best rope solo setup? feedback

Has the CT Roll n Lock not been mentioned yet? Half the price of a micro trax and far nicer to your rope.

Currently using it as primary on a gridlock, with a micro as the back up.

I’ve also found the Trango Vergo feeds nicely as a primary or secondary, until it got recalled. 

Max Rausch wrote: Has the CT Roll n Lock not been mentioned yet? Half the price of a micro trax and far nicer to your rope.

Currently using it as primary on a gridlock, with a micro as the back up.

I’ve also found the Trango Vergo feeds nicely as a primary or secondary, until it got recalled. 

I use exactly the same setup. It works well.

Max Rausch wrote: Has the CT Roll n Lock not been mentioned yet? Half the price of a micro trax and far nicer to your rope.

Currently using it as primary on a gridlock, with a micro as the back up.

I’ve also found the Trango Vergo feeds nicely as a primary or secondary, until it got recalled. 

That’s my set up as well. What I really like about these is you can lock them in the open location for descending as well. 

As mentioned earlier, it would be wise to use the toothless device as a backup if you are using a combination of toothed and toothless. 

i use a similar set up to the original post picture except i just use two mini traxions and have the upper capture a little tighter to my upper body / neck 

Also... YOURRRR GUNNNAAAA DIEEEE ... sorry had to...

Mak Ely wrote:

Aaron, you answered your own question. This device works best (and you really want it to work its best) when you are abiding by manufacturer's specs. 

I use an 11mm semi-static.

The Goblin is too a smooth device I'd suggest. But I use the Back-Up for work and receive corresponding gear discounts. 

I'm a tad surprised at the volume of toothed arrestors being used.. none of those are designed to catch a fall.
If its price point and easy climbing, I get it (and have done it), but I do advocate for clean cam arrests.

Please watch the Ascender "arrest" a fall at 3:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2a1zdpScPo&t=140s
This is your Rope on Teeth.. 

that's because, if you're doing it right, you're never taking a real fall onto the ascender because you don't let any slack accumulate and so it's the equivalent of having your belayer "take". Also because using dynamic ropes drastically limits the force so that you won't be near the force threshold for cutting 

Mak Ely wrote:

Dynamic ropes are irrelevant when using a toothed cam to arrest your fall. The teeth are teeth regardless. 

And why clutter your system? Spending as much on two devices needing to be managed, or obtain one device that is designed to catch falls and trails with your progress...

Seems obvious to me but, hey, I'm over here. You're over there. 

Because teeth don't do shit to a rope up until a certain force threshold and anybody with half a brain TR soloing never reaches that force threshold. If you want to be ignorant that's fine but don't go around spreading your ignorance.

eli poss wrote: As mentioned earlier, it would be wise to use the toothless device as a backup if you are using a combination of toothed and toothless. 

I would tend to disagree with this, and actually approach it the opposite way. For these reasons:

1. The reason to not have a toothed backup is concerns about rope cutting from teeth. I think that these concerns are way overblown. Has a microtrax ever cut, or even core-shot, a rope in normal TR solo usage? I've never heard of such an instance, and I don't think it is worth worrying about under proper TR solo usage. If you were to take a big factor 2 on a microtrax, that would cause some problems, but this is entirely avoidable with proper usage.

2. I have noticed that the microtrax can "pick" a bit at the outer threads of the sheath. Basically when the cam sometimes skips down a few mm before engaging. A few teeth will engage, but then skid down and tear whatever thread they were on. This is pretty much just cosmetic sheath damage, but over time contributes to rope wear. It is avoidable by using a less aggresive device (Roll n lock, Lift, Microcender etc.) as your primary device that you are weigthing most of the time.

3. The time that I appreciate that aggresiveness of the microtrax is as a backup device. I have very high confidence that the micro will engage when I need it to. More so that some other, less aggressive devices. This makes it a confidence-inspiring backup device.

4. Another nice aspect of the micro is that it doesn't have to be loaded in a specific way to engage (unlike the shunt or microcender, which only engage if loaded correctly via the clip-in point). This is good because of the potential, when using two devices on one rope, for a slipping top device to slide down and jam into the backup device that is trailing below. If the lower device is a shunt or microcender, it will not engage correctly. But the micro will lock down pretty much no matter how you load it. (Note that this issue can be avoided with a chest harness and extending the top device upward, but I don't like wearing a chest harness and don't bother with one for TR soloing).

