|
Paul Bierdeman
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Brookfield, IL
· Joined Oct 2019
· Points: 0
I have been using the ATC Belay Guide device by BD for many years. It has just been pointed out to me that when in guide mode the device is not redundant due to the way the device is attached to the anchor by one carabiner being passed through the metal loop of the device. The follower/followers are relying on this single loop of aluminum to support them. If this loop were to break in a fall the result would be catastrophic as there is no redundancy at this point in the system. My question to the forum is the lack of redundancy at this critical point acceptable? Are there any examples of these devices failing by breaking the loop? Does anyone know of any backup systems that can be used for these devices? Thanks!
|
|
FrankPS
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Atascadero, CA
· Joined Nov 2009
· Points: 276
a) Many items in climbing gear are not redundant, e.g., the rope, a locking carabiner, your belay device 2) The fall onto your device is bodyweight only, provided you're not leaving slack in the rope. You're belaying a follower, not a leader. f) Don't worry about it or use a different setup, such as a Munter to bring up the follower.
|
|
curt86iroc
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Lakewood, CO
· Joined Dec 2014
· Points: 274
it may not be redundant, but i bet the safety factor on that AL failing is 20x.... don't worry about it. edit: ok, probably not 20x, but you get my point...
|
|
Jim Titt
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Germany
· Joined Nov 2009
· Points: 490
|
|
Bill Czajkowski
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Albuquerque, NM
· Joined Oct 2008
· Points: 21
I don't think my belay system is ever redundant. Is yours?
|
|
Climber 4QualityCommunity
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Dec 2020
· Points: 0
|
|
Pat Light
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Charlottesville, VA
· Joined Nov 2017
· Points: 0
let's just do a megalist, where "we" means "most competent climbers" - Why do we not use redundant ropes? Redundancy is partially built into a single rope by design; in general, a protective sheath covers the load-bearing core strands of a climbing rope. Where there is increased risk of a single rope getting cut (generally alpine or ice terrain), we do in fact use two ropes.
- Why do we not use redundant harnesses? Harnesses are understood to be both redundant (best practice is to tie in through two load-bearing points) and overengineered (relatively speaking, a belay loop is enormous, very strong, easy to inspect, and quite resistant to wear under proper use). That said, there are certainly harnesses with two belay loops (often for organization rather than safety), and a belay loop certainly can theoretically fail or be cut (by, say, a factor 2 fall directly on a Dyneema sling clipped to a bolt on one side and girth hitched to a belay loop on the other).
- Why do we not use redundant belay devices? We do: Your hand and your competency are the backup devices. This also comes up with top rope solo gumbies: "Well, why wouldn't I trust a single device when I top rope solo, if I trust a single device when my partner belays me?" Because your partner's entire job is to keep her hand on the brake strand, operate the belay device properly, and be able to react in the event of catastrophic failure, and you can't do any of that when top rope soloing. Also, belay devices are bomber, and it's extremely rare if not unheard of that a load-bearing part will just break.
- Why do we not use redundant carabiners? Sometimes we do. Sometimes a twist-locking carabiner is a bad choice because a moving rope can run over the twist-lock and unclip it. Sometimes you need to double up carabiners to get the friction you need for certain ropes on certain rappels. Sometimes we use two non-locking carabiners opposite and opposed. Sometimes a carabiner will break over a hard edge because of poor placement, or a carabiner will unclip at a roof or after a tricky rope maneuver; in these latter two cases, it's possible that redundancy or a locking carabiner could have saved the day, although it's almost certain that proper placement and extension would have saved the day, too.
- Why do we not use redundant XYZ, or why do we not mitigate against risk ABC? In general, either (a) the gear is super bomber and overengineered to the point that it can handle loads well in excess of anything it should see if used properly, or (b) the risk is already mitigated by another link in the system (to include the climber and belayer and their choices). There is, of course, a lot of incidence of (c) some people genuinely do not understand the risk and have built it up to be an important personal trait that they don't properly mitigate the risk ("It's stupid to default to tying knots in the end of your rope"), and there's also a certain quiet vastness to the potential for "unknown unknowns" in (d) yer gonna die
|
|
Bill Czajkowski
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Albuquerque, NM
· Joined Oct 2008
· Points: 21
Pat Light
wrote:
let's just do a megalist, where "we" means "most competent climbers" - Why do we not use redundant ropes? Redundancy is partially built into a single rope by design; in general, a protective sheath covers the load-bearing core strands of a climbing rope. Where there is increased risk of a single rope getting cut (generally alpine or ice terrain), we do in fact use two ropes.
- Why do we not use redundant harnesses? Harnesses are understood to be both redundant (best practice is to tie in through two load-bearing points) and overengineered (relatively speaking, a belay loop is enormous, very strong, easy to inspect, and quite resistant to wear under proper use). That said, there are certainly harnesses with two belay loops (often for organization rather than safety), and a belay loop certainly can theoretically fail or be cut (by, say, a factor 2 fall directly on a Dyneema sling clipped to a bolt on one side and girth hitched to a belay loop on the other).
- Why do we not use redundant belay devices? We do: Your hand and your competency are the backup devices. This also comes up with top rope solo gumbies: "Well, why wouldn't I trust a single device when I top rope solo, if I trust a single device when my partner belays me?" Because your partner's entire job is to keep her hand on the brake strand, operate the belay device properly, and be able to react in the event of catastrophic failure, and you can't do any of that when top rope soloing. Also, belay devices are bomber, and it's extremely rare if not unheard of that a load-bearing part will just break.
