The unofficial LRS Sulu Go thread

Jared Ewrote:

They’re both active camming from the bottom plate. Really the only difference is surface area pinching the rope, so the sulu may be gentler on the rope. This is speaking purely in context of LRS and not other forms of belaying.

They’re both perfectly capable of catching the worst LRS fall conceivable, so I don’t see how the mechanical advantage makes any difference 

The Sulu sled is not itself sprung.  The pressing force comes from the retraction spring on the handle pushing against the clip in lever.  In effect, though, it's like the sled is "pre-loaded".  This is distinct from the LOV, which is fully free-pivoting.  This little bit of spring force isn't what catches the fall, of course, but it might make the Sulu a bit more grabby.  (My experience with the LOV is that it is very grabby indeed with even the slightest rope angle change, so this might be a meaningless distinction.)

My primary interest in the Sulu is its ability to use skinnier ropes than the LOV.  I have an 8.9 on the way to try with it.

Its works great on 9mm Evan. So I would imagine your 8.9 is gonna be the same.

___________________________________

Jared, I'm just pointing out their differences. Yes they are incredibly similar from 30,000ft, but they are not the same. So just writing it off as the same as a TAZ when approaching its for LRS is, IMO, not giving a honest effort to see what might be possible. You absolutely don't have to be that person if you feel this kinda set up is already polished. I may end up rueing the day, but if one does not try, the answer is always no....and I have free time to spare right now.

Onward. You say the Lov is "active caming from the bottom plate" I don't understand this, nor think thats what the Sulu is doing either. The little metal bar (rocker) on the handle side of the LOV is the piece that moves in the Taz causing it to press into the lower stationary bar. Thats not how the Sulu engages the rope, it does not use a rocker, and the mechanical engagement is from the opposite side.
Care to offer some clarity?

____________________________________

new things:
Ive put another tether hole and 7/64" dyneema tether in the device. I can open the plates without removing the little biner now, and I can play with orientation (90º L or R) when hanging on my Torse.
Some tether pics.

I made the tether just long enough to clip it back out off the way when ya don't need it.

Mr Rogers if you had a little bit of elastic band tied through the new hole and the existing lanyard hole you could increase the spring preload and make it extra grabby, I reckon it'd still run really well. 

I've had some success tieing the top pulley to my chest lanyard with some elastic to keep it still and it improved the run of the set up. 

that guy named sebwrote:

Mr Rogers if you had a little bit of elastic band tied through the new hole and the existing lanyard hole you could increase the spring preload and make it extra grabby, I reckon it'd still run really well. 

Solid idea to play with.

Here is a "simplified" Sulu LRS rig.....
No pulley to promote better feeding, but just a 5/16" QL. May switch back to a tiny harken pulley, or pulley biner, but this feeds very well.
New tether hole and tether shown up thread. I clip the tether back to the sulu factory provided hole after running over the Torse.
Also included some USBHA hand ascender backup / cache loop detail for this who may be interested (some key features on the Misty Mountain Cadillac make this system functional without a ton of Mcguyvering). I'm going to make another vid on the back up soon enough...it's overdue.

link to short: https://youtube.com/shorts/qc94dFt8ibc

If you want to see it in the regular YT player:
https://youtube.com/watch/qc94dFt8ibc
Pro tip: just change "shorts" in the URL of any YT shorts to "watch" and viola.

Cheers y'all.

Some good discourse in the LRS Facebook group, they were able to force the device to fail in an inversion specifically due to the lack of any play in the device held up by a chest harness(or lanyard). While one person said it isn't possible to address this with elastic cord, but I seem to have managed it. 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BPVh5rsXJ/

To the thread in question. 

https://youtu.be/Wjag98iIeC4?si=jziO8EbAubnJWpo1

Me and hanging the sulu go off an elastic cord. 

Off camera I tested to make sure everything still runs free and doesn't bind up, seems to be fine. 

that guy named sebwrote:

Some good discourse in the LRS Facebook group, they were able to force the device to fail in an inversion specifically due to the lack of any play in the device held up by a chest harness(or lanyard). While one person said it isn't possible to address this with elastic cord, but I seem to have managed it. 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BPVh5rsXJ/

To the thread in question. 

https://youtu.be/Wjag98iIeC4?si=jziO8EbAubnJWpo1

Me and hanging the sulu go off an elastic cord. 

