutions emerged)

I have read a few threads about which side to put the knot on in a fat-skinny combination, but I don't think I've seen this Stone hitch + counterbalance rappel solution before.  Looks like a good way to address the concern some people have about uneven friction between ropes.

But, to be clear, that wasn't my concern.  My main reason for putting the knot on the skinny side (half the time) is simply that it saves an EDK untie/retie step (or a rope coiling step) to let the knot side alternate between successive rappels.  Maybe I'll give the untie/retie another try..

I will try the hip + device combination as well, although I doubt I will be able to convince most people I climb with to practice it..

Unless I'm missing something, couldn't you use a prussik under your belay hand as a backup? You can slide it up and down the rope loose as you belay underneath your brake hand. Then in a fall, it would catch. Similar for a rappel. You'd have to get a small diameter cord, maybe like 4 mil, to not have a ton of wraps. 

A prussik would be more universal use and less bulky than carrying like gloves or something else. That seems to meet the goal of figuring out what to do on the off chance you actually have to use the thin rope. 

The prussik probably won't catch unless the belayer lets go of it.   This has been verified in the case when the prussik is mounted above the belay device to back up a rappel.  And then there is the additional problem of the prussik colliding with the belay device, which would also make it release.   So all told, I seriously doubt that a prussik would be a viable solution.

rgold wrote:

The prussik probably won't catch unless the belayer lets go of it.  

That is true, but that can be mitigated by holding it loosely and having some common sense to let go of it. Similar solutions to fixing how people could mistakenly hold open a grigri while lead belaying. I also don't think we're looking for a foolproof solution here considering the OP was unwilling to bring a belay device that was suitable for the rope. The prussik would be rigable with equipment already available most likely and would also be a hell of a lot better than a taped hand. This would be very similar to how you can back up lowering a second in guide mode with a prussik which is recommended by most organizations. If things start going too fast, you let go (of the prussik). 

This has been verified in the case when the prussik is mounted above the belay device to back up a rappel.  And then there is the additional problem of the prussik colliding with the belay device, which would also make it release.   So all told, I seriously doubt that a prussik would be a viable solution.

I'm not suggesting mounting it above the belay device. I would put it below the belay device like a normal rappel back up and also in the same position as your brake hand. You can fix the jamming in the device multiple ways which are detailed elsewhere (like extended rappels, shorter prussik cord, attaching to leg loop etc)

Add a Munter on a leg loop biner 

Alex James wrote:

That is true, but that can be mitigated by holding it loosely and having some common sense to let go of it. 

Sorry but this is nonsense.  First because the prusik will collide with the device and release, second  because the belayer won't let go.  These things have already been tested, as I said, and the position of the prusik has nothing to do with the user's inability to release it in an extremely demanding instant.  Moreover, if the belay device is extended to eliminate the collision problem, it will make the rope motions of belaying a lot harder, as you'll have a droopy device hanging down by your knees.  And then there is the problem of the prusik locking up the belay when the leader pulls up slack for an overhead clip, to be avoided how---by making the prusik so loose it won't work at all?

 I also don't think we're looking for a foolproof solution here considering the OP was unwilling to bring a belay device that was suitable for the rope. 

We certainly aren't looking for a "solution" that won't work!

The prussik would be rigable with equipment already available most likely and would also be a hell of a lot better than a taped hand.

Since a taped hand is going to be ineffective, this is setting an absurdly low bar.

 This would be very similar to how you can back up lowering a second in guide mode with a prussik which is recommended by most organizations. If things start going too fast, you let go (of the prussik). 

Those recommendations are also on shaky ground for the same (tested!) reasons already mentioned, and I suspect "most organizations" have never set up a realistic test with a prusik backup in which control is genuinely lost.  Prusik backups are for situations in which something causes the user to let go of the rope.  They don't work when an event causes the user to grip more tightly than usual.  

The only thing a prusik might do is to add a bit more friction.  If that's enough for the OP's situation, than fine, but don't count on it for anything else, and beware of the host of associated gotcha's.

Heck.... I have a old Black Diamond belay devise that weighs about a ounce and its made for thin ropes.... I have belayed the "Drill" on a 5mm tag line, and caught it one handed while catching the partner. 

rgold, again, has give you some sage wisdom.

Use it.

I mean it might be worth seeing if two italian hitches in series fits your goals.