Is the jul 2 semi automatic or not?

The informations online are ambiguous.
In this article:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/climbing/belays/edelrid_jul_2_belay_device-8707

 the author states that "In essence it is an assisted braking device (note: not an auto-locking one!".

In this video, though, an edelrid employee states the opposite! "we are now making only auto locking belay devices" 

https://youtu.be/_LtcTgWM8kE

I am very confused. Would this be as safe as a grigri backing up most belayer's mistakes, or not?

Thanks. 

I break it down like this
Standard: ATC, reverso, etc (force amplifying the harder you hold the break strand directly effects breaking ability) 
Passive breaking: Jul 2, mega Jul, smart, click up(pinch the rope relying on a fixed geometry of the device interacting with the biner, over powered between 0.5-2kn after its overpowered it has poor force amplifying of the break strand generally unsuitable for any form of multipitch or heavy partners) 
Assisted breaking: grigri, eddy, life gaurd (device provides the breaking force and scales with the severity of the fall, may require belayer to assist in engaging the device and mechanism can be overridden with poor belaying)
Autolocking: Revo (locks at a certain fall speed no override)
Edit: I will add some properties. 

that guy named seb wrote: I break it down like this
Standard: ATC, reverso, etc
Passive breaking: Jul 2, mega Jul, smart, click up
Assisted breaking: grigri, eddy, life gaurd
Autolocking: Revo

But why then, in the video linked above the Edelrid spokesperson states that the Jul does lock on its own?

Irrelevant. Doesn't matter at all how one would call it. Only things matter is how it works and whether you are skilled enough to use it properly or not.

Febs wrote:

But why then, in the video linked above the Edelrid spokesperson states that the Jul does lock on its own?

So passive breaking do break on their own but the breaking forces are really really low, relying entirety on the geometry of the device interacting with the biner the locking forces are over powered often under 1kn (if I remember the numbers right) and offer significantly lower breaking ability after that than any other style of belay device. The only exception to this is the alpine up and click up which fall under the same style but have far superior breaking ability to anything else in class. 

Dylan B. wrote: What are you asking? Are you asking how the device functions? Or are you asking how much assistance it gives to the belayer?

If the former, just look at it. It uses a caribiner to pinch the rope, like the original Jul, the Smart, and several others.

If the latter, its going to depend on a lot of variables. The most important thing is to always keep your brake hand on the brake line, regardless of the device you use.

If you’re genuinely asking a categorization question for some reason, well... who cares? Index it however you want.

I am asking becaus I'd consider it for solo leading as well. Yes I am experienced with soloing (using the silent partner, which I returned though). So I need something that would catch in most if not all situations even without an hand on the rope - as the grigri does. 

Thanks

Febs wrote:

I am asking becaus I'd consider it for solo leading as well.

Are you insane??? Use a Revo ffs. 

Yup. I was searching for an alternative that wouldn't have moving parts and would be cheaper too. On the forum here I read that someone did use it for that purpose but I wanted to gather more infos about it. Thanks. 

that guy named seb wrote: I break it down like this
Standard: ATC, reverso, etc (force amplifying the harder you hold the break strand directly effects breaking ability)
Passive breaking: Jul 2, mega Jul, smart, click up(pinch the rope relying on a fixed geometry of the device interacting with the biner, over powered between 0.5-2kn after its overpowered it has poor force amplifying of the break strand generally unsuitable for any form of multipitch or heavy partners)
Assisted breaking: grigri, eddy, life gaurd (device provides the breaking force and scales with the severity of the fall, may require belayer to assist in engaging the device and mechanism can be overridden with poor belaying)
Autolocking: Revo (locks at a certain fall speed no override)
Edit: I will add some properties. 

The Alpine up and click up have a tapered slot that increases breaking force as more force is applied by the falling climber pulling the carabinier further into the slot.  The juls just have a notch that applies a fixed breaking force.

climber pat wrote:

The Alpine up and click up have a tapered slot that increases breaking force as more force is applied by the falling climber by pulling the carabinier further into the slot. 

I mentioned that the click/alpine up are exceptions further down. 

that guy named seb wrote:

I mentioned that the click/alpine up are exceptions further down. 

It would be better if you edit your original post here to reflect that distinction.

First, delete the word or prefix “auto” and “automatic” from your vocabulary. It leads to bad thinking and worse assumptions.

Febs wrote: The informations online are ambiguous.
In this article:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/climbing/belays/edelrid_jul_2_belay_device-8707

 the author states that "In essence it is an assisted braking device (note: not an auto-locking one!".

In this video, though, an edelrid employee states the opposite! "we are now making only auto locking belay devices"

https://youtu.be/_LtcTgWM8kE

I am very confused. Would this be as safe as a grigri backing up most belayer's mistakes, or not?

Thanks. 