Off camera I tested to make sure everything still runs free and doesn't bind up, seems to be fine. 

Is inverting on an already caught locked Sulu different than falling inverted prior to lockup?

mountainhickwrote:

Is inverting on an already caught locked Sulu different than falling inverted prior to lockup?

I think it can be, I've seen people invert after being caught, especially in hard catches. This should also help protect against inverted falls as provided there is atleast some preload from the device, it can move to a position where it can catch the fall, a lanyard with no stretch could cause the whole thing to just be stuck upside down.

Seb, when you were deciding on the elastic lanyard length, how were you thinking about it in terms of the angle you wanted the sulu and lower carabiner to sit at? Your video looks pretty encouraging. 

It seems set so that the lower carabiner has some freedom of movement and isn't pulled tight vertically (like we'd typically do for TRS with 2 progress capture devices). I'm thinking about the TRS guidance and how the sulu shouldn't be above the carabiner which appears like what you achieved there. Just curious because I'm measuring out my lanyard and getting accustomed to the required angles with this thing to function properly. Maybe I'm answering my own question as I write this out. 

that guy named sebwrote:

I think it can be, I've seen people invert after being caught, especially in hard catches. This should also help protect against inverted falls as provided there is atleast some preload from the device, it can move to a position where it can catch the fall, a lanyard with no stretch could cause the whole thing to just be stuck upside down.

My thought with this is that typically in an inverted fall, the climber is hitting something or getting a leg hooked behind the rope, causing them to rapidly flip upside down. All that to say, I want to imagine the "preload" happens during that first drop before the violent upside down flip. Perhaps that's overly optimistic, feel free to poke holes in my logic everyone

Cosmic Hotdogwrote:

Seb, when you were deciding on the elastic lanyard length, how were you thinking about it in terms of the angle you wanted the sulu and lower carabiner to sit at? 

You give me too much credit, this is a leftover thing from when I was attaching the device with some string, it seemed to work well just hanging off the neck lanyard and too much tension would interfere with the rope running. 

Your video looks pretty encouraging. 

It seems set so that the lower carabiner has some freedom of movement and isn't pulled tight vertically (like we'd typically do for TRS with 2 progress capture devices). I'm thinking about the TRS guidance and how the sulu shouldn't be above the carabiner which appears like what you achieved there.

Not sure how much the TRS guidance applies here but it's given me the idea to try the device right side up again. 

Edit: I did it and it works really well

https://youtu.be/-SfKU0rUlKI?si=dzqbuWKsxGI3FLbC

 Just curious because I'm measuring out my lanyard and getting accustomed to the required angles with this thing to function properly. Maybe I'm answering my own question as I write this out. 

Just do some experimentation, I'm sure all will become clear, dialing these things in is always a pain. 

The redirect is essential to have it feed well with the elastic, it keeps everything independent. 

Cosmic Hotdogwrote:

My thought with this is that typically in an inverted fall, the climber is hitting something or getting a leg hooked behind the rope, causing them to rapidly flip upside down. All that to say, I want to imagine the "preload" happens during that first drop before the violent upside down flip. Perhaps that's overly optimistic, feel free to poke holes in my logic everyone

A bouncing/rebound, load/unloading action on the rope during a fall can occur as you describe. My concern is an initial grab of the device lets go once inverted. Seb's example is very tame, he locks the "catch" and keeps the tension on the device as he inverts, but different conditions can happen on the device if your position goes upside down when it is releasing during rebound... Hypothetically.

I think Seb's previous vid showing upside down falls from the bar is more encouraging.

Mr Rogerswrote:

Here is a "simplified" Sulu LRS rig.....
No pulley to promote better feeding, but just a 5/16" QL. May switch back to a tiny harken pulley, or pulley biner, but this feeds very well.
New tether hole and tether shown up thread. I clip the tether back to the sulu factory provided hole after running over the Torse.
Also included some USBHA hand ascender backup / cache loop detail for this who may be interested (some key features on the Misty Mountain Cadillac make this system functional without a ton of Mcguyvering). I'm going to make another vid on the back up soon enough...it's overdue.

link to short: https://youtube.com/shorts/qc94dFt8ibc

If you want to see it in the regular YT player:
https://youtube.com/watch/qc94dFt8ibc
Pro tip: just change "shorts" in the URL of any YT shorts to "watch" and viola.

