Mega jul top belay

CT = Climbing Technology climbingtechnology.com/en/. They make several belay devices, but the ones Jim is referring to in the remark about patents are the Click Up and Alpine Up.

Jim Titt wrote: I´ve learnt over the years to not bother debating belay devices until they are at least two years on the market to let the initial enthusiasm die down and reality to start creeping in :-)

My MegaJul has been retired from use. The concept has merit but the design needs further refinement.

bearbreeder: I'm not sure if I'm familiar with these Alpine Smart 'failure modes. Could you enlighten me?

rgold: That is more great stuff, thank you. Having caught a lot of falls with all these devices I'd begun to suspect many of the things Jim Titt's tests conclude, but I hadn't been able to articulate them so well. The graphs were helpful too and the other Mega Jul thread made me realize I have my work cut out for me to fairly review 10 different devices.

Anyone have any comments on the claim of lower impact forces with the 'gradual camming action' of the new Camp Matik? They show some encouraging drop tests with a lot of rope slippage around the 1:45 mark in this video

Jack, some of Bearbreeder's remarks on Alpine Smart failure modes are at mountainproject.com/v/mammu…. He keeps promising a full report Real Soon Now, but for some reason seems to prefer going climbing.

Oh, and it is Jim Titt, not Jim Tett (only mentioning it because you've typed "Tett" twice now.)

the first failure mode is the one posted in the link above

a second failure mode is on autoblock if the handle of the smart catches against a feature, stuck in a crack, etc ... and its held in the "release position", it can prevent the autoblock from engaging

heres a really shietty vid of the rope pulling through in autoblock, climber side

youtube.com/watch?v=XjYsW_F…

note while this can in theory happen with other devices, they dont have long protruding handles like the smart ...

there several additional possible "failure" modes with the smart, but those are common with other assisted locking devices

a listing of the possible failure modes of all the devices you review would be of great benefit to climbing folks IMO

as evidenced by edelrids "silent fix" .... alot of this stuff is swept under the rug by many manufacturers (petzl to their credit has excellent documentation)

the "belay industrial complex" needs to sell beginners more fancy devices without properly warning em of the various possible failure modes

has trango even updated their instructions to warn specifically about the pin on the cinch? its an easy thing to miss

if you havent already got em ... theres two recent reports by the DAV and Bergunsteigun on assisted braking devices

alpenverein.de/chameleon/pu…

alpenverein.de/chameleon/pu…

;)

Jack Cramer wrote:bearbreeder: I'm not sure if I'm familiar with these Alpine Smart 'failure modes. Could you enlighten me? rgold: That is more great stuff, thank you. Having caught a lot of falls with all these devices I'd begun to suspect many of the things Jim Tett's tests conclude, but I hadn't been able to articulate them so well. The graphs were helpful too and the other Mega Jul thread made me realize I have my work cut out for me to fairly review 10 different devices. Anyone have any comments on the claim of lower impact forces with the 'gradual camming action' of the new Camp Matik? They show some encouraging drop tests with a lot of rope slippage around the 1:45 mark in this video

Having a lot of slip is either good or bad, depending on what sort of route you are working (in a sport clmbing context). Whether the failure to provide a solid lock-up turns out to be a good thing waits to be seen and also a few more realistic (or longer falls) will be interesting to see. How far does a 90kg climber on a brand-new dry treated 8.6 rope really go?
The ease of overiding the locking mechanism has already been noted and discussed on the German climbing forums and the Matik doesn´t seem to be replacing the GriGri right now, reception seems lukewarm to put it mildly. The weight and cost aren´t helping it and there is a widespread distrust of anti-panic functions.

bearbreeder wrote: the first failure mode is the one posted in the link above a second failure mode is on autoblock if the handle of the smart catches against a feature, stuck in a crack, etc ... and its held in the "release position", it can prevent the autoblock from engaging note while this can in theory happen with other devices, they dont have long protruding handles like the smart ... there several additional possible "failure" modes with the smart, but those are common with other assisted locking devices a listing of the possible failure modes of all the devices you review would be of great benefit to climbing folks IMO as evidenced by edelrids "silent fix" .... alot of this stuff is swept under the rug by many manufacturers (petzl to their credit has excellent documentation) the "belay industrial complex" needs to sell beginners more fancy devices without properly warning em of the various possible failure modes has trango even updated their instructions to warn specifically about the pin on the cinch? its an easy thing to miss if you havent already got em ... theres two recent reports by the DAV and Bergunsteigun on assisted braking devices