Well to put it simply the guy in the video is an asshole employee of Edelrid trying to sell their products and probably doesn´t even know what day of the week it is. When the MegaJul was launched we were amused to watch a different asshole demonstrate how it worked without a braking hand on the rope, when the sandbag hit the floor we laughed (it´s a cruel world!).

We know from tests that none of this kind of device can be relied on to automatically stop any type of fall.

It´s more or less as Malcolm Daly says, there are only two categories, Manual and Manual Assisted Locking. After decades of discussion which came to nothing (I´m on one of the commitees) the powers that be decided there MUST be a standard for belay devices so the UIAA and CENORM were forced to produce one. The problem is that the all climbing equipment comes under a law which covers protection from falls from height and rock climbing gained some exemptions from the normal rules BUT in the base legislation it states that PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) must be a)worn by the person and b) function with no human input. So the standard for manual belay devices only requires the device to be strong enough and doesn´t measure the effectiveness at all, basically anything could pass the test like a hook or anything with a hole in it, a car tire would pass as would a tree with a hole drilled through it.
For Manual Assisted Locking devices life was easier, they work without human intervention and so the test is the worst possible scenario with no braking hand (one of the cool aspects of fudging a standard like this is that these devices must pass the test without any human input BUT the manufacturer is required to add to the instructions that the brake strand must be held at all times). There are moves to discuss the standard again but they will also come to nothing.

Amazing replies you guys. Thank you so much! 

A further note on this having belayed a couple hundred pitches with a jul 2 and far more with a grigri or tube device.

Braking assistance provided by the jul 2 depends heavily on rope diameter. 10mm and above it *could likely* arrest a moderate lead fall with no hand on the brake strand.
Old 9.8 some rope did pass through when a 175lb partner took a decently sized fall.
9.2 rope, a 110lb partner would cause the rope to lightly creep through the device with simple body weight.

I wouldn’t consider this for any type of soloing in a million years and it’s far from a grigri replacement. I can only recommend it as a gym/stupid fat rope device to crusty ignorant chuffers who think that grigri is the work of Satan and refuse to step into the 21st century.

that guy named seb wrote:

So passive breaking do break on their own but the breaking forces are really really low

Not to be critical or anything, but breaking and braking in US English mean entirely different things. And in the context of climbing, where “breaking” is generally a very bad thing, and “braking” is generally a good thing, it makes a difference. 

phylp wrote:

Not to be critical or anything, but breaking and braking in US English mean entirely different things. And in the context of climbing, where “breaking” is generally a very bad thing, and “braking” is generally a good thing, it makes a difference. 

I was on my phone at work, I think everyone knows what i meant.

The OP seems to be Italian.
I understood you, but if I was visiting an Italian website and someone gave a recipe for
gelato con pesche and they said to use Pesce it would be quite repulsive.
:-)

that guy named seb wrotePassive breaking: Jul 2, mega Jul, smart, click up(pinch the rope relying on a fixed geometry of the device interacting with the biner, over powered between 0.5-2kn after its overpowered it has poor force amplifying of the break strand generally unsuitable for any form of multipitch or heavy partners)

Can you expand on what you mean by this? Why would they be unsuitable for multipitch or heavy partners? From my understanding 2kn at the belayer is quite the fall. Thanks

stolo wrote:

Can you expand on what you mean by this? Why would they be unsuitable for multipitch or heavy partners? From my understanding 2kn at the belayer is quite the fall. Thanks

I admire your optimism, given two values (0.5-2kN) you chose the highest one, that is the one most likely to give a positive outcome. Any particular reason you didn´t choose the lower?

It´s more or less like that guy named seb says, on most of the devices the actual pinching effect is quite low and the ultimate braking force with a hand gripping the rope is also quite low. With no braking hand on the rope and a 9mm rope the MegaJul produced 0.7kN braking force and the Smart Alpine (the small rope version) 0.5kN. There´s nothing in the newer Jul models to suggest they would be any better. There is a newer Smart which I haven´t tested. The maximum braking force with a braking hand on the rope I measured for the MJ was under 1.5kN which is completely inadequate for major falls (as is 2kN incidentally).
The ClickUp/Alpine Up are vastly better BUT there is no rope-saving clearance in the device, in a lead rope-solo fall you could well damage the rope (in our testing the sheath stripped off the rope at around 5.5kN). Normal lead climbing this is extremely unlikely to occur but falling directly onto the device all bets are off. The GriGri stops the cam rotating fully and chopping the rope, normally the rope will slip through at around 5-7kN without damage which is why it is a popular choice for soloing.

Nick Drake wrote: I can only recommend it as a gym/stupid fat rope device to crusty ignorant chuffers who think that grigri is the work of Satan and refuse to step into the 21st century.

Well, as qualifying chuffer, I wouldn't use it either.

Febs wrote:
I am asking becaus I'd consider it for solo leading as well.

Just get an Eddy.