Trango Vergo

Jim Titt wrote: Me? I´ve no desire to ever be belayed with a Cinch and I own 2 of the things.

People blame equipment when they should be blaming the users of the equipment. Up until two years after the GriGri2 came out, my GF, my main climbing partner and I all used the Cinch exclusively. Between the three of us, we probably caught close to 2,000 lead falls (hundreds of which were on ropes thinner than the device is rated for), belayed ten thousand pitches, and I personally caught one 60-footer and a near-factor-2 whip--All on a Cinch and all without ever losing control of the belay. By contrast, I've been dropped with the GriGri twice.

Point being, an experienced climber can catch a whip using any belay device ever made just the same as an inexperienced one can drop you on any device ever made. The safest belay device always has been and always be the one the user is most experienced with and most comfortable using. Forcing someone to use your preferred belay device is not going to increase your safety when they are less comfortable and experienced using it.

As long as the Cinch is not worn beyond it's serviceable lifespan, it's as safe a belay device as any other in experienced hands.

20 kN wrote: As long as the Cinch is not worn beyond it's serviceable lifespan, it's as safe a belay device as any other in experienced hands.

The statistics tell us otherwise.
Apart from the flimsy construction which leads to the "tab of death issues", handles breaking and the pin wearing out the numbers of experienced users telling the same tale of inexplicably rope running through and dropping people was interesting enough to be worth examining. That minimal wear on the pin has such an influence on the braking power is also interesting and an indication of how near the edge the design actually is.
Once you understand properly how the Cinch works and particularly how increasingly violent falls effect the braking performance then one can make ones own decision. I wouldn´t allow people to belay me using one.

Jim Titt wrote: The statistics tell us otherwise.

As a statistician, the statistics don't tell us shit. The number of accidents with either device is nearly meaningless as a comparison, as we don't know the correct denominator (something like # pitches belayed), nor would anyone feel comfortable with the assumption that the people using the devices are the same. People will, on average, have had far less experience with the cinch than the grigri, simply because the grigri has been around much longer.

More importantly, this is not a cinch vs. grigri thread. Quit it both of you.

Edit to note that I also deserve blame in this thread derailment.

shoo wrote: As a statistician, the statistics don't tell us shit. The number of accidents with either device is nearly meaningless as a comparison, as we don't know the correct denominator (something like # pitches belayed), nor would anyone feel comfortable with the assumption that the people using the devices are the same. People will, on average, have had far less experience with the cinch than the grigri, simply because the grigri has been around much longer. More importantly, this is not a cinch vs. grigri thread. Quit it both of you. Edit to note that I also deserve blame in this thread derailment.

I´d still rather take a bet on the statistics from a large number of users in a relatively controlled environment and analysed by a statistician than the opinion of one climber from Hawaii:-)

Jim Titt wrote: I´d still rather take a bet on the statistics from a large number of users in a relatively controlled environment and analysed by a statistician than the opinion of one climber from Hawaii:-)

What's the sample size? How many devices were manufactured?

Ray Pinpillage wrote: What's the sample size? How many devices were manufactured?

More than one guy in Hawaii :-)

I suspect that Jim Titt has seen some stats compiled in Europe that he is basing his decision on. I would not so quickly disregard his opinion. I'd guess it's based in fact. For myself, there is a comfort in knowing that my 2 are coming from REI, and I'll kick them back if they are not "all that" or otherwise lacking in common sense safety stuff:-)

Regards all

20 kN wrote: Which is a flaw. People blame equipment when they should be blaming the users of the equipment.

You can frame it that way, though if that's the case, it's also pretty silly to belay w/ a cinch/vergo unless you are in a speed belaying competition (so yeah, it's user error to even be using one for regular belaying). The design is just inherently less safe than a grigri(2) w/ little benefit.

I used one before the now upside-down loading recommendation and had a close call both as the climber and as the belayer. Only in both instances the belayer was fully paying attention to the climber, but the device didn't engage from a "slow" fall (fall at the bolt w/ little rope out, a common theme for cinch accidents). I'll grant that it's even possible the braking hand may have even slightly interfered (but definitely nothing like the grigri death grip) w/ the plate rotation. So yeah, I'll admit that'd be user error if true. But the reality is this can happen even with the best belayer, and there's really no need to be operating w/ that level of error margin. We've all heard grigri accidents from newbie or inattentive belayers, but experienced belayers paying close attention? That shit only seems to come from cinch, and that's telling.

The upside-down method make slight interference much less likely to prevent the plate from rotating, but it's still possible: imagine losing your footing & falling backwards the same moment as the falling climber (or a FF2, but something else is wrong in a true FF2). You'll be at the mercy of your belayer's grip if the device doesn't engage, as there isn't much braking force at all, unlike almost any other belay device on the market. Given that, however unlikely you think it may be, why would you choose to use it over the standard?

20 kN wrote: By contract, I've been dropped with the GriGri twice.

Lousy gig...

Does force from the brake strand engage the cam on a cinch like it does on a grigri? If it does, I see no issue other than the pin wear but, according to trango, that shouldn't be an issue anymore.

eli poss wrote:Does force from the brake strand engage the cam on a cinch like it does on a grigri?

It takes way more force than a grigri to engage if the plate attachment hole (to the harness/anchor point) is not loaded somehow (say if the rope friction from the minimal bend in the device isn't sufficient to lift the entire device away from the harness). Which is why you can put a cinch on an already loaded rope & slide it up & down but not w/ a grigri.

In a way, the upside-down loading adds a sharper rope bend than the very straight rope feeding mechanism. But like I said, if your belay orientation is somehow flipped, that can still happen.

I guess when that happens if you remember to drop your hip (in relationship to your brake hand) or (possibly and counter intuitively) lift your brake hand it'll likely raise the belay device & engage the cam.

