The deadly ATC

Jim Titt wrote:The 2.5kN is the force you want to generate with the belay device. Or more if possible! The ranges given for rope diameter have often enough been critisised on here and elsewhere.

Ah, ok. That makes sense. Although I don't understand why you've gone with kg in your chart and then given a figure in kN for the desired amount or higher of force you want the belay device to generate. Interestingly enough, when we look at Bill Stronge's charts you posted. I see that multiplying the hand force times the amplification factor, none of these devices reach your suggested 2.5kN. The only one that comes close is the Reverso with 11mm rope coming out at 2kn.

Jim Titt wrote:The difference in braking effect from varying rope diameter is considerable, here´s one of Bill Stronge´s graphs which shows the wild variations possible:- Sometimes devices have peculiar sweet spots or weaknesses, typical are things like the Reverso series where one particular rope diameter fails to go down into the braking vee grooves at low hand forces so you see a peculiar result. The Smart has slightly different curves than the MegaJul even though they are effectively identical due to the shape of the rope relief slot (these types of device need to stop the karabiner coming against the body where the rope clamps as otherwise they jam up completely and it´s impossible to pay out rope again), the Smart it´s a flattish slot whereas on the Mega Jul it´s half round.

What is interesting to note, and you're own chart revealed this too but I just realized this now... Is that manual brake assisted devices like the MegaJul and Smart Belay do require a good strong brake strand grip for achieving maximum stopping power it can provide, which is contrary to what one would assume once you've used one. What else I find interesting is that the performance of the non-brake assisted devices that he tested per rope diameter, the Reverso and proguide, and the manual brake assisted ones the MegaJul and Smart Belay are all grouped rather close to each other on the maximum stopping power at 0.25kM hand force. So they all perform rather similarly according to Bill's chart at that hand force with the same diameter rope.

That being said 11mm is outside of the specified range of the Megajul and larger Alpine Smart Belay which both top out at 10.5mm. It's interesting information to see but it's not realistic in terms of what one would use with those devices. You'd be hating life pulling those thick ropes through those devices. In addition, we don't know what size Smart Belay is being used. I say this because as you know there is some overlap between the larger and smaller size. And the 9.2mm and under ropes may have held better with the smaller Alpine Smart Belay. How much I don't know.

Jim Titt wrote:The relief slot on the MegaJul is far too big for thin ropes, under load 7.8mm ropes are not jammed in any way by the karabiner i.e there is no assistance to the braking.

That's also at the very bottom end of the specified range of the Megajul. Yes, it should work if they advertise it works, but those of us that have read yours and others data and comments about this know that at the bottom end of the specified rope diameter range it might not work sufficiently. I would be curious to know how the Microjul would have performed with your 7.8mm ropes.

Jim, please forgive me if the following paragraphs sound harsh and critical of you. I'm not trying to cut you down, I'm just trying to think my way through to the bottom of this to a conclusion that make sense to me. Your insight, data, and replies has been very useful and appreciated.

In light of all this information I'm gonna play devils advocate here...
I can't imagine that the companies making these belay devices are choosing to be either willfully malicious in intent, or ignorant of real world usage such as catching high factor and factor two falls. It's likely a lot of climbers working there engineering and manufacturing the products. Your statements and data and Bill's data either makes most of them all wrong and unsafe to use... Or perhaps there is criteria for testing of these that has been overlooked? Are you perhaps being overly stringent in what is required to stop a fall of whatever factor? Some of the comments in this thread of belayers catching factor two falls with a hip belay or standard ATC seem to counter your thoughts and data. How do you respond to that?

And why hasn't anyone from any of these companies in question spoken up about how they go about testing their belay devices such that they feel they are safe to use and sell in all usage scenarios? Again, I can't imagine any climbing gear company could defend lawsuits against them, no matter the disclaimers of climbing at your own risk, if it was found that someone died or was severely injured because their gear was improperly engineered for the task. Hence the occasional gear recalls. Additionally, their instructions don't remove liability for high factor falls, only factor two falls. Which I'm guessing a 1.7 to 1.9 could potentially be just as dangerous.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be blissfully ignorant here, but something doesn't quite make sense about all this. I could see one or two products that miss the mark somewhat, but not completely. Essentially what I'm interpreting you saying is that everything except for the ATC XP, ATC-Guide, Proguide, and Grigri are not acceptable to use in all fall use cases. And the former three being used in manufacturer un-documented ways by adding further HMS carabiners to add friction for smaller diameter ropes. Which I'm not saying is a bad idea, I think it's brilliant. But why doesn't the manufacturer's mention this could or should be used in certain scenarios?

