New Petzl belay device

Josh Rappoportwrote:

At about 11:15 the Revo is compared to the Neox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKWlKkzyHI&t=625s

I was probably thinking a bit too hard about rope soloing when I wrote that post, I know of the short comings of a revo in that it basically sucks for sport and can't belay a second in guide mode but as a soloing device it seems the neox definitely isn't the one. 

You may or may not be correct - but definitely a bit too premature to say anything definitively since people are just getting them. I know of at least one professional climber that has one and is cautiously optimistic after using it on a LRS climb and taken some initial whips on it. He’s pursuing more rigorous testing.

Bit more discussion of the nuances of belaying with the Neox compared to the GriGri. He specifically says don't use the Neox for any sort of rope soloing, and acknowledges that people are already doing that with the GriGri.

Also he said that the Spirit screwgate locker is discontinued, so if that's your jam better grab em while you can. I'm already on the Sm'D train tho. 

Same guy, different video, showing some fast belaying and yanks on the rope with no brake hand. 

Is there a consensus on belaying from above directly off anchor?  

Just looked at the HowNot2 video.  Looks pretty good!

Josh Rappoportwrote:

Is there a consensus on belaying from above directly off anchor?  

https://www.petzl.com/INT/en/Sport/Belaying-a-second-from-above-with-GRIGRI--GRIGRI-Plus-and-NEOX?ProductName=NEOX

that guy named sebwrote:

I would like to point out that the neox is now only 10g lighter than the wild country revo now, with the mod for faster locking up I don't see too much of a reason to pick the neox over the revo. 

Revo and neox are completely different mechanisms of operation, the revo still has no system to control the speed of descent. It's either all you (and your pulley with less control than a tuber), or it's locked. 

Neox still has a lever. 

Try belaying someone 20 kg heavier than you with both and you'll see real quick.

New video from Petzl laying out the differences between NEOX, GRIGRI and GRIGRI+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXWEZ4vjWA&t=172s

that guy named sebwrote:

I have no idea what you're referring to or why you're talking about top rope belaying, the context is rope soloing, for lead and top rope belaying regular techniques should be used.

Sorry, yes, this thread has many contexts :)  I'm on the one where rock fall knocks out the belayer and the device fails to catch because the fall factor is too low or there is too much rope drag.

Hard Is Easy finally published his Neox video after 5 months of using it:

TLDR: He is not impressed by its handling and ease of use and would apperently rather use a Grigri. But he 100% recommends it for people coming from an ATC who don't want to be bothered learning new techniques for paying out slack. 

That clicky sound is so annoying when he lifts the "climber" up, I really can't believe nobody talked about this before (unless I'm blind?). I now hope this doesn't actually become the more popular device haha.

Biggi Elwrote:

Hard Is Easy finally published his Neox video after 5 months of using it:

TLDR: He is not impressed by its handling and ease of use and would apperently rather use a Grigri. But he 100% recommends it for people coming from an ATC who don't want to be bothered learning new techniques for paying out slack. 

I try and try to like his videos. I just dont.
He leaves so much out of it (and many other videos) and very much sets things up to "fail" without explaining why it set up the way he did and its nuances. I can poke holes in many of his testing methods.
An example is the rope in his drops running between two carabiners roughly 2ft apart, which means the rope is taking 2, 90 degree turns. This adds un realistic friction to the drop test, so that data that should come with an asterisk, or at least outlining the caveat. That kind of test is applicable to traverses mainly and should be named as being outside average conditions. Not that the data isnt valuable, but lacks context which is problematic for the user receiving the info that doesn't recognize how it relates to real world situations.

I am also just annoyed by how much he focused on the clicking of the device. It's a thing, but needs no more attention than the fact is makes a noise when using it and moving on.

He also acts surprised that the device "drops faster". No shit, the device has less friction in it by design until it actions into locking mode/position.... Where it then holds like a gri gri like his little pulling tests he did support. 

This little rant it neither really here nor there,  just think his content rubs me wrong sometimes and I feel like venting some of those obvious to me issues into the ether.

Sincerely,
an old man yelling at clouds

Mr Rogerswrote:

An example is the rope in his drops running between two carabiners roughly 2ft apart, which means the rope is taking 2, 90 degree turns. This adds un realistic friction to the drop test, so that data that should come with an asterisk, [...]

Is that so? Do two 90 degree turn add more friction than one 180 degree turn? Isn't one 180 degree turn basically a 90 degree turn on each side of the same carabiner? 

Josh Rappoportwrote:

Is there a consensus on belaying from above directly off anchor?  

I'll add that I found it wasn't functionally different from a Grigri in my use of it this past week from above. The clicking happens for sure but it is a dumb reason to not use it; it's only noticable. Honestly it encourages better belay technique to "push" the rope thru rather than just pull it and get the clicking sound. Love mine so far. 

