Lowering via an ATC pressed against the redirect carabiner

Bill Lawry wrote: I would add a Method III: more Tom foolery to remove the device and replace it with a more common set up.

That's what I called Method (I).

I see a lot of folks expressing disdain for guide mode for top belay. As someone still fairly new to multi-pitch climbing, what is the preferred alternative for belaying the second? I've always found guide-mode easy to use and setup and have not really needed to explore alternatives yet, but obviously I have not been exposed to very many scenarios so I would be interested to hear what the other options are.

rgold wrote:

That's what I called Method (I).

True.  Yes. Still, worth repeating.  :)

Anyway, Method I is my preferred way for a long lower.

rgold wrote:

Hahaha...One can make any definition one wants, but that doesn't mean it corresponds to reality.    Everyone who belays the leader with an ATC or off the anchor with a Munter is using a "flawed" belay---that is probably a substantial majority of the climbing world.   I've been using "flawed" belays for well over 50 years, including catching factor-2 falls.

The point, of course, is having adequate friction so that grip strength is appropriately "multiplied."

When you are done bragging can you answer my question?

Ryan Barnes wrote: I see a lot of folks expressing disdain for guide mode for top belay. As someone still fairly new to multi-pitch climbing, what is the preferred alternative for belaying the second? I've always found guide-mode easy to use and setup and have not really needed to explore alternatives yet, but obviously I have not been exposed to very many scenarios so I would be interested to hear what the other options are.

My preferred way is to belay my second up from off my harness belay loop and without a redirect from a higher up anchor.

• My body stance can add to the anchor’s purpose; often the anchor sees no weight in my taking my follower’s weight
• I can easily “feel” the need for slack (e.g., follower wants or needs to down climb)
• Likewise, I think less effort is involved in feeling when I need to take up slack
• It works even when guide mode does not for the anchor config
• A long lower is trivial to execute on a seconds notice

But I also think

• it is not nearly so convenient if follower is on the rope a lot, hang dogging
• It kind of pins you down compared to guide mode off the anchor. 
• One does not get that added anchor friction like when the top rope belay is from below (which just means friction may need to be added)

That second to last bullet hints at the learning curve for setting up in a stance that will be comfortable for the entire time that the second is climbing. I think it took about a year of weekend warrior multi-pitch before I could deal with most any situation. But maybe I am a slow learner. :)

Ryan Barnes wrote: I see a lot of folks expressing disdain for guide mode for top belay. As someone still fairly new to multi-pitch climbing, what is the preferred alternative for belaying the second? I've always found guide-mode easy to use and setup and have not really needed to explore alternatives yet, but obviously I have not been exposed to very many scenarios so I would be interested to hear what the other options are.

Can´t speak for others, but I question its use in this application because in this case the belayer knows he/she will have to lower the climber. So, why use what is probably the worst belay setup when needed to be converted into a lowering setup?

I think Guide mode shines when belaying two followers off the anchor because the device takes two ropes (duh), auto-blocks (watch out for traverses) and simplifies ropes management off the anchor. But in many cases the anchors are not at an optimal position (chest level or higher); or there is an edge to be dealt with; or extending the anchor is needed to see the climber/s, or there is a traverse before the anchors, etc...
Most of these issues can be remedied by belaying off the harness: be it redirecting the strands through the anchors or not; seating at the edge of the ledge, etc.

A grigri seems like a great option to the atc guide mode and depending on what you carry normally, might not be heavier than the guide mode setup. Lowering still requires redirecting the brake strand but not unweighing the rope or anything else.

Disclaimer: I am fairly new to multi-pitch climbing as well. But its my favorite form of climbing so I do it a lot. (Also a top-managed belay is also the only way to bring a second up in Saxony, where top roping is not allowed)

Edit: started writing before Bill's reply. Good points!

Also: I think guide mode is more tiring than the other methods. It might create more friction to pull in slack if it is not in the best orientation and the ropes are fussy or thick. But not with thinner half ropes.

Fran M wrote:

So, why use what is probably the worst belay setup when needed to be converted into a lowering setup?

You nailed it.

These newfangled belay configurations can be appropriate for guides who often have inexperienced followers, but there's little reason for the recreational climber to be experimenting with these approaches.

