Risks of non-recommended usage of Ohm for gear routes

Greg D wrote: In fact, one test using the theoretical most static type of belay (device clipped to a bolt) showed some of the lowest forces on the top piece simply by allowing some rope slippage.

I don't think I'm understanding what you're saying here. If the belay device allowed more slippage than the Ohm (as would be necessary for it to create less force on the top piece) then we're have a serious problem with our belay devices. The Ohm allows way too much slippage to be used as a belay device, and a belay device that slipped even more would be completely useless.

And why would a belay device slip more when clipped to a bolt than when clipped to the belayer's harness?

I'd be curious to see your source of this testing data.

David Kerkeslager wrote: And why would a belay device slip more when clipped to a bolt than when clipped to the belayer's harness?

I'd be curious to see your source of this testing data.

That is not exactly what I said, but...Because there is a human holding the rope.  Humans can have skills and techniques.  

Hopefully, someone else will post a link.  I'm not into searching.

Live Perched wrote: At the gym climbing with the Ohm, it does not sit in one place as the leader pulls rope up.  The Ohm catches the rope when the leader tugs quickly and it gets pulled above the first bolt so it’s inverted.  When the leader climbs on or the belayer shakes the rope, the ohm drops this reducing drag on the leader.  

Trad gear doesn’t do well with repeated jostling.  Pieces move into worse and weirder positions.  

One practical reason Ohm use with trad gear may not recommended is the gear is more likely to be jostled loose or get stuck.  

This^.

It's made to work with a bolt, which is the ultimate multidirectional protection. Having a heavy thing like an Ohm jostling up and down on even a nice cam or a bomber nut is going to wiggle the crap out of it and make your placement walk or fail.

The angle of pull is also kind of finnicky with the Ohm and trad routes tend to not always provide the sort of straight up and down alignment between belay and first piece that the Ohm wants. 

The test, which was illustrated in a video by either one of the euro climbing clubs or euro guiding associations (can't remember which) compared belaying a leader off an anchor and intentionally allowing rope to slip through the belay device to somebody belaying off the harness and giving a soft catch without intentionally letting rope slip through. They weren't exactly comparing apples to apples.

Any belay off the harness is going to exert less force on the top piece (although the testing found that belaying off the harness may exert more force on the belay anchor, but not on the top piece) all else equal because of any potential vertical displacement of the belayer or, to a lesser extent, horizontal displacement of the belayer. Both of those dissipate some of the energy of a fall.

As for the original question, I think it would be fine if you essentially built a bomber omni-directional anchor for the ohm, however the increase in extension length may inhibit the ohm from working correctly, as mentioned before. You would definitely want to test it out beforehand in a safe and controlled setting. However, even if it does work, I suspect it would be rare to find yourself in a situation where using the ohm in this way is the best option available. 

eli poss wrote:

As for the original question, I think it would be fine if you essentially built a bomber omni-directional anchor for the ohm, however the increase in extension length may inhibit the ohm from working correctly, as mentioned before. You would definitely want to test it out beforehand in a safe and controlled setting. However, even if it does work, I suspect it would be rare to find yourself in a situation where using the ohm in this way is the best option available. 

I think you're right, Eli, but if a person is going to go to the trouble to build a "bomber omni-directional anchor for the ohm" they should just build one for the belayer and climb on. Screwing around building a bomber anchor at the first placement just seems tedious and silly. 

Señor Arroz wrote:

I think you're right, Eli, but if a person is going to go to the trouble to build a "bomber omni-directional anchor for the ohm" they should just build one for the belayer and climb on. Screwing around building a bomber anchor at the first placement just seems tedious and silly. 

One reason might be if they can build such an anchor 10 ft up the climb but there aren't any anchoring options on the ground. If you're options are to build a hanging belay 10 feet off the ground vs using the ohm, the ohm may be a better choice. I'm sure that, if the ohm is safe to use in this way, there are situations where the ohm is the better option. They are just few and far between. 

eli poss wrote:

One reason might be if they can build such an anchor 10 ft up the climb but there aren't any anchoring options on the ground. If you're options are to build a hanging belay 10 feet off the ground vs using the ohm, the ohm may be a better choice. I'm sure that, if the ohm is safe to use in this way, there are situations where the ohm is the better option. They are just few and far between. 

Backpack full of rocks hitched to a harness of the lighter person is always going to be a better option than building a multi-directional anchor 10 feet up. Unless, somehow, you find yourself at a rock climbing crag with no rocks.

I'm a fan of the Ohm for what it is designed to do. And I trad climb. Yet you'll never see me using an Ohm while trad climbing. 

A solution in search of a problem.

Healyje wrote: A solution in search of a problem.

A solution in search of money. 

 Outdoors the backpack full of rocks works great. Indoors the sandbags or ground anchors work well too. And they are free. 

Greg D wrote:

A solution in search of money. 

 Outdoors the backpack full of rocks works great. Indoors the sandbags or ground anchors work well too. And they are free. 

