Reverso Vs. Old-style ATC Guide
|
Some of you may remember me posting a thread a while back about my concern over the Reverso 3's apparent ineffectiveness in the guide's belay mode. Well, since then, some of the water-proof coating on my rope has worn away and it's working much better. I'm finally realizing that the key here is friction. (No duh; I know; I'm slow, okay.) Furthermore, I believe that the Reverso has a design flaw when compared to its old-style counter part. I've put the two side-by-side in the following figure. You'll notice that in principle and topologically, they're virtual identical. There are only variations in the geometry. Of particular note, (and I've tried to emphasize it in the photo above), the Reverso has a dip along the channel walls, and this appears to be a flaw to me. (Perhaps they did it to save weight? I don't know.) The old-style ATC-guide does not have this dip, which means it's going to guide the ropes in such a way that the climber's strand sits more directly on top of the break strand. This maximizes the amount of surface area forming the contact between the two strands, and therefore provide more _friction_! My 9.8 mm rope is still fairly new and has a bit of dry treatment still on it. I tried interchanging the two belay devices in the same anchor with this same rope, and sure enough, I found the old-style device to be more effective. Of course, this is just me pulling on the climber's strand, and not a real drop-test, but my feeling is that the old-style device is more effective than the Reverso 3. How much more? Perhaps it's negligible, but it seems significant to me. Anyway, what do you think? |
|
Actually, you are close to hitting something right on the head, though you are just postulating without a substantive method. |
|
NEEEERRRDDSSS!!!! |
|
Nerds are hot, dufus. |
|
spencerparkin wrote:You'll notice that in principle and topologically, they're virtual identical.Nice use of the word topologically. 1000 points. :) Note that unslung hexentrics are also topologically identical to both of those devices (before being slung). |
|
The type of biner that the rope threads through makes a big difference, right? Up until now I've been using just a smaller BD locker while using my R3 in guide mode, until a friend of mine who is more experienced said that I should use a bigger biner instead. I have yet to try it, but using a bigger, more rounded biner will feed the rope easier, right? |
|
Besides that, the BD looks Kick-Ass when I slip it over my pinky at a bar and fling it around. |
|
Now I know what I'm doing wrong. |
|
Mark, nah, just twirl it like a set of keys, as in, "I drive this bad-ass mamma-jamma". |
|
Richard Fernandez wrote:Mark, nah, just twirl it like a set of keys, as in, "I drive this bad-ass mamma-jamma". Works like a charm, although I seem to attract chicks who have big racks.And that's a problem why? |
|
spencerparkin wrote:Anyway, what do you think?I think your wallpaper is kind of cute. |
|
I will play nerd's advocate. |
|
Gear review |
|
paintrain wrote: Move along people. Nothing to see here. ptthese are not the devices we are looking for These are not the devices we are looking for |
|
Try a Simond Toucan. |
|
I'd rather use a hip belay than a toucan |
|
blackdiamondequipment.com/e…
I'm not saying that you're using it wrong, but I saw this on BD's web site. Part of the video talks about the relationship between carabiner size and friction on the rope. They talk mostly about the ease of pulling the rope through the device, but the same principles apply. I thought you might be interested. |
|
I think that is where you are reasoning incorrectly. |
|
you'll have the same problem with the BD Guide. |
|
|
|
I got this old school belay device that I don't even know what type it would be called. |