What is being downplayed here is the fact that these techniques are basically trading convenience for safety. Every new technique has ways of failing that have not been discovered and unfortunately it's often the case that the hidden flaw is only revealed when an accident occurs. (Even if the failure modes are documented, they may not be known by the user at the time.) The marginal increase in convenience is rarely worth the added risk.

When looking at these instructional videos, we should be asking ourselves "what if?" In the case of this lowering technique an obvious question is "what if they start descending too fast?" It could happen if someone is using a thinner rope, the climber is heaver than usual, the terrain is steep ... and when it does happen you won't have time to ask MP or watch youtube to figure out what to do next.

We often hear about beginners dropping people when lowering with a grigri because they did not know (or did not practice) the method or releasing the lever if the climber starts moving too fast. These videos are no different than teaching someone how to use a grigri and failing to tell them about releasing the lever.

Don't rely on any instruction that does not clearly and thoroughly demonstrate what can go wrong and how to react when it does.

Don't rely on anecdotes from MP to confirm that a method is proven. "I tried it and it worked for me...." A lowering method that works 999 out of 1000 times is complete shit.

Sloppy Second wrote: You nailed it.

These newfangled belay configurations can be appropriate for guides who often have inexperienced followers, but there's little reason for the recreational climber to be experimenting with these approaches.

What is being downplayed here is the fact that these techniques are basically trading convenience for safety. Every new technique has ways of failing that have not been discovered and unfortunately it's often the case that the hidden flaw is only revealed when an accident occurs. (Even if the failure modes are documented, they may not be known by the user at the time.) The marginal increase in convenience is rarely worth the added risk.

When looking at these instructional videos, we should be asking ourselves "what if?" In the case of this lowering technique an obvious question is "what if they start descending too fast?" It could happen if someone is using a thinner rope, the climber is heaver than usual, the terrain is steep ... and when it does happen you won't have time to ask MP or watch youtube to figure out what to do next.

We often hear about beginners dropping people when lowering with a grigri because they did not know (or did not practice) the method or releasing the lever if the climber starts moving too fast. These videos are no different than teaching someone how to use a grigri and failing to tell them about releasing the lever.

Don't rely on any instruction that does not clearly and thoroughly demonstrate what can go wrong and how to react when it does.

Don't rely on anecdotes from MP to confirm that a method is proven. "I tried it and it worked for me...." A lowering method that works 999 out of 1000 times is complete shit.

This is, again, where I would appreciate some alternatives. I felt that the instructions in the technique were pretty clear on the "what-if" scenarios; that is why you begin with an overhand on a bight and implement a third-hand (assuming you increase the wraps on the auto-block for thinner ropes/heavier climber). It seems reasonably simple and safe to me? Obviously the safest is practicing this method indoors so you can get a feel for how it all works.

I appreciate the input, Bill and Fran. Seems like I will have to look more into that. I do not own a grigri and not really keen on buying one at the moment so trying to keep it simple with what I've got.

Ryan Barnes wrote:

I appreciate the input, Bill and Fran. Seems like I will have to look more into that. I do not own a grigri and not really keen on buying one at the moment so trying to keep it simple with what I've got.

Just for the record, not that you meant otherwise, when I belay off the harness belay loop, which is most the time, I use a regular ATC - not guide mode.

My main climb venue is Multi-Pitch with the occasional two-stranded rap. Regular ATC is a good fit, lighter than most devices and keeps my brake hand reflexes tuned. And I wear belay gloves.

But I have gone to a break assisting device for lead belays in the gym because they now require it. There, I chose the Revo which uses similar brake-hand motions ... so it also keeps the same reflexes tuned - am catching lead falls on it without the thing’s brake mech engaging.

Perhaps the crustiest thread I've seen in quite a while

Bill Lawry wrote:

Just for the record, not that you meant otherwise, when I belay off the harness belay loop, which is most the time, I use a regular ATC - not guide mode.

My main climb venue is Multi-Pitch with the occasional two-stranded rap. Regular ATC is a good fit, lighter than most devices and keeps my brake hand reflexes tuned. And I wear belay gloves.