So what is your point? Every belay device on the market that has an autoblock mode, the GriGri included, can slip if the device is orientated in an uncommon manner and some part of the device is being pressed upon by the rock or an external force. This is not news and it's documented in the user manual of most devices warning you to ensure the device is clear of the rock when in use (particularly in reference to the handle/ release mechanism).

20 kN wrote: So what is your point? Every belay device on the market that has an autoblock mode, the GriGri included, can slip if the device is orientated in an uncommon manner and some part of the device is being pressed upon by the rock or an external force. This is not news and it's documented in the user manual of most devices warning you to ensure the device is clear of the rock when in use (particularly in reference to the handle/ release mechanism).

And what´s your point?
You know devices can be blocked, I know and Bearbreeder does. But it IS a failure mode and it ISN´T identified in the instructions. Do you expect climbers to buy all available devices AND read all the instructons AND display intelligence?

20 kN wrote: So what is your point? Every belay device on the market that has an autoblock mode, the GriGri included, can slip if the device is orientated in an uncommon manner and some part of the device is being pressed upon by the rock or an external force. This is not news and it's documented in the user manual of most devices warning you to ensure the device is clear of the rock when in use (particularly in reference to the handle/ release mechanism).

The point my little 20k friend is that

These devices can fail in autoblock and in the case of the smart, its not warned specifically in any of the user documentation ive seen (they should show that specific failure mode)

So to be blunt ... A person can read the documentation and follow the instructions and still have the device fail in autoblock

Which is what happened to the megajul (as experienced by on MPer) before edelrid updated their instructions

Now you may not give a damn about it and you might think that someone who uses an alpine smart should be aware that because the grigri had an entirely different failure mode, that the smart user should know about it and assume it happens with the smart

The grigri failure mode is quite different in cause... A simple pic of this should be obvious

Grigri petzl

Perhaps you need a refresher on the difference between assisted LOCKING and autoBLOCKING

Not to mention that petzl has excellent documentation about grigri failure modes

But then on MP its now the responsibility of the mammut alpine smart user to know and expect all t failure modes of the petzl grigri ... And woe to anyone who suggests otherwise

heres another "failure mode" that the smart is subject to ... but which mammut doesnt warn about ... in fact all autoBLOCK devices can fail this way

petzl reverso failure mode

and we wont even talk about releasing instructions that show using body weight to release devices with no backup munters, redirects or prusiks

;)

I used to think that the main point of belay device technology was to make outcomes less dependent on the variations in user actions, in other words, to make it less likely that the belayer will drop someone. I think I was wrong about that to some extent, and that the convenience of a belay that requires less attention, if not a specific a design motivation, has become a major reason for adoption.

Paradoxically, the new technology, while encouraging the idea that catches will be "automatic," has at the same time introduced various often arcane "failure modes" that demand as much or more attention from the belayer as the older simpler methods ever did. Moreover, the new failure modes are far less obvious than the old ones, and sometimes are not even known by users or manufacturers for several years. (For example, failure of Grigris to lock from pressure of the non-braking hand on the leader-side strand.)

We've now entered Stage 2, in which manufacturers are trying to automate corrections to the Stage 1 failure modes by updating the technology (e.g. Edelrid Eddy and Camp Matik "anti-panic" release handles). One would hope that this process is converging to some net increase in overall safety, but there is also the possibility that each new iteration will bring new failure modes with it and so will make previous safety knowledge obsolete without actually making things safer.

Meanwhile, much of the "review" industry boils down to someone using a device (in some cases supplied gratis by the manufacturer) for random and almost always low-key climbing applications, followed by a reworded trumpeting of the manufacturer's claims. The various internet fanboys weigh in with their unquantified claims of holding "huge whippers," and everyone thinks the latest device is great---at least until someone like Jim Titt or the DAV really test it, or else "inexplicable" failures start to happen. Such failures are typically blamed on belayer incompetence, even when most of the commercial and independent review sources never said anything about the problems that emerged.