So, use the non-toothed device as your primary, to reduce wear-and-tear on the rope from your using load-unload cycles when weighting the rope. But have the micro as the backup, that you know will lock down on the rope no matter what.

This is really all just minutia, though. The short answer is that toothed devices are totally fine for TR soloing, for both the primary and/or secondary devices. Using two microtraxions on one rope is a perfectly good and totally safe system. It is, for good reason, one of the most popular options among people working El Cap free routes on fixed lines.

The main reason to use a Roll n Lock combined with a Micro is that buying a Roll n Lock is way cheaper than buying a second Micro.

Fair enough, I guess we have some slightly different priorities in our decision making. You're right, though, it really is minutia, although perhaps only so for dynamic ropes. Using a static rope, I could see even the tiny fall from your primary device failing generating enough force to shred the sheath. IIRC, petzl said it will damage the sheath at 3 or 4 kN

Mak Ely wrote: ...none of those are designed to catch a fall.

Please watch the Ascender "arrest" a fall at 3:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2a1zdpScPo&t=140s
This is your Rope on Teeth.. 

If you watch the beginning of that video if clearly states these tests are beyond normal circumstances.  Which seems accurate to me because I've never seen two people clip in to one mini-traxion with a long leash and then jump off.  Maybe that is some new form of fixed rope tr soloing I'm not aware of but it sure sounds sketch and if people can't realise that then fixed line TR soloing is probably beyond their current experience and understanding level.  Best to stick with a more standard setup and climb with a partner.

My anecdotal evidence, which is derived from probably over 500 days (I believe I was one of the first people in Yosemite to start using the pro-traxion back in 2002...) of using toothed ascenders to fix line TR is that i've never ever seen even the slightest bit of sheath damage from falling with my setup.  My guess is I've fallen well over a couple thousand times.  Often these falls occurred in the exact same place on the rope over a period of months (this happens while projecting multi month FA's).  These weren't slumps on to the rope, I was going to 100% and falling off on steep terrain.  I use a bungee cord to keep the device high and the average length of free fall is probably < 3".  Occasionally there has been more slack in the system but I've never found myself in a situation where the fall was longer than 12".  

I have recently changed up my system a little bit and started using a Camp Lyft as my top primary device but the change wasn't due to any fear of the micro traxion and teeth.  The change was made to make going down the rope to work moves easier.  I find it much easier to slide the Lyft down the rope.

I've also been using a Kong Backup on routes where I am constantly moving down the rope to re work boulder problems.  The device is definitely easy to use but it does come with it's own issues.  If the top device doesn't engage in a fall and hits the Backup, there is a really good chance the Backup won't engage.  It will get pulled down the rope without ever receiving an adequate amount of force to engage the levering cam.  It is easy to test this.  There is a good post here on MP from a couple years ago from someone reviewing the Backup and I believe he mentions this failure method.  

If someone has actual documented experience of a toothed device being used is a reasonable manner that has caused sheath damage I'd love to see it and hear the exact setup used.

Edit to add:  I'd say 95% of my days have been on 10mm static ropes.  The remainder of days have been on 9mm dynamic ropes on multi pitch routes with partners.  I've also used the system on half ropes but generally speaking this isn't recommended and is well beyond most people's safety and comfort levels. 

Mikey, or anyone else who uses a similar setup (camp lift over micro traxion on a single line.)  I'm curious what your process is for lowering. I have been using the other half of my rope for rappelling and the transition is smooth. However, when I try it on a single line, while hanging in space, it's a big cluster fuck.

The most efficient process I have come up with is to use a tibloc on a long sling, weight it, put an atc below it on a shorter sling, disengage the micro, un-weight the tibloc, hold the lift and lower. 4 devices on the rope at one time. I'm sure there is a better way to do this. Enlighten me!