But I have gone to a break assisting device for lead belays in the gym because they now require it. There, I chose the Revo which uses similar brake-hand motions ... so it also keeps the same reflexes tuned - am catching lead falls on it without the thing’s brake mech engaging.

I did follow that, but thanks for clarifying. I use a mega-jul right now because I do prefer to have assisted breaking for added peace of mind. 

Sloppy Second wrote: These newfangled belay configurations ....

While this is not the beginner forum, SS makes some good points in the above post. Probably worth re-reading.

For myself, I condense those thoughts to: keep an open mind; question techniques, including those adopted by the masses; try new things out in a safe setting; seek out experienced folks for input.

In two words: self responsibility.

(Probably nothing new to folks here.)

For beginners and experienced people alike. Always back up all transitions using third hands and tying backup knots into the anchor.  Also helpful to keep an eye out for other climbers nearby which could come to your help if you think something isn't right or you screw it up.

Ryan Barnes wrote: I see a lot of folks expressing disdain for guide mode for top belay. As someone still fairly new to multi-pitch climbing, what is the preferred alternative for belaying the second? I've always found guide-mode easy to use and setup and have not really needed to explore alternatives yet, but obviously I have not been exposed to very many scenarios so I would be interested to hear what the other options are.

Ryan,

Remember that anyone who says that there is only one right way to do something is either ignorant, lying, or selling something.  There are a variety of belay techniques, and a wide variety of different climbing scenarios.  Learn when to apply them appropriately.

Auto-blocking belay devices can be very useful in some climbing situations.  Here's some information for consideration:

https://kellycordes.com/2011/05/30/multi-pitch-efficiency-the-auto-blocking-belay-plate/
http://willgadd.com/simple-tricks-for-speed-on-multi-pitch-ice-routes/
https://cascadeclimbers.com/alpine-belay-by-blake-herrington/
https://cascadeclimbers.com/elbow-saving-belays/
https://cascadeclimbers.com/faster-is-lighter-tips-for-increasing-your-speed-in-the-alpine/

Be aware of the limitations of using such a device, such as the proper procedure for lowering, and the limitations on the auto-blocking capability.

Note that you can also use a Grigri as an autoblocking belay device for a second, although it has its own risks and downsides (see Petzl documentation and various online discussions for more detail).

Sloppy Second wrote:

When you are done bragging can you answer my question?

Bill answered your Q:

"In short, the lowering is controlled or stopped by gripping with the brake hand like one does on the brake strand when lowering someone in the gym."

And... you can brag all you want when you've built the resume that RG has. Until then, don't be an ass.

Sloppy Second wrote: You nailed it.

These newfangled belay configurations can be appropriate for guides who often have inexperienced followers, but there's little reason for the recreational climber to be experimenting with these approaches.

What is being downplayed here is the fact that these techniques are basically trading convenience for safety. Every new technique has ways of failing that have not been discovered and unfortunately it's often the case that the hidden flaw is only revealed when an accident occurs. (Even if the failure modes are documented, they may not be known by the user at the time.) The marginal increase in convenience is rarely worth the added risk.

When looking at these instructional videos, we should be asking ourselves "what if?" In the case of this lowering technique an obvious question is "what if they start descending too fast?" It could happen if someone is using a thinner rope, the climber is heaver than usual, the terrain is steep ... and when it does happen you won't have time to ask MP or watch youtube to figure out what to do next.

We often hear about beginners dropping people when lowering with a grigri because they did not know (or did not practice) the method or releasing the lever if the climber starts moving too fast. These videos are no different than teaching someone how to use a grigri and failing to tell them about releasing the lever.

Don't rely on any instruction that does not clearly and thoroughly demonstrate what can go wrong and how to react when it does.

Don't rely on anecdotes from MP to confirm that a method is proven. "I tried it and it worked for me...." A lowering method that works 999 out of 1000 times is complete shit.

Sloppy, I didn't answer your question because it has already been answered twice by the time I posted.  I simply highlighted the absurdity of claiming a belay system that depends on grip is flawed.

As for your comments above, I don't disagree with much of it.  I'm not a fan of plaquette belays and my original post should have made that clear.  That said, they have their place in many situations, not just for guides, in spite of their flaws.  I suspect a majority of climbers, especially in Europe, are now using them regularly.