Thanks for putting up with all my questions. I look forward to your response.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the other comments about belayer competence with whatever device they use... I agree quite thoroughly that the use of any brake assisted belay device can breed complacency and sloppy technique, or just bad technique in general. Which is why I believe that people should learn on a non-brake assisted belay device first at the gym with close guidance from someone more experienced to correct them as they go over time. Then when they have that brake hand instinct down and learning to catch and lower with both hands on the brake strand, transition them to a brake assisted device. But once in a while take out and use the non-brake assisted belay device at the gym to stay sharp with those skills.

On top of that, those of you that get offended and are insecure about being told your belay technique is poor and thusly not safe, and resist changing to safer ways purely to protect your ego or because you are too lazy to change... You are part of the problem no matter what belay device you use. I choose to climb with people that are just as willing to hear constructive feedback, learn, and choose to change to safer ways of doing things as much as I am, and will belay me in the way that makes me feel safe. Does this limit the amount of people willing to climb with me? You're damn right it does! But I never truly worry about being dropped. My point being, if someone critiques you about your belay technique they are doing so for safety reasons, not because they are judging you and want to make themselves feel superior. Be open to adjusting and changing as needed to increase yours and your partners safety while climbing. And for you Grigri users, read the user manual:

Petzl Grigri user manual

And watch this video from 3:36 on.
The Worlds Worst Belayer - Bad belaying techniques
youtube.com/watch?v=V9hsWjA…

Interestingly enough one of the many points they are trying to make is that giving a person with poor belay technique a Grigri to use doesn't make the climber any safer. As the first part of the video is the same fictional poor belayer with an ATC. Notice the real world examples at the end of the video. I've seen two people at my gym in the last few weeks lead belay gripping the whole body of the Grigri holding the brake open. Something that is specifically mentioned as not safe and not the way to fast feed rope in the manual and in the video.

Additionally, regardless of what brake assisted device you use, get into the habit of following the rope from your tie point at your harness and then asking your belayer to show you it locks up by sharply and quickly pulling on that rope strand (the climber, or leader strand) before you get on the wall. If the belay device locks up it's setup properly. If not, you know it was setup backwards and you saved yourself a possible accident like one of the users in this thread experienced.

anotherclimber wrote: ... I've seen two people at my gym in the last few weeks lead belay gripping the whole body of the Grigri holding the brake open. Something that is specifically mentioned as not safe and not the way to fast feed rope in the manual and in the video ...

climbing friend,

haven't you seen "pros" and 5.13 or 5.14 climber doing this against-manufacturer-warning-technique and worse myah?

Just go climbing at the rifle mountain park. no matter the level of neck meat, or the sculpture of the guns, it for probable is more rare to see attentive belayer following the instructions petzel rather than gripping and resting their hand around the entire device and cam indefinitely as if it is a hand-resting device for the wee little tired handsies. they also make sure to have unnecessary and excessive loopings of slack out so as not to need to be attentive yes, and they prefer remove hand from brake strand complete, at least for brief moments while feeding slack.

i am surprise the canyon it is not littered with well-muscle meated pretty corpses

i think we need form secret "grigri police" force gestapo to patrol the area and abduct those who cannot abide by logic, common sense, and petzl instructions.