Cheers y'all.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!  Thanks, Mr. Rogers!

But just to clarify what I think that I am seeing in the video, with the ushba, it is the direction of the pull that makes the difference?  Is that correct or am I missing something?

Also, as far as I can tell, the USHBA hand ascender is not available anywhere in the US.  I do see that it might be possible to order directly from Russia, with the following link.

  ural-alp.com/katalog/zazhim…

I love the USHBA setup!  It looks a little fiddly with 2 redirects, but maybe that would be worth the hassle if USDF risk is minimized.  I suspect the QLs could be replaced with carabiners for ease of use.

All of our recent experimentation suffers from a lack of real-life use, however.  The elastic hold up that Seb has implemented, for example, has promise but I suspect it will turn out to be too weak to work when one has a lot of rope hanging down and a substantial cache loop.  Things that seem to work well in the living room, IME, often fail to work when halfway up a pitch.  I look foward to trying some stuff myself in the next few weeks (I'm going to Utah) and to seeing others' setups when they've tried them on actual climbs.

that guy named sebwrote:

Some good discourse in the LRS Facebook group, they were able to force the device to fail in an inversion specifically due to the lack of any play in the device held up by a chest harness(or lanyard). While one person said it isn't possible to address this with elastic cord, but I seem to have managed it. 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BPVh5rsXJ/

To the thread in question. 

https://youtu.be/Wjag98iIeC4?si=jziO8EbAubnJWpo1

Me and hanging the sulu go off an elastic cord. 

Off camera I tested to make sure everything still runs free and doesn't bind up, seems to be fine. 

The Torse I think helps this issue, I tried full inversion with the last tether setup implemented and I could get it to slip slowly, but not as catastrophic as that other guys example. The Torse has more freedom of movement since it's not like strapped down to your body like a more robust style chest harness and I think might help mitigate the issue some.

Anyway, I found some old metolious hangdogs, little elastic shoe keepers for long multi days, and replaced the dyneema tether with it. You can be the judge, but I feel it definitely brings the risk down to much more acceptable levels by implementing the elastic. It may be in combination with the Torse that really brings it all together, but unclear until more testing with a different chesty.

YT regular player
https://youtube.com/watch/2i4YfphUQ8c
YT Shorts player
https://youtube.com/shorts/2i4YfphUQ8c

EDIT: Video showing change in where the elastic is in the system. Better result, need to clean it up, but promising side quest.
YT regular player
https://youtube.com/watch/8ldH3td-Rp8
YT Shorts player
https://youtube.com/shorts/8ldH3td-Rp8

Mike Gibson wrote:

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!  Thanks, Mr. Rogers!

But just to clarify what I think that I am seeing in the video, with the ushba, it is the direction of the pull that makes the difference?  Is that correct or am I missing something?

Yes direction matters, thats why I can pull up and get slack, but pulling horizontal or down, it locks.

Also, as far as I can tell, the USHBA hand ascender is not available anywhere in the US.  I do see that it might be possible to order directly from Russia, with the following link.

 https://ural-alp.com/katalog/zazhimy_dlya_vyery0vki/zazhim_ruchka

It is not sold in the states. Ural-alp, which you linked sometimes has em up for sale. I don't know if they just do a run every few years....but keep checking if ya do want a set.
I found a guy local selling em about a year ago and jumped all over it. It seem like a hard device to come by these days in a quick fashion.

evan freemanwrote:

I love the USHBA setup!  It looks a little fiddly with 2 redirects, but maybe that would be worth the hassle if USDF risk is minimized.  I suspect the QLs could be replaced with carabiners for ease of use.

they sure can be replaced with biners. I use the QL on the third hand attachment point because it's the one that really matters to help with the back up engagement. The one on the Torse is not needed, just helps rope feel smoother into the Sulu, so the one can be put in the ergonomics category.

All of our recent experimentation suffers from a lack of real-life use, however.  The elastic hold up that Seb has implemented, for example, has promise but I suspect it will turn out to be too weak to work when one has a lot of rope hanging down and a substantial cache loop.  Things that seem to work well in the living room, IME, often fail to work when halfway up a pitch.  I look foward to trying some stuff myself in the next few weeks (I'm going to Utah) and to seeing others' setups when they've tried them on actual climbs.