You do seem to be missing the boat a bit in your comments about missing information from online sources.  Of course some sources are worthless, but there are also very experienced and competent people providing excellent advice.  For example, the two links I posted both made a big deal out of backing up the system so that failures of grip or sudden release would not be catastrophic, so in those cases your arguments are misplaced.

"guide mode" was "invented" by manufacturers who wanted to sell more belay devices to climbers who already had perfectly good (or likely better) belay devices in the first place.

then, as time went on and more problems arise with their use, they just keep releasing 25 step videos on how to "work around". i guess people just like how koolaid tastes sometimes...

slim wrote: "guide mode" was "invented" by manufacturers who wanted to sell more belay devices to climbers who already had perfectly good (or likely better) belay devices in the first place.

then, as time went on and more problems arise with their use, they just keep releasing 25 step videos on how to "work around". i guess people just like how koolaid tastes sometimes...

Dude it's really not that hard to lower someone in guide mode, I had to do it over the weekend, took about 20 seconds and that's without practice and the anchor in the ground. 

rgold wrote:

Sloppy, I didn't answer your question because it has already been answered twice by the time I posted.  I simply highlighted the absurdity of claiming a belay system that depends on grip is flawed.

As for your comments above, I don't disagree with much of it.  I'm not a fan of plaquette belays and my original post should have made that clear.  That said, they have their place in many situations, not just for guides, in spite of their flaws.  I suspect a majority of climbers, especially in Europe, are now using them regularly.

You do seem to be missing the boat a bit in your comments about missing information from online sources.  Of course some sources are worthless, but there are also very experienced and competent people providing excellent advice.  For example, the two links I posted both made a big deal out of backing up the system so that failures of grip or sudden release would not be catastrophic, so in those cases your arguments are misplaced.

I said that a belay system that relies on grip strength is flawed. And you proceeded to twist the words. A belay system should be effective regardless of whether there is a champion weightlifter or a 12 year-old girl on the brake hand. Friction should be controlled by the geometry of the system, specifically the path and angle of the rope - not how hard the belayer can squeeze. (Of course you know this, but choose to take a misleading tangent because you got hung up on a semantic nit.)

Do people use flawed systems? Yes, you are correct, they are used all the time as all the traditional systems have this flaw to some degree. But it is essential to recognize the flaws and the outcomes that may result. Because it's the flaws, specifically when they exceed a certain threshold, that lead to accidents. Promoting the idea that modern belay systems fundamentally work by multiplying grip strength is just plain wrong.

If you think the backup (i.e the friction hitch) is the solution to mitigating the flaws, then you are completely missing the boat. Because nobody is going to use the backup. Sure, they will use it once or twice as they try out the new system. Once they've convinced themselves that it works they will abandon the friction hitch. Then one day they are using a thinner rope, have a heavier climber, or some other parameter has changed and...

So there is no backup in reality. In fact there is a discussion happening right now where many regulars acknowledge that they don't use a backup in these situations.

I'm going to double down and say that if a system requires a backup to mitigate possibly of inadequate grip strength, then it's inherently a bad system.

The "load strand direct" system can work and I'm sure it has many times. But the inherent flaw is that it does not give the belayer much freedom of motion with the brake strand to control friction. If the rope starts moving too fast there are no options other than gripping harder.

If using a plaquette as a simple tuber when lowering, why not just move it to your harness where one has a full range of motion on the brake strand and are basically lowering exactly as it works in the gym? It gives much more control, including the ability to "lock off" by wrapping the brake strand around your back.

SS:

I’ve tried the LSD method. My personal take is the backup hitch has more to do with LSD not being a manufacturer-recognized method than outright inadequate friction. In my circumstances,  friction was adequate.

A more complete focus to take would be that folks should simply be knowledgeable in generable about the amount of rope friction they have from whatever combo of device, method, rope diameter, angles, etc. Even the lowly ATC with common config is sometimes inadequate, especially given the skinnier ropes these years.

In other words, there really is no one size fits all.

The premise that “a device needing hand grip to control is flawed” is a non-starter for me

Edit: I see I’m not the only one wondering if you think all non-brake assisting devices are flawed ...