- Why do we not use redundant carabiners? Sometimes we do. Sometimes a twist-locking carabiner is a bad choice because a moving rope can run over the twist-lock and unclip it. Sometimes you need to double up carabiners to get the friction you need for certain ropes on certain rappels. Sometimes we use two non-locking carabiners opposite and opposed. Sometimes a carabiner will break over a hard edge because of poor placement, or a carabiner will unclip at a roof or after a tricky rope maneuver; in these latter two cases, it's possible that redundancy or a locking carabiner could have saved the day, although it's almost certain that proper placement and extension would have saved the day, too.
- Why do we not use redundant XYZ, or why do we not mitigate against risk ABC? In general, either (a) the gear is super bomber and overengineered to the point that it can handle loads well in excess of anything it should see if used properly, or (b) the risk is already mitigated by another link in the system (to include the climber and belayer and their choices). There is, of course, a lot of incidence of (c) some people genuinely do not understand the risk and have built it up to be an important personal trait that they don't properly mitigate the risk ("It's stupid to default to tying knots in the end of your rope"), and there's also a certain quiet vastness to the potential for "unknown unknowns" in (d) yer gonna die
Sometimes we use redundant ropes (doubles/twins). But I think you're talking about margin, not redundancy. I'd argue that harnesses aren't redundant because of two tie-in points. Pretty hard to stay in a harness, during a fall, when the waist loop isn't properly around your waist. A hand and competency ain't worth shit in holding a fall if your belay device fails. Belay devices are, with arguable exceptions for dual ropes in a dual slot device, not redundant. One carabiner isn't redundant, regardless of gate design. Overengineered, in general, isn't redundant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)
|
|
Ryan Mac
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Durango, CO
· Joined Apr 2019
· Points: 1
Not an ATC guide, but to give you an idea of the strength on those loops: https://youtu.be/2naIX8xGNC0 You're very unlikely to break the loop before you strip your rope to the point of failure, basically.
|
|
Pavel Burov
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Russia
· Joined May 2013
· Points: 50
When a climber grabs a hold there is no redundancy. If theirs fingers break apart there is nothing to hold 'em attached to the wall. That's really scary!
|
|
Paul Bierdeman
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Brookfield, IL
· Joined Oct 2019
· Points: 0
Bill Czajkowski
wrote:
Sometimes we use redundant ropes (doubles/twins). But I think you're talking about margin, not redundancy. I'd argue that harnesses aren't redundant because of two tie-in points. Pretty hard to stay in a harness, during a fall, when the waist loop isn't properly around your waist. A hand and competency ain't worth shit in holding a fall if your belay device fails. Belay devices are, with arguable exceptions for dual ropes in a dual slot device, not redundant. One carabiner isn't redundant, regardless of gate design. Overengineered, in general, isn't redundant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering) That makes sense. Yes I think you are correct. I'm more concerned about margins for this particular piece of equipment than redundancy (as it has been pointed out there are indeed a lot of spots where there is no redundancy).
|
|
Andrew Rice
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Los Angeles, CA
· Joined Jan 2016
· Points: 11
You should probably use two ATCs just to be sure.
|
|
Cherokee Nunes
·
Jan 12, 2021
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined May 2015
· Points: 0
Guide mode?! You have to be a certifiable guide to use that mode!!!
|
|
Gunkiemike
·
Jan 13, 2021
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Jul 2009
· Points: 3,697
Pavel Burov
wrote:
When a climber grabs a hold there is no redundancy. If theirs fingers break apart there is nothing to hold 'em attached to the wall. That's really scary! I always grip with at least TWO fingers, so I've got redundancy.
|
|
Bryan K
·
Jan 13, 2021
·
Las Vegas, NV
· Joined Jul 2016
· Points: 654
The Grigri is only held together by a small bit of plastic and very thin aluminum that you clip the carabiner into when you're belaying and yet you never hear of any accidents of it randomly breaking despite the millions of whips that device has caught. Are you scared of this non redundant failure point on the GriGri?
|
|
Daniel Joder
·
Jan 13, 2021
·
Barcelona, ES
· Joined Nov 2015
· Points: 0
Here is an old thread that the OP might find interesting: https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106838345/atc-guide At the top of the second page Jim Titt talks about pull testing an ATC in guide mode using various rope diameters. Maybe he will chime in again here to emphasize or clarify anything. This is something I don't spend much gray matter worrying about... unless I were to use a really thin rope (say, 8.2mm) and then have my second accumulate a pile of slack, then jump off (see Jim Titts comments in the above link to see what happens to the rope in this scenario--and at surprisingly low kN loads). My takeaway: other stuff happens WAY before there would be any structural failure of the device.
|
|
hillbilly hijinks
·
Jan 13, 2021
·
Conquistador of the Useless
· Joined Mar 2020
· Points: 194
|
|
Gunkiemike
·
Jan 13, 2021
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Jul 2009
· Points: 3,697
hillbilly hijinks
wrote:
Guide mode is for noobs. Shhh... don't divulge the news that BD's next device is called the ATC Newb
|
|
Franck Vee
·
Jan 13, 2021
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Apr 2017
· Points: 260
Gunkiemike
wrote:
I always grip with at least TWO fingers, so I've got redundancy. You don't do monos?
|
|
Brocky
·
Jan 13, 2021
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Jun 2016
· Points: 0
It might be more reassuring to use if there was a break strength stamped on the side like practically every other piece of climbing gear?
|
|
PWZ
·
Jan 13, 2021
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Feb 2016
· Points: 0
Dave K wrote:Despite the sarcastic answers, I'm sure everyone here had similar thoughts the first time they saw a guide-mode device. No, not at all
|