And agreed. Test bench and reality often do not align when ya put rubber to road. Im happy with how things have progressed, and overall done quite a bit it of testing with the back up on my old LRS rig, but need to re test everything with the Sulu. It's fuckin' scary being your own crash test dummy!

Okay so I think I have found the actual best set up

https://youtube.com/shorts/-SfKU0rUlKI?si=R9qoytWYYNXGMZYD

This allows the device to catch just like catching a TRS fall, makes it free to realign with the direction of fall, and should be very resistant to all forms of upside down fall. It doesn't need a cache loop and it self feeds really well making for faff free sending. 

To those who don't like the pulley, it is essential for this whole thing to work, replace it with a biner if you want but it's objectively worse. The pulley serves 2 important roles:

It takes the weight of the dead end of the rope off the device allowing the sulu to hang off the stretchy elastic and not get pulled out of position. 

It allows for a perfect feed straight down the device. 

I have tested it running up stairs, tested it for inversions, it all works more or less the same as all these previous methods just a bit better and potentially, a little more reliably.

Final additional bonus is out of all the set ups explored so far, this is what aligns the best with the manufacturers intended use. How much of a plus that is when we're talking about LRS I'm not sure but I think it counts for something. 

Testing out on real rock tomorrow and will edit if anything bad comes up. 

that guy named sebwrote:

Okay so I think I have found the actual best set up

https://youtube.com/shorts/-SfKU0rUlKI?si=R9qoytWYYNXGMZYD

This allows the device to catch just like catching a TRS fall, makes it free to realign with the direction of fall, and should be very resistant to all forms of upside down fall. It doesn't need a cache loop and it self feeds really well making for faff free sending. 

To those who don't like the pulley, it is essential for this whole thing to work, replace it with a biner if you want but it's objectively worse. The pulley serves 2 important roles:

It takes the weight of the dead end of the rope off the device allowing the sulu to hang off the stretchy elastic and not get pulled out of position. 

It allows for a perfect feed straight down the device. I have tested it running up stairs, tested it for inversions, it all works more or less the same as all these previous methods just a bit better and potentially, a little more reliably.

Final additional bonus is out of all the set ups explored so far, this is what aligns the best with the manufacturers intended use. How much of a plus that is when we're talking about LRS I'm not sure but I think it counts for something. 

Testing out on real rock tomorrow and will edit if anything bad comes up. 

Seems like it would be trivial to replace the pulley with a Revo backed up the harness. Nice. 

that guy named sebwrote:

Okay so I think I have found the actual best set up

https://youtube.com/shorts/-SfKU0rUlKI?si=R9qoytWYYNXGMZYD

This allows the device to catch just like catching a TRS fall, makes it free to realign with the direction of fall, and should be very resistant to all forms of upside down fall. It doesn't need a cache loop and it self feeds really well making for faff free sending. 

To those who don't like the pulley, it is essential for this whole thing to work, replace it with a biner if you want but it's objectively worse. The pulley serves 2 important roles:

It takes the weight of the dead end of the rope off the device allowing the sulu to hang off the stretchy elastic and not get pulled out of position. 

It allows for a perfect feed straight down the device. I have tested it running up stairs, tested it for inversions, it all works more or less the same as all these previous methods just a bit better and potentially, a little more reliably.

Final additional bonus is out of all the set ups explored so far, this is what aligns the best with the manufacturers intended use. How much of a plus that is when we're talking about LRS I'm not sure but I think it counts for something. 

Testing out on real rock tomorrow and will edit if anything bad comes up. 

Cool Seb.
I have been playing with it connected the "right" way as well. I'm not sure how much it actually matters in the LRS use case but figured if thats the way they designed the device, I might as well try to run it connected in the proper orientation. Only critique over the orientation you show is the live side is coming out on the handle side which can potentially get caught under the handle, run it on the other side might be a little cleaner and just rub on less stuff.
Now,I don't know if you noticed it, but the device wants to lay 90º from center when using a tether no matter what I tried (unless I made the tether super tight which I don't like) so it naturally wants to lay on its side. This supports the note above on putting the live side on the opposite that you have it IMO so the handle want to rest against the body more. YMMV and am interested if you don't notice that.