Spoken like a guy who never had to belay with a backpack full of rocks... What's the heaviest climber you ever lead-belayed on a project, where he would be taking repeated falls, vs how much do you weigh? And how much weight would you be willing to have in your pack if you were to belay for, say, 45 minutes?

I think using Ohm on gear routes is kinda pointless. As others have said, by the time you build your bomber bolt-like anchor, you could just attach your belayer to that anchor. So if you are climbing predominantly trad, don't bother.

For sport climbing it is quick, easy, convenient. And safer, for certain climber/belayer combinations

IMO it falls into the same category of gear as belay googles. Was I able to successfully belay before there were belay googles? Sure. Was my husband able to climb? Yeah. He just looked for a heavier belayer whenever possible. But having both of these devices makes our lives better.  (And anybody who climbs trad shouldn't be talking about how gear is a waste of money... they are carrying couple thousands $$ on them any time they go climbing.)

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Just because the Ohm wasn't around when slung hexes were the latest and greatest, doesn't mean it doesn't solve a problem.

True, along with having to actually tilt your head to look up, it's way up there as first world problems go.

Climbing friends, this thread isn't about value or lack of value in the Ohm, it's about using it outside it's intended scope of use.

Can we have any threads on gear without some old crustbag chiming in with some vaguely related snarky comment, and everyone arguing with him and derailing everything?

Anyway, I have an Ohm and would use it on a bomber cam in a single pitch scenario. I've fallen with it in the system plenty of times sport climbing, and every time, the "draw" is oriented straight up. A bomber cam could tolerate this. One could place it low as a directional, and give it an upward tug to test it before setting off.

I wouldn't use it in any other circumstances though.

Zach Parsons wrote: Anyway, I have an Ohm and would use it on a bomber cam in a single pitch scenario. I've fallen with it in the system plenty of times sport climbing, and every time, the "draw" is oriented straight up. A bomber cam could tolerate this. One could place it low as a directional, and give it an upward tug to test it before setting off.

I'd worry about this more than you seem to. The Ohm is heavy, and after your initial upward pull test, it's likely that the weight of the Ohm will orient the cam downward. A fall would reorient the cam upward, as would a take or a fast clip. I'm not sure how many up/down reorientations your bomber cam can tolerate before it's no longer a bomber cam.

Señor Arroz wrote:

Backpack full of rocks hitched to a harness of the lighter person is always going to be a better option than building a multi-directional anchor 10 feet up. Unless, somehow, you find yourself at a rock climbing crag with no rocks.

I'm a fan of the Ohm for what it is designed to do. And I trad climb. Yet you'll never see me using an Ohm while trad climbing. 

I've been to a crag that did have rocks but they were too big to be able to fit in my backpack. I've also gone cragging without a backpack at times. I'm sure that there are other situations that would make you not want to just use a pack full of rocks to add weight, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Like I said earlier, these situations are few and far between but they do exist. I don't doubt that there are other ways to improvise when life throws you a curve ball, but it never hurts to have another tool in the toolbox. If nothing else, it seems interesting to explore the possibility for the sake of curiosity and not utility.  

David Kerkeslager wrote:

I'd worry about this more than you seem to. The Ohm is heavy, and after your initial upward pull test, it's likely that the weight of the Ohm will orient the cam downward. A fall would reorient the cam upward, as would a take or a fast clip. I'm not sure how many up/down reorientations your bomber cam can tolerate before it's no longer a bomber cam.

I was picturing an upward tug test, resetting the cam facing downwards as normal, then clipping the Ohm. 

"Bomber" is subjective and is up to the climber to decide on a case by case basis. For me, in this case, bomber means well-cammed in an even parallel crack, where I would worry more about walking the cam in too deep from fall cycles, which could happen with or without an Ohm, than about it ever becoming non-bomber.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

That would be boring to those of us with desk jobs

Hah, fair enough, flame on sir.

Lena chita wrote:

Spoken like a guy who never had to belay with a backpack full of rocks... What's the heaviest climber you ever lead-belayed on a project, where he would be taking repeated falls, vs how much do you weigh? And how much weight would you be willing to have in your pack if you were to belay for, say, 45 minutes?

Lena, you don't actually WEAR a backpack full or rocks, do you? Because whenever I've utilized something like that it's just as a "watermelon" like what you see at climbing gyms, too. Big bag, filled with something heavy, clipped to a belay loop with a long sling. It's just a ground anchor that can move around and that's supposed to help counteract, even if it doesn't totally offset, the weight difference.

David actually asked what the "risks" would be. The Ohm is really a convenience device, not a piece of lifesaving gear. IMO the two risks that are obvious are that:

A: for some reason it may not feed well and will shortrope your climber

B: It fails to work as a "dampener" and the belayer bears the full force of a falling heavy climber.

Neither of these are critical risks. But they wouldn't be great.

I think there are better solutions for trad. 

What do you folks think about replacing the Ohm’s steal quick link with a small aluminum caribiner?  (Pardon the off topic question.)

Two reasons not to use it for trad:

a) short roping

b) first pieces which may be less than completely bomb with a direct upward pull

Gear isn't bolts, which is what this was designed for.