Single rope set up. Smooth as can be with a bit of weight on the bottom of the rope. The top device that mainly gets loaded is toothless (if you care, I don't)

To lower,
1) attach grigri below ascender & tie backup knot if desired, 
2) remove ascender and place above top device (same design as a camp lift)
3) pull slack out of the grigri 
3) pull up on the ascender, and slide the newly un-weighted top device down
4) weight the grigri and the remove top device
5) remove ascender
6) lower

Bonus is that if you stop after step 4, you are already basically set up to ascend the rope in the RAD configuration. (Ascender on top with a grigri below)

Mak Ely wrote:  Thank you for watching. However the video still demonstrates the spectrum these devices perform on.

I'll rummage for that thread someday. Have you always used the Back-Up in a two-piece system? The Back-Up itself is sufficient; a single device removes that potential.
Cheers. 

I'd recommend going back and watching the video again, specifically pay attention to 1:52 where they demonstrate using the HeightSafety Backup, which is a non tooth fall arrest device that is very similar to the Kong Backup.  Watch what happens to the rope, the sheath is shredded.  All devices used incorrectly and placed under extreme conditions will eventually lead to failures.  This isn't something that is unique to toothed camming devices which you seem to be inferring.  Understanding the limits of every piece of equipment is fundamental in safety systems. 

Do you have documentation from Kong explicitly stating the Backup is sufficient as a single use device in a climbing scenario?  Not talking about work positioning or fall arrest in a rope access scenario as this isn't the topic we are discussing.  

Here is petzl's documentation on using a variety of toothed ascenders in fixed line rope solo setup for climbing.  

https://www.petzl.com/US/en/Sport/Installation-on-one-single-rope-with-two-ascenders?ProductName=MICRO-TRAXION&Familly=Pulleys

Anyone use a hollow block above a micro traction? I’ve heard the micro will push a “loose” hollow block up the rope, but under load it will still grab. (TR  solo).           Next question- obvious pros and cons having a second rope for total redundancy, is it worth it?

Greg R wrote: obvious pros and cons having a second rope for total redundancy, is it worth it?

Pros:

• redundancy in the case of rope cutting (although there are other options to mitigate rope cutting)

• If you desheath your rope but not completely sever it, it gives you a strand that is still fully intact to work with. 

• Eliminates the possibility of 2 devices interfering with each other (ie primary fails and then pushes down on the backup which may hinder the performance of some devices)

Cons:

• More complex
• you may have to bring a second rope depending on the length of the pitch.
• Makes set up slightly less convenient because now you have to find the middle instead of just fixing one end and then tossing the rope bag.  

Greg R wrote: Anyone use a hollow block above a micro traction? I’ve heard the micro will push a “loose” hollow block up the rope, but under load it will still grab. (TR  solo).           

I would assume the hollow block would have the same issues as prusiks do - they begin to melt at fairly low impact forces. ~4kn if I remember correctly. They're also more of a pain to move up the rope. I want my devices to feed smoothly. If it stops sliding I may fall further down than I was expecting to and increase impact throughout the system.

Next question- obvious pros and cons having a second rope for total redundancy, is it worth it?

I've only set up on cragging routes. I wouldn't carry a second rope just for this; if I can get both ends to the ground I'll set it up so each strand is independent via two figure 8s on bights separated by about a foot. I don't see a compelling reason to only use one strand when two are available. 

Dan Gozdz wrote:

I would assume the hollow block would have the same issues as prusiks do - they begin to melt at fairly low impact forces. ~4kn if I remember correctly. 

Nope. Hollow blocks are made of aramid so they have a much much higher melting temp. Also, if you're generating 4kN when TR soloing you're doing it wrong and are likely going to desheath your rope if not completely severing it. 

Dan Gozdz wrote: I don't see a compelling reason to only use one strand when two are available. 

- A second rope can be annoying and will get in the way more while climbing. It is slightly more effort to set up.

- Using one rope is perfectly adequate for safety, provided you use reasonable good-sense measures around potential sharp edges.

These reasons are “compelling” enough for me. Whether they are compelling to you is up to you.

This comes down to the philosophical difference between “safe enough” and “as safe as possible”.  Similar lines of reasoning drive decisions related to when to wear a helmet, when to equalize anchors, etc. I tend to the “safe enough” viewpoint. I make sure to do everything to ensure a level of safety I’m comfortable with, and once that is reached I don’t waste any extra effort on additional superfluous safeguards. Hence, if 1 tr solo rope is safe enough, 1 rope it is. Using a second rope, in most normal situations, does not make you safer in a meaningful way.