At this juncture I can not really see a major difference, except for the potential mitigation on USDF protection, sans back up. Which is pretty big deal admittedly(**but tethering the device up screws this pooch some, which part of the problem in the first place w/ USDF and a tether).
I'll post up a video maybe later on it but there is not real difference in how I run the setup when I connect the Sulu to harness in the "proper" orientation vs "upside down". I will also post a video demonstrating the USHBA back up in a little better detail to offer more clarity to those who are intrigued as well as I have gotten some inquiry around that since posting on FB.

Did a little video demonstrating how well the system works as I ran up a little warmup today. 

https://youtube.com/shorts/ZCUfwN9MDKs?si=G2PD4RGCtYu8fy91

So I did some testing today using my suggested setup and as expected it works really well, you can see in the video at no point do I actually tend to the device and the only time I have to stop is placing gear and getting slack. The stretchy elastic was never an issue. 

There are 2 issues I found

1. Sucks for mantles and topping out in general, not ideal but no big deal, maybe more something to be aware of more than anything. 

2. Getting slack for clipping is easy but more time consuming than I'd like. I think this is down to the device being quite low making pulling rope not particularly ergonomic as well as a lack in experience with the device. I think I'll try and raise the device up and finally convert to a sling or soft shackle connection and this should help. 

To maintain the same degree of stretch and maintain the devices freedom in the event of an inverted fall I'll try maintaining the same amount of elastic in the system by just binding it up with a bit of tape. 

Mr Rogers I'd agree with you that there isn't much of a difference in general use between right side up and upside down, pretty amazing how little it seems to matter. I would say it does slightly speed thing up in the transition from climbing to rapping but that's a drop in the bucket. The handle thing I didn't notice at the time but I don't think it'd do anything if it did get caught, I have changed up my little tie in loop at the clip in loop so it can now go over the handle so it can't open unless I want it to. 

that guy named sebwrote:

Did a little video demonstrating how well the system works as I ran up a little warmup today. 

https://youtube.com/shorts/ZCUfwN9MDKs?si=G2PD4RGCtYu8fy91

So I did some testing today using my suggested setup and as expected it works really well, you can see in the video at no point do I actually tend to the device and the only time I have to stop is placing gear and getting slack. The stretchy elastic was never an issue. 

There are 2 issues I found

1. Sucks for mantles and topping out in general, not ideal but no big deal, maybe more something to be aware of more than anything. 

2. Getting slack for clipping is easy but more time consuming than I'd like. I think this is down to the device being quite low making pulling rope not particularly ergonomic as well as a lack in experience with the device. I think I'll try and raise the device up and finally convert to a sling or soft shackle connection and this should help. 

Would a cache loop help this?
Also, do you feel like adding a cache loop for longer routes may be something beneficial base upon your testing today? I always run a cache because it's tied to my back up, so curious if when enough rope weight is in the system it could drive the need somehow.

To maintain the same degree of stretch and maintain the devices freedom in the event of an inverted fall I'll try maintaining the same amount of elastic in the system by just binding it up with a bit of tape. 

Mr Rogers I'd agree with you that there isn't much of a difference in general use between right side up and upside down, pretty amazing how little it seems to matter. I would say it does slightly speed thing up in the transition from climbing to rapping but that's a drop in the bucket. The handle thing I didn't notice at the time but I don't think it'd do anything if it did get caught, I have changed up my little tie in loop at the clip in loop so it can now go over the handle so it can't open unless I want it to. 

Yeah, I think it slightly more ergonomic in the upside down orientation, but not enough to warrant it over the potential added safety of having the device connected the MFG suggest way. If It can at all help mitigate an USDF, it's worth the fractionally less ergonomic function. Since the devie seem to always wanna lay flat on my chest , I may go back to 2nd QL to the belay loop, and this may also help with giving a little more rope when I pull slack.

Thanks for the update. Weather looks to be clearing starting for me tomorrow, so will get out if the rock dries well enough before my next stupid adult commitments and post some updates. I'm excited to implement some of the small changes to see how it all goes since even my initial LRS runs with the Sulu were excellent as is, with an unrefined system.