anotherclimber wrote: Ah, ok. That makes sense. Although I don't understand why you've gone with kg in your chart and then given a figure in kN for the desired amount or higher of force you want the belay device to generate. Interestingly enough, when we look at Bill Stronge's charts you posted. I see that multiplying the hand force times the amplification factor, none of these devices reach your suggested 2.5kN. The only one that comes close is the Reverso with 11mm rope coming out at 2kn. What is interesting to note, and you're own chart revealed this too but I just realized this now... Is that manual brake assisted devices like the MegaJul and Smart Belay do require a good strong brake strand grip for achieving maximum stopping power it can provide, which is contrary to what one would assume once you've used one. What else I find interesting is that the performance of the non-brake assisted devices that he tested per rope diameter, the Reverso and proguide, and the manual brake assisted ones the MegaJul and Smart Belay are all grouped rather close to each other on the maximum stopping power at 0.25kM hand force. So they all perform rather similarly according to Bill's chart at that hand force with the same diameter rope. That being said 11mm is outside of the specified range of the Megajul and larger Alpine Smart Belay which both top out at 10.5mm. It's interesting information to see but it's not realistic in terms of what one would use with those devices. You'd be hating life pulling those thick ropes through those devices. In addition, we don't know what size Smart Belay is being used. I say this because as you know there is some overlap between the larger and smaller size. And the 9.2mm and under ropes may have held better with the smaller Alpine Smart Belay. How much I don't know. That's also at the very bottom end of the specified range of the Megajul. Yes, it should work if they advertise it works, but those of us that have read yours and others data and comments about this know that at the bottom end of the specified rope diameter range it might not work sufficiently. I would be curious to know how the Microjul would have performed with your 7.8mm ropes. Jim, please forgive me if the following paragraphs sound harsh and critical of you. I'm not trying to cut you down, I'm just trying to think my way through to the bottom of this to a conclusion that make sense to me. Your insight, data, and replies has been very useful and appreciated. In light of all this information I'm gonna play devils advocate here... I can't imagine that the companies making these belay devices are choosing to be either willfully malicious in intent, or ignorant of real world usage such as catching high factor and factor two falls. It's likely a lot of climbers working there engineering and manufacturing the products. Your statements and data and Bill's data either makes most of them all wrong and unsafe to use... Or perhaps there is criteria for testing of these that has been overlooked? Are you perhaps being overly stringent in what is required to stop a fall of whatever factor? Some of the comments in this thread of belayers catching factor two falls with a hip belay or standard ATC seem to counter your thoughts and data. How do you respond to that? And why hasn't anyone from any of these companies in question spoken up about how they go about testing their belay devices such that they feel they are safe to use and sell in all usage scenarios? Again, I can't imagine any climbing gear company could defend lawsuits against them, no matter the disclaimers of climbing at your own risk, if it was found that someone died or was severely injured because their gear was improperly engineered for the task. Hence the occasional gear recalls. Additionally, their instructions don't remove liability for high factor falls, only factor two falls. Which I'm guessing a 1.7 to 1.9 could potentially be just as dangerous. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be blissfully ignorant here, but something doesn't quite make sense about all this. I could see one or two products that miss the mark somewhat, but not completely. Essentially what I'm interpreting you saying is that everything except for the ATC XP, ATC-Guide, Proguide, and Grigri are not acceptable to use in all fall use cases. And the former three being used in manufacturer un-documented ways by adding further HMS carabiners to add friction for smaller diameter ropes. Which I'm not saying is a bad idea, I think it's brilliant. But why doesn't the manufacturer's mention this could or should be used in certain scenarios? Thanks for putting up with all my questions. I look forward to your response.

I measure the loads and forces in kg and then write in the axis title that the units are kg force, that is kgf or 9.806N. I´m lazy like that! It´s also easier for people to relate to in familiar units.

Anything works with 11mm ropes! No idea why Bill tested with them except it was the thickest rope he could find (the engineering student he was supervising was working on the relationship between rope diameter and braking force). I didn´t want to influence the results so kept pretty well out of the whole affair, for more general purposes it would have been better if he had included the ATC as a benchmark but they got the Wild Country thing for free. Lower down the diameters the don´t bunch so much, the Smart/MJ getting an amplification of 4 and the Reverso getting 5.7 or so which is a huge difference in reality.

I had no interest in testing the MicroJul, the ropes I tested were within the manufacturers specified range for the MegaJul and the fact that they performed poorly is Edelrid´s problem not mine. I already had a solution to acceptable belaying with the ropes so no need for another device.

It´s not my stringency, the acceptable slip distance comes from the UIAA/DAV and the CAI (Italian Alpine Club who have done the most work on falls and belaying). Petzl used a different value of 1600J energy derived from medical research but the end result is about the same.