Because of the great increase in the number of people participating in some genre of climbing, and the multiplication of genres themselves, there doesn't seem to be any reliable way to estimate whether modern technology has improved "safety rates" or not. As with all automation, the users are increasingly distanced from the nuts and bolts of how things work, and are obliged to replace understanding with faith in engineering. This is a feature of 21st century life, not just climbing, and is not necessarily a bad thing---as long as that faith is warranted. When manufacturers, like Edelrid in this case, basically sneak additional safety instructions into their manuals without any attempt at warning the user public, that faith is undermined.

This raises a very real question about what "due diligence" means in the context of using climbing technology. How much research are we supposed to do in order to fully understand the behavior of the gadgets we rely on?

Well said rgold.

As a member of the 'review industry' and someone who routinely reads scores of other reviews while preparing my own, I will say that bias from free gear or advertisement revenue (magazines) seems to be pervasive.

At OutdoorGearLab we purchase all the gear ourselves and try to segregate or reviewers from the influence of advertisers, but that doesn't mean our reviews are above reproach. Personal biases towards companies and climbing styles still undoubtedly impact our evaluations. Furthermore, deadlines and word counts limit the time and thoroughness we can devote to any one product.

Going forward I fear the nuance that's been discussed here will ultimately receive just a brief mention in my final artilce. It's unfortunate but such is the nature of producing content for a mass mainstream audience. And I also have my own liability to consider.

My advice to anyone willing to read this far into this thread is to continue your research and make your own decisions. The German sources bearbreeder referenced are great places to start. They do a way better job than I could at objectively examining assisted braking belay devices. Here's the best stuff I could find on their site but in English:

Assisted Braking Belay Devices – Advantages, Disadvantages, Differences
Grigri2, Matik, Click Up, Ergo, Mega Jul, Jul^2, and Smart compared in one thorough chart

PS: Apologies to Jim Titt. I corrected the last name misspelling in my previous posts.

here the same "failure" mode ... i had this happen at a crowded belay station where folks were just hanging around on PASes

fortunately when i noticed it i wrapped the rope around my arm and ganked that thing away from those PAS hanging bums

youtube.com/watch?v=w2UjNxQ…

note theres no contact with any rock with the device, just a crowded station where folks are loitering on PASes

another reason to teach folks how to clove in

the long handle on the alpine smart may lead to "failure modes" that are much less common with say the atc guide in autoblock where there is much less material to catch ... and ones most normal climbing folks arent aware about

as to the reviews, its great that mister cramer is researching technical articles for his reviews ... immediately that puts it a step above some of the shill reviews (yay i got free gear!!!) out there

overall i think there has been and absolute failure in the climbing media to reports about issues with climbing gear

- fixe aliens falling apart and breaking
- sportivas delaminating
- cinch pin wear issues

and more ... when was the last time you saw anything about the above in the climbing media

its only when the company wants to get the word out about misuse (petzl grigri) that the climbing media does their job

if the media did their job then folks wouldnt need to come to MP for what is essentially safety and product "failure" information, the LAST place you want to go for such is and intrawebz forum

;)

Well yes. Some of us (in the industry) unnoficially talk about trying to restrain some of the wilder claims made and even talk to the affected manufacturers but it isn´t easy, the power of advertising is massive and the need for a satisfactory bottom line for the companies means it´s an uphill battle.
The organisation that should be doing in-depth testing and publishing warts-and-all reports is the UIAA but as they gain most of their income from selling their name to be affixed to products they don´t naturally get involved, independent testing is left up to the DAV who are so rich and powerful they can say what the like and the likes of myself who are just interested and couldn´t care less what the companies think. However even my interest has limits which is why my drop tower is lying in my garden growing brambles, I don´t need it for my work since I only need pull tests and it´s hard to get enthusiastic about putting it back up.
The media, as has been noted are hamstrung by the need to cater for the lowest common denominator since that is their readership, fear of litigation and their incestous relationship with the industry since they are both the source of information and revenue.
The third part of the outdoor world after the industry and the customers are of course the professional training industry (guides, instructors etc). Many of the devices available state as a requirement for their use that the customer recieves professional training in their use, sadly my experience of the average instructor´s knowledge tells me they actually know less than my dog about most things and reading many of the instruction books they write only reinforces my view. A few like Bearbreeder do actually know what they are talking about but they seem to be a rarity

