Is the jul 2 semi automatic or not?

Jim Titt wrote:

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).

Thankyou for adding some accurate numbers to it I knew 0.5-2kn was the ball park but it was off the top of my head. Any chance of some testing for the Revo any time soon? I've heard concerns regarding the clip in point strength, people have taken falls on it but they won't have been anything severe, I'm slightly concerned about the grooves and the sheath in the event of a large fall but I have yet to have a chance to look at one closely. 

that guy named seb wrote:
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 

Jim Titt wrote: 

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.

Thanks guys.  I learnt something new today.  I was mostly under the impression that these devices assisted locking much better than this.  Though I've only used them once or twice.

that guy named seb wrote:

Thankyou for adding some accurate numbers to it I knew 0.5-2kn was the ball park but it was off the top of my head. Any chance of some testing for the Revo any time soon? I've heard concerns regarding the clip in point strength, people have taken falls on it but they won't have been anything severe, I'm slightly concerned about the grooves and the sheath in the event of a large fall but I have yet to have a chance to look at one closely. 

If I get sent one I´d test it, my curiousity doesn´t extend as far as wanting to buy yet another belay device I´d never use. One of my acquaintances who was a designer for Wild County and knows what´s inside the Revo has a strong opinion on using it for rope-soloing so I´ll stick to what I have for the time being!

patto wrote:

Thanks guys.  I learnt something new today.  I was mostly under the impression that these devices assisted locking much better than this.  Though I've only used them once or twice.

I´ve plenty of data on how all this junk works! For those interested here´s some more;.

10mm rope 25kg brake hand force. Braking Force in kN.

ATC XP 2.12kN
ATC Guide 2.30kN
Reverso³ 1.76kN
DMM Pivot 1.92kN
MegaJul 1.36kN
CT Alpine Up 3.93kN
GriGri 1 >4 kN
HMS 2.32kN

9mm rope 18kg hand force.

ATC XP 1.8kN
ATC Guide 1.84kN
Reverso³ 1.30kN
DMM Pivot 1.52kN
MegaJul 1.02kN
CT Alpine Up 2.20kN
HMS 1.68kN
Smart Alpine 1.10kN

7.8mm rope (tested as single strand). 18kg hand force.

ATC XP 1.40kN
ATC Guide 1.30kN
Reverso³ 1.12kN
DMM Pivot 1.14kN
MegaJul 0.6kN
CT Alpine Up 1.40kN
HMS 1.44kN
Smart Alpine 0.74kN

The advantage of course of the first four devices being if one wants more braking force you just add karabiners as mentioned elsewhere;

12mm round bar HMS karabiners (Petzl Attache). ATC XP in high friction mode. 18kg hand braking force.
9mm rope single strand
1 karabiner 1.64kN Braking force
2 karabiners 2.72kN
3 karabiners 3.44kN
8mm rope single strand
1 karabiner 1.13kN
2 karabiners 1.85kN
3 karabiners 2.54kN
(Running an HMS on two karabiners gives about 25% more power)

  

Jim Titt wrote:

If I get sent one I´d test it, my curiousity doesn´t extend as far as wanting to buy yet another belay device I´d never use. One of my acquaintances who was a designer for Wild County and knows what´s inside the Revo has a strong opinion on using it for rope-soloing so I´ll stick to what I have for the time being!

What is your go-to lead belay device for single and double ropes? 

Why is the capable assisted braking force not  measured or made aware for all these devices. If people better understood properties of each device they could make better decisions of when to use which.

stolo wrote:

What is your go-to device for single and double ropes? 

Why is the capable assisted braking force not  measured or made aware for all these devices. If people better understood properties of each device they could make better decisions of when to use which.

Me? I use an ATC XP for trad and a GriGri 1 if I´m sport climbing.

The days when manufacturers published information about the performance of their devices are long gone, it´s better for the advertising department to write "increased safety", "solid catch" etc than actually put out data that shows their device is worthless. One major manufacturer let some results slip out showing their new model gave 20% more braking power than the old one, this somehow turned into double, no, triple the friction in their advertising.
You should also be aware that "exhaustive testing" by the manufacturers doesn´t normally involve actually measuring anything, one American company used a basket filled with beer bottles and a fat worker on the other end to measure their device.There is no standardised test so any comparison is basically against a competitors device, since I don´t make belay devices it´s simple but for a manufacturer it isn´t, three of the devices mentioned earlier I tested on behalf of the manufacturers as part of my work.