Your expectations of the thoroughness of testing in the industry are wildly optomistic. The last published tests were from Black Diamond 20 years ago and are no longer available and TRE published data for the Sirius once. One of the best selling devices produced by an American company was tested by hanging an employee on the rope, filling a basket with beer bottles and removing them until he slid down.
I´ve worked for several companies on belay devices and none of them do full loading tests on them to establish braking power, there is no requirement for them to do so. They are tested down the gym by a couple of team athletes or whatever they are called.
No manufacturer I know of can give you numerical values for the efficiency of their products, feel free to ask them!
As I posted above Petzl used to have a calculator which told you when their device would stop being safe but I assume removed it since they couldn´t include competitors devices and so were at a commercial disadvantage.

I am 45 and still climb. Huge plans this year. Anyways, rope jumping is FUN. Let's talk about that. Let's make Factor One Fall's Great Again.

Chris CW wrote:I am 45 and still climb. Huge plans this year. Anyways, rope jumping is FUN. Let's talk about that. Let's make Factor One Fall's Great Again.

Well, if you are 45 and still climb then you need to know the phone number for Rock and Resole. Would someone please give Chris the phone number for Rock and Resole (I had it but lost it).

Hi all, Just seeing these two threads sparked by that edition of Unbelayvable. I have not read all the posts because there are a lot. But I wanted to share my very basic philosophy on this matter:

The way I see it is that we now have the technology to add another safety measure to our belays. Speaking purely of the devices themselves, an assisted braking device has backup safety measures, and a tube-style device does not. I personally prefer to drive a car with crumple zones, airbags, side impact doorbeams, and seatbelts, because I want to stack the deck in my favor should a drunk driver crash into me on the highway. Everything beyond that comes down to user operation. A good belayer with an assisted-braking belay device is therefor safer than a good belayer with a tube style device, because there will always be inherent risks in climbing that cannot be mitigated. A bad belayer is a bad belayer no matter what device they're using, and you should not climb with them.

I personally don't use a Grigri. I name it in articles because it's ubiquitous, and helps people understand what I mean when I say "assisted-braking belay device." I use an Edelrid Mega Jul, and the new Wild Country Revo a bit as of late, which I like a lot so far.

It's also worth mentioning that the goal of the column is to teach best practices, vigilance, and critical thinking to new climbers. You may notice that I've never nitpicked anyone's 5-1 pulley system or anything like that. For most of the submissions I use, people should be able to figure out the situation on their own if they take the time to analyze it. Since the target audience is newer climbers, I think it's reasonable to encourage them to choose an assisted-braking device while they're still in the beginning stages of their climbing development, before they're set in their ways from years of tube-style device use.

Kevin Corrigan wrote:Since the target audience is newer climbers, I think it's reasonable to encourage them to choose an assisted-braking device while they're still in the beginning stages of their climbing development, before they're set in their ways from years of tube-style device use.

I'm sure you have good intentions, but I would disagree that that is a reasonable proposition. I would say it's more reasonable to encourage them to use an ATC as opposed to an assisted-braking device which tends to both breed bad belaying habits and masks incompetency contributing to an overall demographic which already operates as a random dropping generator.

The logic that beginners should use an assisted-braking device as insurance against, and to compensate for, incompetent belaying sounds ideal, except for the fact that in the hands of many beginners those same devices again breed and mask the very incompetence you're seeking shelter from. Better they learn on the simplest device possible that does not mask incompetence and then, when they can demonstrate competence and understand what that means, they can go on and use any device they please.

old dudes get dropped and rap off the ends of their ropes as well. none of us are imune even if we profess to be perfect on the internet.

Healyje wrote: I'm sure you have good intentions, but I would disagree that that is a reasonable proposition. I would say it's more reasonable to encourage them to use an ATC as opposed to an assisted-braking device which tends to both breed bad belaying habits and masks incompetency contributing to an overall demographic which already operates as a random dropping generator. The logic that beginners should use an assisted-braking device as insurance against, and to compensate for, incompetent belaying sounds ideal, except for the fact that in the hands of many beginners those same devices again breed and mask the very incompetence you're seeking shelter from. Better they learn on the simplest device possible that does not mask incompetence and then, when they can demonstrate competence and understand what that means, they can go on and use any device they please.

