Is Trango on vacation?

A week ago our Vergo failed to engage on a whip resulting in belayer suffering ropeburns to the hand to lock down my fall, less than a minute after full engagement for the fall i took prior. Emailed Trango the day we got home from the Red to get no response to that email or the follow up email a couple days later. I wanted to hear from them before posting here, but seriously a week with no response regarding product failure is pretty wild. Anyone else have this issue? This Vergo is post recalls and the fall was on a 9mm rope. The vergo failed to engage for a bit even after going direct into a bolt and my GF feeding it back and forth a few times to get it to catch. More of a “why have I received no response to this incident” than the issue with the device itself. 

Was the belayer holding the climber's strand? Was the climber's strand coming out of the bottom of the device, like it's supposed to? I realize that, as the climber, it might be hard to know why it didn't engage, but are you sure the device failed?

Do you think the rope was too skinny, even though the device states it works below 9.0 mm?

This is why i posted here. The belayer was not holding climber side (I asked her repeatedly if she was holding climber side of the rope during the fall and once in direct to a bolt I watched her feed rope quickly back and forth before camming action finally engaged again) The design of the Vergo once rotated to catch a fall requires bare minimum resistance on the brake side to engage the device on the climber side. I was within sight the entire time (seeing as the fall was at the third bolt) to see her holding my weight with both hands on brake side and getting no action from the vergo in its turned/upright position so I quickly grabbed climber side to support weight before clipping in direct. Enough experience with it between us knows that taking requires almost no effort. yes I checked the set up before I left the ground and it held a whip before it didn’t. The rope was 9mm. The comment of “was the climbers side coming out the bottom of the device (like it’s supposed to)? makes me skeptical that you’re familiar with using a Vergo. Like I said my main worry besides a chance of decking is that Trango has provided no response, I have no problem with going back to the grigri2 as primary device. We LOVED the Vergo before this incident but have lost faith in it since. 

the climber strand should come out of the bottom of the device and brake hand comes out of the top. If you aren't seeing this then you have it upside down on the belay biner. 

ok so if we are talking the initial loading and clipping into the belay loop then yes you’re terminology is correct. So I’m saying when lead belaying the device has rotated so the climber side pays out left and the brake side is in the right hand which stays on the device. Frank I’m EXTREMELY sorry if I snapped back too quickly I know how nasty MP gets and was reacting prematurely to what nastiness is sure to follow. But I assure all the device was loaded properly during the event

Erick Valler wrote: A week ago our Vergo failed to engage on a whip resulting in belayer suffering ropeburns to the hand to lock down my fall, less than a minute after full engagement for the fall i took prior. Emailed Trango the day we got home from the Red to get no response to that email or the follow up email a couple days later. I wanted to hear from them before posting here, but seriously a week with no response regarding product failure is pretty wild. Anyone else have this issue? This Vergo is post recalls and the fall was on a 9mm rope. The vergo failed to engage for a bit even after going direct into a bolt and my GF feeding it back and forth a few times to get it to catch. More of a “why have I received no response to this incident” than the issue with the device itself. 

The Vergo, like the Gri and all similar devices are not failsafe devices, they do not guarantee they will lock up. Ultimately the belaylor always has to "lock off" for the device to "assist" the brake. At certain angles it's easy for these devices not to lock up.

Although they may say that the device works with 9mm, that doesn't mean it is best practice. A thin rope will always make it harder to lock off these devices, 9.4 is my personal minimum for any device like the Vergo. Also, weight difference is a factor, is you weigh more than your GF you probably need a thicker rope for her to be able to hold you easily. 

I don’t have this device but have heard of 2 issues similar to yours recently 

Tradiban wrote:

The Vergo, like the Gri and all similar devices are not failsafe devices, they do not guarantee they will lock up. Ultimately the belaylor always has to "lock off" for the device to "assist" the brake. At certain angles it's easy for these devices not to lock up.

Although they may say that the device works with 9mm, that doesn't mean it is best practice. A thin rope will always make it harder to lock off these devices, 9.4 is my personal minimum for any device like the Vergo. Also, weight difference is a factor, is you weigh more than your GF you probably need a thicker rope for her to be able to hold you easily. 

This is exactly why I’m so glad my girlfriend is an attentive belayer. I stressed hard the belayer responsibility for years and she spent more time belaying me with an ATC than anything, never liked the idea of overriding the cam such as the GriGri. So the Vergo seemed perfect for us. Lucky for me she’s an amazing person who doesn’t let an active/assisted belay device let her lose sight of her responsibility as a belayer and she maintained the brake side. Also why she is recovering from likely just more severe than 1st degree burns to her hand/fingertips and I’m not recovering from broken bones or clinging to life from a ground fall. ( I don’t know the friction/resistance a failed vergo plus three quickdraws would provide to assist catch but like stated previously I could see rope feed thru the Vergo effortlessly as she tried to hold me on tension.) The rope was a seasoned 9mm at skinniest so probably made it fatter so should’ve been well within device parameters. And honestly if she hadn’t caught me the same way 100 times as she did the whip right before failure I’d accuse her of lying to protect her ego (when she who barely climbs and always belays me, I have total trust in her catch) I will be in the gym tomorrow loading the vergo every possible way to try to find any nuance to it that wasn’t clear to me, but she absolutely won’t use the vergo again, doesn’t seem worth the risk. And again, this post was more to draw attention to the zero response from Trango after two emails over 7 days describing a near groundfall//device failure. 