Bottom line, it's an auto locking belay device, but we don't call them that because it implies you don't need to hold the brake strand, which you always should. 

adeadhead wrote: Bottom line, it's an auto locking belay device, but we don't call them that because it implies you don't need to hold the brake strand, which you always should. 

unless it's a grigri, which is probably more reliable unattended than with most belayers. It will catch a high factor fall unattended. 

eli poss wrote:

unless it's a grigri, which is probably more reliable unattended than with most belayers. It will catch a high factor fall unattended. 

Oh, absolutely, you can with many of them, but they're still described as assisted braking because you *shouldnt* take your hand off. You absolutely can, manufacturers just have to cover their asses. 

adeadhead wrote: Bottom line, it's an auto locking belay device, but we don't call them that because it implies you don't need to hold the brake strand, which you always should. 

Dude wtf no, read the numbers jim posted up a Jul 2, smart, mega jul, pilot, etc are no where near auto locking and are not even really assisted breaking after a point.

adeadhead wrote: Bottom line, it's an auto locking belay device, but we don't call them that because it implies you don't need to hold the brake strand, which you always should. 

adeadhead wrote:
 you *shouldnt* take your hand off. You absolutely can, manufacturers just have to cover their asses.

Umm, what?  Are you talking about a gri gri?  If so, the device was advertised as auto locking when it came to market in the early 90's.  But, guess what.  It doesn't lock 100% of the time.  We all know this from history, which is why they had to change the wording to assisted locking, not just to cover their ass.   If you are talking about other devices, the same applies.

The numbers on braking force for the mechanical assisted tubers, did they take into account the friction from the devices by holding brake strand and using like an ATC after they start to slip? Or was that pure holding force from the mechanical assisted braking as if the brake strand was not held?

eli poss wrote:

unless it's a grigri, which is probably more reliable unattended than with most belayers. It will catch a high factor fall unattended. 

Well, yes.  The gri gri has perhaps the most impressive holding power of any device. I believe its the only one available that can catch a FF2.  On the flip side, many people have been dropped in low fall factor falls/high rope drag routes because their wasn't enough impetus to get the gri gri to lock without a secure belayer brake hand.  So, should we call it auto locking for high fall factor and lock assist for low fall factors.  No.  This would be way too problematic for obvious reasons. 

Greg D wrote:

Well, yes.  The gri gri has perhaps the most impressive holding power of any device. I believe its the only one available that can catch a FF2.  On the flip side, many people have been dropped in low fall factor falls/high rope drag routes because their wasn't enough impetus to get the gri gri to lock without a secure belayer brake hand.  So, should we call it auto locking for high fall factor and lock assist for low fall factors.  No.  This would be way too problematic for obvious reasons. 

I could be wrong, but based on my limited experience with the grigri, I bet the belayer's actions may have contributed to those people being dropped. Perhaps at least some of them would have been caught if the grigri was unattended. Sure, having a brake hand on is better than it being unattended but I still trust the grigri more than many belayers. 

eli poss wrote:

I could be wrong, but based on my limited experience with the grigri, I bet the belayer's actions may have contributed to those people being dropped. 

Well, yes.  Or, lack of action.  So, suggesting no brake hand at all is safe is just poor advice such as your comment below.

Perhaps at least some of them would have been caught if the grigri was unattended. 

Well, no.  The point is, light action on the gri gri may not cause it to lock, which may occur, for example, when there is a lot of rope drag.  A brake hand is essential to arrest a fall in this situation.  

One example took place a decade or so ago in Boulder Canyon.  New partners, leader fell 80 feet up, fell all the way to the ground, belayer may have been still holding the rope, there was enough drag to prevent the gri gri from locking up by itself, and, fortunately enough drag to prevent true free fall.   The leader was pretty banged up and pissed.  He limped his way down the trail and across the river.  Caught a ride to the hospital on his own.  

Sure, having a brake hand on is better than it being unattended but I still trust the grigri more than many belayers. 