The industry sells new products because they are new, proclaiming mostly unjustified "safety" benefits and sadly in a world of instant technology the punter think this must be true. That probably the longest manufactured devices belay are still the best doesn´t satisfy the need for advertising departments to launch new products nor inexperienced customers from wanting the latest gadget. The basic concepts of safety are replaced by an illusion that technology has made things safer, the equalising anchor being a prime example of misunderstood technical concepts being sold as a cure for basic incompetence.
The introduction of "panic handles" is another syptom, at first glance a good idea but further though tells us that IF they are a good idea then by definition we are saying it is acceptable to allow people who panic to belay, not my personal choice. AND they have to work, the one on the Camp Matik suffers the same fate as the Edelrid Eddy, without enough load they don´t release so for the Matik the manufacturers have to tell you how to override the braking mechanism. So now you have a major selling point that really doesn´t work properly so buried in the instructions is how to actually use the thing (and please don´t panic).
Belay plates are difficult, the basics are simple but getting the whole package right is difficult and the cam design of auto-locking (they are actually called manual-assisted locking) devices is extremely complicated. Testing is even more difficult and most manufacturers don´t actually test the devices through all the scenarios anyway. One well know auto-locking device was advertised as giving a soft catch (to give it a marketing advantage over the GriGri). The reality is it gave a soft catch sometimes, in some scenarios the hardest catch ever recorded in drop testing and also managed to not catch the faller at all. All this is well documented BUT naturally the results not published. I´m willing to bet that the Matik will turn out to have some "interesting" characteristics in the next few years looking at the design principles behind the cam design and personally I´d rather be the one who decides when and where to give a soft catch and not leave it up to some Italian to decide for me.

Sadly again the UIAA fall down, producing a standard which doesn´t test any aspect of a belay devices braking performance (apart from locking assisted devices) and then allowing the use of the UIAA safety label without requiring the information to be given exactly which of the 6 categories the device passed anyway. The average customer just sees a UIAA symbol and assumes the device must be good, it´s got a "Safety Label" so it must be safe.

youll love this one mistah titt (sorry i can stop saying that !!!)

Edelrid said: “The device is designed with ‘added safety value’, so that falls can be held with minimal hand strength, with the device also locking in the event of both hands being removed.

“This approach to safety makes the Jul2 ideal for use in a climbing-wall environment, where new climbers are often still developing their belaying technique.

“In use rope can be paid out faster to the lead climber, when the belayer holds the device in the open position, using their thumb.

“For ease of operation the core is made from stainless steel. Not only is this abrasion resistant, it also offers great friction and a high level of braking performance, regardless of the diameter or age of the rope. This is a benefit to beginners at the wall, where they’re likely to be climbing with both thicker rope diameters, and in the case of top-roping, potentially older ropes as well.

“Those learning to belay are also likely to find the aforementioned braking performance useful in the event of a leader fall.”

grough.co.uk/magazine/2015/…

basically if folks arent competent enough to reliably belay, give em a jul2 !!!

;)

Yup, the MJ has "massive holding power" as well.
BD aren´t too much better though, 3 times more friction in hi-friction mode for an ATC XP:-)

If Edelrid can actually measure a difference in the friction between stainless steel and aluminium they are doing extremely well.

rgold wrote: For those with older instructions, here is the diagram (correctly rotated) and the accompanying text. Relevant to the current discussion is the last paragraph.

Bringing back an old thread, Edelrid seems to have updated their manual shortly after this discussion (the manual I'm looking at has "05.12.2016 14:50:41" at the corner). Looks like now they are recommending the belay carabiner be clipped around the body and inside the thumb loop in "guide mode" with both single rope and double/twin ropes. I'm not sure how many Mega Jul owners are aware of this.