This.
Accepting incompetence as being the normal condition is utterly stupid.

Come on! Stupid is a derogatory and unnecessary word. Beat up on haters NOT climbers! To be more "constructive", how about, " I do not agree with you because of this evidence"?

Jim Titt wrote: This. Accepting incompetence as being the normal condition is utterly stupid.

And so is expecting perfection from human beings :).

There is no answer other than I did learn that you cannot accept a lack of training and understanding of the forces involved from your belayer. And that is utterly on me.

I can't tell you how many very experienced climbers after scoring a date with the object of their desire reported back when asked "how did the climbing go?" respond: "Oh it was fun, but I might as well have been free soloing...."

:(

Healyje wrote: I'm sure you have good intentions, but I would disagree that that is a reasonable proposition. I would say it's more reasonable to encourage them to use an ATC as opposed to an assisted-braking device which tends to both breed bad belaying habits and masks incompetency contributing to an overall demographic which already operates as a random dropping generator. The logic that beginners should use an assisted-braking device as insurance against, and to compensate for, incompetent belaying sounds ideal, except for the fact that in the hands of many beginners those same devices again breed and mask the very incompetence you're seeking shelter from. Better they learn on the simplest device possible that does not mask incompetence and then, when they can demonstrate competence and understand what that means, they can go on and use any device they please.

LEARN TO DO IT THE WAY I DID YOU DAMN KIDS!!!!

broken record over.

Healyje wrote:The logic that beginners should use an assisted-braking device as insurance against, and to compensate for, incompetent belaying sounds ideal.

That's not what I said at all. I'm saying that I would encourage climbers to learn how to properly belay with a better device earlier in their climbing career. No matter what device you learn on, you need how to know how to use it right. I would never suggest that anyone mask their incompetence with an assisted braking device. And when I use the word "new" I don't mean people that have just stepped into a gym for the first time. I mean people that are still learning the fundamentals.

Anyone else feel like this thread could use a little bit of BB? I wonder when/if he's gonna come back here, because he really is missed. And because most of us are too lazy to dig up the actual data behind most of our claims, which he would happily do for us.

eli poss wrote:Anyone else feel like this thread could use a little bit of BB? I wonder when/if he's gonna come back here, because he really is missed. And because most of us are too lazy to dig up the actual data behind most of our claims, which he would happily do for us.

I was thinking the same thing i find his input would be invaluable on so many threads.

King Tut wrote: And so is expecting perfection from human beings :). There is no answer other than I did learn that you cannot accept a lack of training and understanding of the forces involved from your belayer. And that is utterly on me. I can't tell you how many very experienced climbers after scoring a date with the object of their desire reported back when asked "how did the climbing go?" respond: "Oh it was fun, but I might as well have been free soloing...." :(

That's the funny deal (and sorry you had to learn the hard way), that is exactly what we expected bitd and that is exactly what we got - people being dropped was utterly unheard of and there were basically no second chances. If you weren't competent you either quietly bowed out or you were out of luck for partners - but it was almost always the former then the latter. Another reason people weren't dropped is incompetence was spotted early and dealt with one way or the other before people got dropped.

I post up that pic of me belaying a TR with no harness or device for a reason - tens of thousands of TRs were belayed that by several generations of SoIll climbers and no one was ever - ever - dropped. In the end, it isn't even a matter of expecting or demanding perfection so much as adopting the attitude that it would be unthinkable and you just didn't even allow for the possibility.

Kevin Corrigan wrote: That's not what I said at all. I'm saying that I would encourage climbers to learn how to properly belay with a better device earlier in their climbing career. No matter what device you learn on, you need how to know how to use it right. I would never suggest that anyone mask their incompetence with an assisted braking device. And when I use the word "new" I don't mean people that have just stepped into a gym for the first time. I mean people that are still learning the fundamentals.

No, you didn't say it explicitly, but certainly implied it with your auto safety features analogy. And of course everyone should be 'trained' to competence on whatever device they learn with, but let's get real and be honest here - you and I both know that's not what's happening. If you're suggesting the gyms around the country are all cranking out competent belayers then I'd have to ask how do you square that with all the dropping? They aren't cranking out competent belayers, they get the default grigri, a quick lesson or two and minimal belay check and then we all hope for the best and the collective 'best' of the overall demographic suffers for it.