Biggi Elwrote:

Is that so? Do two 90 degree turn add more friction than one 180 degree turn? Isn't one 180 degree turn basically a 90 degree turn on each side of the same carabiner? 

Vector forces.
You end up with a force that is trying to squeeze those two point together. The vector forces at each anchor increases load (adding friction) at each turn.

edit: adding this image to illustrate little more what I'm talking about. To note, the image is not including friction as its wayyyyy more complex to get to that detail, but is using a theoretically 100% efficient pulley at the turn to generate the numbers shown. 

I'm currently at City of Rocks, haven't got this out on an actual wall yet, but, it's been in quite a few hands on the ground, and, yeah, it's got some " limitations", as does everything. 

I do think, as do others, that people who are ATC users will enjoy this....

But.

I also think it will be pretty dangerous in the hands of grigri users with bad habits....but those folks are just accidents waiting to happen anyway.

H.

Why dangerous? What do you foresee happening?

Mr Rogerswrote:

An example is the rope in his drops running between two carabiners roughly 2ft apart, which means the rope is taking 2, 90 degree turns. This adds unrealistic friction to the drop test

1) It's not obvious how much more friction two 90-degree turns give compared to one 180.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capstan_equation would actually predict the same friction. Your vector forces are correct but don't explain the effect on friction (and to the extent that they could, I believe you'd end up with the Capstan equation because it is based on the same non-squeezable rope model). I believe you are ultimately correct that two 90s give more friction than one 180, but the explanation would have to involve the rope getting squeezed twice, and I don't think the difference would be dramatic.

2) Assuming two 90-degree turns do in fact give more friction, it's still less than a rope running through many draws and rubbing against rock in places.

Hard Is Easy did actually explain the rope drag effect in one of his earlier grigri videos a couple of years ago (where somebody got almost dropped and he first discovered the negative relationship between fall hardness and grigri catching).

I do wish he spent more time quantifying the grigri vs neox difference in his test than making fun of the sounds.

Serge Swrote:

1) It's not obvious how much more friction two 90-degree turns give compared to one 180.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capstan_equation would actually predict the same friction. Your vector forces are correct but don't explain the effect on friction (and to the extent that they could, I believe you'd end up with the Capstan equation because it is based on the same non-squeezable rope model). I believe you are ultimately correct that two 90s give more friction than one 180, but the explanation would have to involve the rope getting squeezed twice, and I don't think the difference would be dramatic.

The capstan equation is good to understand holding force on one side of the turn compared to another(hysteresis also in play). To add the elastic nature of dynamic climbing rope messes it all up as well as the equation is reliant on non elastic material as stated in the article linked. Unfortunately I don't think it useful for determining anything in this context, but excellent for nerding out on.
It is absolutely correct 2 90's put more friction. How much? That's what matters. If it is tested to be negligible, then that would make the results hold water, but at this point, that is unknown and my point of contention.
I work in entertainment performer flying, and we will use carabiners in place of pulleys sometimes because of the added friction in counterweight systems. It is quite noticeable when pulling a rope between 2 pulleys, and 2 carabiners in a configuration (even with 0 load) that runs just like what HIE has set up in that vid.  Anecdotal evidence I admit, but based in reality.

2) Assuming two 90-degree turns do in fact give more friction, it's still less than a rope running through many draws and rubbing against rock in places.

To your point #2. Thats an assumption based upon what factors? how may draws, what angle of turn at entry from belayer, what kind of rock, contact patch of rope to rock, how much force is the rope being pressed into the surface, etc etc etc. It not useful for this discussion around the testing method issues I'm bringing up. You're absolutely correct it could add more friction but I just dont see how its useful in this discussion currently.
Basically, if hard is easy sussed the friction in the system it would have more give the data some meat IMO.

I may take some time to work the friction out of a 90 degree turn to get some very general numbers to apply! I think it would be good information to have out in the world. I have few flights coming up that will offer some good time to dive into this. Heck, there is probably good info out in the world already around it that I will attempt to google-fu my way to it.

In the end, it would not be hard to create a fall scenario with it running through a single carabiner anyway and could provide a more accurate test.

Hard Is Easy did actually explain the rope drag effect in one of his earlier grigri videos a couple of years ago (where somebody got almost dropped and he first discovered the negative relationship between fall hardness and grigri catching).

I saw this and is useful to understand the kind of forces that the gri gri relies on to engage. That video is riff with issues as well, and not for this discussion as this is not a gri gri. Although doing more testing like in that video would be cool to see with the neox for sure.

I do wish he spent more time quantifying the grigri vs neox difference in his test than making fun of the sounds.

Preach brother!lol.

I appreciate your input and love the rabbit hole I am now in. How deep does it go!