Erick Valler wrote:

This is exactly why I’m so glad my girlfriend is an attentive belayer. I stressed hard the belayer responsibility for years and she spent more time belaying me with an ATC than anything, never liked the idea of overriding the cam such as the GriGri. So the Vergo seemed perfect for us. Lucky for me she’s an amazing person who doesn’t let an active/assisted belay device let her lose sight of her responsibility as a belayer and she maintained the brake side. Also why she is recovering from likely just more severe than 1st degree burns to her hand/fingertips and I’m not recovering from broken bones or clinging to life from a ground fall. ( I don’t know the friction/resistance a failed vergo plus three quickdraws would provide to assist catch but like stated previously I could see rope feed thru the Vergo effortlessly as she tried to hold me on tension.) The rope was a seasoned 9mm at skinniest so probably made it fatter so should’ve been well within device parameters. And honestly if she hadn’t caught me the same way 100 times as she did the whip right before failure I’d accuse her of lying to protect her ego (when she who barely climbs and always belays me, I have total trust in her catch) I will be in the gym tomorrow loading the vergo every possible way to try to find any nuance to it that wasn’t clear to me, but she absolutely won’t use the vergo again, doesn’t seem worth the risk. And again, this post was more to draw attention to the zero response from Trango after two emails over 7 days describing a near groundfall//device failure. 

I fear Trango will give you the same answer I just did.  I'm sure they gets lots of emails, so be patient.

An anecdote: When I was managing a gym we had Gris on chains bolted to the floor (no harness needed for belayor). Once a day someone would come up and start to say "The thingy isn't..." but before they would finish I would already be saying "It's cool, let me show you" at which I would demo how the Gri wouldn't lock if they weren't locking off properly.

Your problem, I think, stems from using such a skinny rope, I know that they say it can work with that size and it "can" but in my experience using a thin rope greatly diminishes the chance of locking up as expected.

Yikes that’s a terrible response to be expecting. Appreciate the anecdote but that hardly gives me ANY reason to recommend any Trango product if that’s the case. I’ll certainly modify any post or response if I actually hear back from Trango but jeepers I don’t expect anyone close to my climbing circle to use a Vergo based on that rationale. (Only reason I expected any response by now was how quickly they responded to the Vergo being shipped to an old address and correcting that so I’d receive the Post-Recall supply) 

the piece of this that is often an issue with the trango devices - whether the vergo or cinch prior to that, is that people will often orient them the same as a grigri.  This causes issues.  Additionally, folks will be lazy and not use the "pinch" method that the vergo/cinch devices are designed for and will just depress the top of the device in order to deactivate the braking in order to feed slack.  That isn't to say the Vergo has not been a huge disappointment - clearly with the multitude of recalls and other nonsense this thing has been an embarrassment.  

Weston L wrote: the piece of this that is often an issue with the trango devices - whether the vergo or cinch prior to that, is that people will often orient them the same as a grigri.  This causes issues.  Additionally, folks will be lazy and not use the "pinch" method that the vergo/cinch devices are designed for and will just depress the top of the device in order to deactivate the braking in order to feed slack.  That isn't to say the Vergo has not been a huge disappointment - clearly with the multitude of recalls and other nonsense this thing has been an embarrassment.  

Not trying to shrug off your comment but this addresses nothing that has been mentioned in this conversation. 

Erick Valler wrote: Yikes that’s a terrible response to be expecting. Appreciate the anecdote but that hardly gives me ANY reason to recommend any Trango product if that’s the case. I’ll certainly modify any post or response if I actually hear back from Trango but jeepers I don’t expect anyone close to my climbing circle to use a Vergo based on that rationale. (Only reason I expected any response by now was how quickly they responded to the Vergo being shipped to an old address and correcting that so I’d receive the Post-Recall supply) 

It's just a fact of these devices. They aren't failsafe so don't expect them to always autolock. Trango et al has never claimed they would so why would they do anything but point that out.

With a fat rope they are damn near guaranteed to lock up, with a skinny rope they are not as likely to lock up.

I have not had any problems with the new Vergo and have caught several lead falls. But not on such a skinny rope. I really like the Vergo, especially how it pays out slack easier than a Gri-Gri.

Erick, I hope you get this resolved and hear from Trango.

Tradiban wrote:

It's just a fact of these devices. They aren't failsafe so don't expect them to always autolock. Trango et al has never claimed they would so why would they do anything but point that out.