I'm sure that's hard to fathom these days and that culture / mind set shift is wholly a product of an exploding demographic where there is essentially little alternative to the default of giving them assisted-braking device, a quick check and send them on their way hoping for the best, and just accepting that folks will be dropped in the same way we accept as a norm with autos that some people are just going to be maimed and killed on a daily basis (but of course it won't be you).

If we approached air transport the same way we do belaying today planes would be falling out of the sky and you folks would be outraged at the travesty of it all.

And again, an assisted-braking device may be a 'better device' for a competent belayer for a given application, but it's far from a 'better device' for a beginner let alone just sending them out into the world with one hoping for the best.

If people were taught on a grigri type device as you would with a tube/ATC the world would have way less victims period. Technology is good, embrace it.

T Roper wrote:If people were taught on a grigri type device as you would with a tube/ATC the world would have way less victims period. Technology is good, embrace it.

And I wholly agree with you in terms of teach people on any device, but teach them to a demonstrable level of competence before cutting them loose into the wild. Great, except for the fact that's not what's happening and anyone who thinks it is is kidding themselves. Instead we kick them out the door with the default assisted-braking device and simply hope for the best accepting some folks are going to get dropped.

Healyje wrote: That's the funny deal (and sorry you had to learn the hard way), that is exactly what we expected bitd and that is exactly what we got - people being dropped was utterly unheard of and there were basically no second chances. If you weren't competent you either quietly bowed out or you were out of luck for partners - but it was almost always the former then the latter. Another reason people weren't dropped is incompetence was spotted early and dealt with one way or the other before people got dropped. I post up that pic of me belaying a TR with no harness or device for a reason - tens of thousands of TRs were belayed that by several generations of SoIll climbers and no one was ever - ever - dropped. In the end, it isn't even a matter of expecting or demanding perfection so much as adopting the attitude that it would be unthinkable and you just didn't even allow for the possibility. No, you didn't say it explicitly, but certainly implied it with your auto safety features analogy. And of course everyone should be 'trained' to competence on whatever device they learn with, but let's get real and be honest here - you and I both know that's not what's happening. If you're suggesting the gyms around the country are all cranking out competent belayers then I'd have to ask how do you square that with all the dropping? They aren't cranking out competent belayers, they get the default grigri, a quick lesson or two and minimal belay check and then we all hope for the best and the collective 'best' of the overall demographic suffers for it. I'm sure that's hard to fathom these days and that culture / mind set shift is wholly a product of an exploding demographic where there is essentially little alternative to the default of giving them assisted-braking device, a quick check and send them on their way hoping for the best, and just accepting that folks will be dropped in the same way we accept as a norm with autos that some people are just going to be maimed and killed on a daily basis (but of course it won't be you). If we approached air transport the same way we do belaying today planes would be falling out of the sky and you folks would be outraged at the travesty of it all. And again, an assisted-braking device may be a 'better device' for a competent belayer for a given application, but it's far from a 'better device' for a beginner let alone just sending them out into the world with one hoping for the best.

You're reading things in my statement that aren't there. My auto analogy used a drunk driver—something completely outside of the victim's control. I didn't say bad drivers should ride bumper cars instead of learning to drive. I stand by my point that an extra measure of safety is a good thing on a competent belayer. I'm not going to waste any more time debating things that you have inferred that I believe.

Kevin Corrigan wrote: You're reading things in my statement that aren't there. My auto analogy used a drunk driver—something completely outside of the victim's control. I didn't say bad drivers should ride bumper cars instead of learning to drive.

Except (in climbing) it's not the drunk drivers you have to watch out for, it's all the drivers because you can't tell which ones are competent and which ones aren't. And that's because we, as you are actively encouraging, give everyone the default assisted-braking devices and kick them out the door with them hoping for the best. Maybe instead advocate for training-to-competence instead of for a class of devices which aren't 'better' for everyone.

Kevin Corrigan wrote: I stand by my point that an extra measure of safety is a good thing on a competent belayer.

It can be under certain circumstances, but the "competent belayer" is the rub - we're cranking out and cut loose lots of people on a daily basis who aren't that competent belayer.