Maybe some new belayers are in order.

stolo wrote: The numbers on braking force for the mechanical assisted tubers, did they take into account the friction from the devices by holding brake strand and using like an ATC after they start to slip? Or was that pure holding force from the mechanical assisted braking as if the brake strand was not held?

The hand brake force is given, all the devices are tested in an identical way braking as with an ATC.

Jim Titt wrote:

I´ve plenty of data on how all this junk works! For those interested here´s some more;.

10mm rope 25kg brake hand force. Braking Force in kN.

ATC XP 2.12kN
ATC Guide 2.30kN
Reverso³ 1.76kN
DMM Pivot 1.92kN
MegaJul 1.36kN
CT Alpine Up 3.93kN
GriGri 1 >4 kN
HMS 2.32kN

9mm rope 18kg hand force.

ATC XP 1.8kN
ATC Guide 1.84kN
Reverso³ 1.30kN
DMM Pivot 1.52kN
MegaJul 1.02kN
CT Alpine Up 2.20kN
HMS 1.68kN
Smart Alpine 1.10kN

7.8mm rope (tested as single strand). 18kg hand force.

ATC XP 1.40kN
ATC Guide 1.30kN
Reverso³ 1.12kN
DMM Pivot 1.14kN
MegaJul 0.6kN
CT Alpine Up 1.40kN
HMS 1.44kN
Smart Alpine 0.74kN

The advantage of course of the first four devices being if one wants more braking force you just add karabiners as mentioned elsewhere;

12mm round bar HMS karabiners (Petzl Attache). ATC XP in high friction mode. 18kg hand braking force.
9mm rope single strand
1 karabiner 1.64kN Braking force
2 karabiners 2.72kN
3 karabiners 3.44kN
8mm rope single strand
1 karabiner 1.13kN
2 karabiners 1.85kN
3 karabiners 2.54kN
(Running an HMS on two karabiners gives about 25% more power)

  

Do you have numbers for the gri gri on the skinnier ropes?

EDIT: do you know if the ropes were dry or standard ropes. Do you have an idea how much difference dry treatment makes to the breaking force.

Greg D wrote: Well, yes.  Or, lack of action.  So, suggesting no brake hand at all is safe is just poor advice such as your comment below.
Well, no.  The point is, light action on the gri gri may not cause it to lock, which may occur, for example, when there is a lot of rope drag.  A brake hand is essential to arrest a fall in this situation.  

One example took place a decade or so ago in Boulder Canyon.  New partners, leader fell 80 feet up, fell all the way to the ground, belayer may have been still holding the rope, there was enough drag to prevent the gri gri from locking up by itself, and, fortunately enough drag to prevent true free fall.   The leader was pretty banged up and pissed.  He limped his way down the trail and across the river.  Caught a ride to the hospital on his own.  

Maybe some new belayers are in order.

What I meant was the belayer death gripping the climber's strand, which is thought to have contributed to some grigri accidents because this may prevent the grigri from locking up.

Thanks Jim.  You do the community a good service.  If it means just one shorter catch and one less broken ankle or worse you should be happy.

I've largely been non committal regarding belay device choice, I have a couple.  Currently use an ATC Guide.  You figure encourage me to stick with that.

Jim Titt wrote: There is no standardised test so any comparison is basically against a competitors device, since I don´t make belay devices it´s simple but for a manufacturer it isn´t, three of the devices mentioned earlier I tested on behalf of the manufacturers as part of my work.

How did the Chicane compare with everything?  As I understand it lead to badly twisted ropes in some circumstances.  But I'm curious.  I was disappointed it never made it to market.

climber pat wrote:

Do you have numbers for the gri gri on the skinnier ropes?

EDIT: do you know if the ropes were dry or standard ropes. Do you have an idea how much difference dry treatment makes to the breaking force.

No as the thinner ropes aren´t within the manufacturers specifiction for that model of GriGri. All the devices were strictly as per the manufacturers figures which is why the Smart wasn´t tested with the 10mm rope either (there is a different model for thicker ropes).

All the ropes had a standard dry treatment which we removed as much as possible by using them, washing them and using them again. Testing with new dry treated or worse extra-dry treated ropes is absolute chaos and it doesn´t last long anyway, you pull the rope through three times and get completely different values. Somebody else tried and reckoned between 20 and 50% reduction in braking force but he gave up in the end and reverted to standard ropes.

It´s still spelt "braking".