I know these things can fail, but this is pretty much the same as someone saying “take” on TR and still not getting any action from the device. I was caught by hand strength alone (minus QuickDraw friction and whatever friction the vergo offered without locking up) and then after backing myself up/putting my weight on a bolt directly, I could pull up/yard on my sling and with belayer braking both sides could not get any engagement from the vergo. I just don’t see anyone saying theyve had an experience of “yeah I was TR’ing a route inside/outside and with zero slack in the system said take and had the belay device fail completely”. Visualize what a TR take on a GriGri or vergo with the belayer holding brake side with two hands would be like/orientation of device and tell me I should expect my belayer to struggle to keep me from falling to the ground. 

More details would be nice, especially what carabiner was used.
In my case, thin spine carabiner interfered with the camming action of the plate, Vergo did not lock up. I found a different carabiner to prevent this from happening again.
Attached photo shows what I think happened - Vergo does provided some added friction in this mode, probably comparable to ATC.

Edit - later in the thread it was pointed out the the preferred usage of gridlock is to have the smaller loop go through the belay device. Unfortunately, I hit the post limit, have to go and edit my reply. That is exactly how use gridlock with GriGri, and used to use with Vergo. This photo is one of the series I emailed to Trango, carabiner being jammed into cam is best visible here - happens exactly the same with smaller loop.

Erick Valler wrote:

I know these things can fail, but this is pretty much the same as someone saying “take” on TR and still not getting any action from the device. I was caught by hand strength alone (minus QuickDraw friction and whatever friction the vergo offered without locking up) and then after backing myself up/putting my weight on a bolt directly, I could pull up/yard on my sling and with belayer braking both sides could not get any engagement from the vergo. I just don’t see anyone saying theyve had an experience of “yeah I was TR’ing a route inside/outside and with zero slack in the system said take and had the belay device fail completely”. Visualize what a TR take on a GriGri or vergo with the belayer holding brake side with two hands would be like/orientation of device and tell me I should expect my belayer to struggle to keep me from falling to the ground. 

Again, it "can" work with a 9mm rope but might not. You were in the "might not" category at that moment. Get a thicker rope and it will be more likely to work but still will not be guaranteed to do so.

Not all "9mm" ropes are created equal either, some will perform differently.

The point is that Trango doesn't guarantee that the Vergo will always lock up, so don't expect it to.

Erick Valler wrote: A week ago our Vergo failed to engage on a whip resulting in belayer suffering ropeburns to the hand to lock down my fall, less than a minute after full engagement for the fall i took prior. Emailed Trango the day we got home from the Red to get no response to that email or the follow up email a couple days later. I wanted to hear from them before posting here, but seriously a week with no response regarding product failure is pretty wild. Anyone else have this issue? This Vergo is post recalls and the fall was on a 9mm rope. The vergo failed to engage for a bit even after going direct into a bolt and my GF feeding it back and forth a few times to get it to catch. More of a “why have I received no response to this incident” than the issue with the device itself. 

Deja-vu, reminds me of the endless Cinch dropping threads.

Erick Valler wrote: I was within sight the entire time (seeing as the fall was at the third bolt) to see her holding my weight with both hands on brake side and getting no action from the vergo in its turned/upright position so I quickly grabbed climber side to support weight before clipping in direct. 

Does she remember if the plate was moving when she was pulling the rope back and forth?

Erick Valler wrote:

I know these things can fail, but this is pretty much the same as someone saying “take” on TR and still not getting any action from the device. I was caught by hand strength alone (minus QuickDraw friction and whatever friction the vergo offered without locking up) and then after backing myself up/putting my weight on a bolt directly, I could pull up/yard on my sling and with belayer braking both sides could not get any engagement from the vergo. I just don’t see anyone saying theyve had an experience of “yeah I was TR’ing a route inside/outside and with zero slack in the system said take and had the belay device fail completely”. Visualize what a TR take on a GriGri or vergo with the belayer holding brake side with two hands would be like/orientation of device and tell me I should expect my belayer to struggle to keep me from falling to the ground. 

With your brake hand positioned properly on the Vergo, and the Vergo properly oriented on your harness, even if the cam doesn't engage in a fall you are forcing the rope to bend through the device similar to an ATC, so you can expect a similar amount of braking force as an ATC, which should increase as you squeeze and pull down on the rope. Presuming the cam didn't engage, without directing the brake side of the rope down towards your feet (as you would with an ATC), the braking force will be limited. You may have noticed when belaying that when you pull up on the climber's side rope instead of to the side it will not feed at all or have great resistance, which is what happens when the climber's side pulls tight. If this isn't the case, it could be an issue with your rope and the Vergo, but I am leaning more towards pilot error.

ebmudder wrote:

[snip] it could be an issue with your rope and the Vergo, but I am leaning more towards pilot error.

In my case, carabiner wedged itself preventing the cam form locking, Vergo acted like ATC. I know it was NOT pilot error. Furthermore, it appears that belayer has used Vergo to catch a whipper just prior to the incident which is a further argument against pilot error.