So, belay like if you had a munter hitch, I guess?? Maybe that'll catch on & become the next official belay method and will solve the problem once & for all. Ya'll should sign up to be testers.

Billcoe wrote:I suspect that Jim Titt has seen some stats compiled in Europe that he is basing his decision on. I would not so quickly disregard his opinion. I'd guess it's based in fact. For myself, there is a comfort in knowing that my 2 are coming from REI, and I'll kick them back if they are not "all that" or otherwise lacking in common sense safety stuff:-) Regards all

Well the DAV have as usual studied these matters but as shoo has said their statistics are shit then we´ll have to rely on 20kN´s opinion instead:-)

I appreciate a well framed snarky augmentative riposte with no links or substantive documentation as much as the next guy, but I wonder if anyone has a link to these DAV tests Jim notes?

...anywaon...

....enywon?....

....innywon????

Bueller?........

ps, Rayomond, nice shots brah!

Answers to the questions - aka clarifying sales pitch - on Trango Vergo - Trango Vergo Questions Answered

My German is not that great, I did not notice any notices to Trango products in the study.

English, condensed

German, long

German, short

Here is something that Trango just sent out via email.

CLICK HERE

In Christ: Raymond

reboot wrote: It takes way more force than a grigri to engage if the plate attachment hole (to the harness/anchor point) is not loaded somehow (say if the rope friction from the minimal bend in the device isn't sufficient to lift the entire device away from the harness). Which is why you can put a cinch on an already loaded rope & slide it up & down but not w/ a grigri. In a way, the upside-down loading adds a sharper rope bend than the very straight rope feeding mechanism. But like I said, if your belay orientation is somehow flipped, that can still happen. I guess when that happens if you remember to drop your hip (in relationship to your brake hand) or (possibly and counter intuitively) lift your brake hand it'll likely raise the belay device & engage the cam. So, belay like if you had a munter hitch, I guess?? Maybe that'll catch on & become the next official belay method and will solve the problem once & for all. Ya'll should sign up to be testers.

Good answer reboot. You beat me too it. I would like to add that it is for the reasons above that Trango recommends keeping your hips parallel to the cliff, and feeding slack from the Cinch to your left side instead of towards the climber. This way, if the climber falls as you are feeding slack, the rope will be jerked out of your left hand, and will "lift the Cinch away from the harness", rotate the plate, and engage the cam.

I like to think of the Cinch like a prusik knot. The rope normally runs straight through it, and it won't grab the rope unless there is a tug on the end of the loop (or hole). You can pull with all your might on the brake strand, but if the Cinch is not tugged away from your belay loop, nothing will happen.

I've got nothing against the Vergo, I may even end up buying one. But for the reasons above, you must have a PERFECT technique when using the Cinch/Vergo. More so than with a GriGri.

Billcoe wrote:I appreciate a well framed snarky augmentative riposte with no links or substantive documentation as much as the next guy, but I wonder if anyone has a link to these DAV tests Jim notes? ...anywaon... ....enywon?.... ....innywon???? Bueller?........ ps, Rayomond, nice shots brah!

The DAV and Sporthochschule studied the proportional use of belay devices in 1038 climbing gym users in 2009. 7% used a GriGri and 1% Cinch.
The DAV then recorded 2 accidents using the GriGri and 6 using the Cinch for 2009 (the DAV own nearly of the climbing walls in Germany)and wrote about it in Panorama 3/2010.

Gleich sechs Unfälle innerhalb eines
Jahres mit dem Cinch bei einer
Verwendungshäufigkeit von 1 Prozent
sind erschreckend viel. Zufall? Wir
denken nein. Die Ursache für die
Unfälle liegt in der tückischen Mechanik
des Gerätes, verbunden mit einer
gefährlichen Bedienungsempfehlung
in der Gebrauchsanleitung des Herstellers.

Which means:-
Six accidents in one year with the Cinch by a user proportion of 1% is shockingly many. Coincidence? We don´t think so. The reasons for the accidents lies in the tricky mechanism connected with dangerous user instructions from the manufacturer.

Then there is another problem! Back when the Cinch was introduced one of the claims was that it gave a solid catch for short falls and a soft catch with big whippers. Sure, most climbers would rather have it the other way round but this was interesting enough for some in the industry to take notice. Why? Because it meant that a simple mechanical system was capable of adjusting it´s braking characteristic depending on the fall, everyone else like the grigri the braking force is very consistent no matter the fall. We also wanted to see how Trango controlled this as a "soft" catch in this context means rope slip and rope slip has to be limited to prevent burns to the belayer and the climber hitting stuff.
I got a contract to investigate this and obtained some drop test results which went up to 15m falls and lo and behold Trango´s claim was true. Small falls gave the highest impact force I´d ever seen and the big falls pushed rope slip to dangerous levels. We wanted to see how far the effect went and anyway check out what was happening so tried increasing drop forces but got nowhere, then built a rig for increasing rope speed up to a 50m drop. With larger falls the rope slip increased to unacceptable levels in our opinion and appeared not to be particularly controlled. With the GriGri the forces and slip remained fundamentally the same as for small falls.
Then we made a couple of cool replicas of a Grigri and a Cinch which allowed us to photograph the braking effect as it occured and discovered loads of useful stuff that we aren´t telling you!
Be interesting to see how the new geometry has improved this feature.

Jim Titt wrote: Be interesting to see how the new geometry has improved this feature.

Do you intend to repeat your tests on Vergo?

Jim Titt wrote: Small falls gave the highest impact force I´d ever seen and the big falls pushed rope slip to dangerous levels.

Thank you for sharing Jim. I almost always learn something useful from your posts.