Continue with onX Maps
Continue with Facebook
Edelrid MegaJul Belay Device
Paul Deger wrote: If you climb where it´s wet and freezes then dry treatment is probably useful, I don´t so never buy treated ropes. The only one I was given I washed six times to get rid of the slippery gunk. |
|
Guess I'll be trying to get a hold of an Alpine Up to try out and relegate the Megajul for tethering myself on roofs. |
|
Jim - when asked previously you answered "The karabiner used meets the manufacturers specifications." - could you specify what exactly you tested with - something with a squared off H bar construction like what they sell with it and recommend by name or was it a more rounded HMS carabiner? There has been a lot of discussion of this making a difference. |
|
Agreed, really interesting discussion and always psyched to hear evidence-based conclusions. Think we should keep in mind, too----managing a high-force fall and/or a factor-2 has more to do with the fall-protection system we build (anchor, anchor location, protection placements, position of belayer, where/if we clip the anchor) than the belay device we use...I'd hate to have a climbing partner more focused on his belay device than where he puts the anchor in a pitch in relation to a crux or runout climbing/etc....in the absence of a fall-protection system that mitigates a high-force fall, then the belay device becomes important, for sure! Chauvin goes into this at length in The Mountain Guide Manual. We should get him and Jim Titt on a Facebook Live sometime...that'd be interesting! |
David Ponak wrote: It would have been a round-stock HMS back then, that´s what they said to use as I asked if a normal HMS is o.k, the instructions only recommend using the Strike and discuss using other karabiners, the profile of the karabiner is not mentioned. Changing the profile of the karabiner is unlikely to make any real difference to the ultimate braking performance as the gap between the karabiner and the body of the device remains the same as does the angle of the body which provides the jamming effect. |
coppolillo wrote: You are talking about avoiding high-force falls, not managing them. Avoiding such falls as far as possible has always been standard practice in climbing, if one should occur then using a belay device which gives the best chance of a satisfactory outcome seems an intelligent idea. |
|
"You are talking about avoiding high-force falls, not managing them. Avoiding such falls as far as possible has always been standard practice in climbing, if one should occur then using a belay device which gives the best chance of a satisfactory outcome seems an intelligent idea."" Hi Jim---I'm talking about both----you avoid them first and foremost, but if put in a position where one is possible, then you manage (maybe "mitigate" is a better word?) it via anchor placement, where/if you clip the anchor, and even putting a catastrophe knot in the brake strand of the rope. My reasoning for posting on it was as a reminder that we should avoid high-force falls in the first place and not overemphasize a technological fix! We see this a lot when discussing gear (nylon vs. dyneema, belay devices, etc.), some basic strategies could do a lot to manage certain situations, rather than the "latest greatest" device..... Having less experienced people belay, at this point, I think you're leaning towards the Click Up as one of the your favorites, yes? I wonder how it would react if a belayer held a truly factor 2 fall---that is, the climber fell past the belayer and the pull on the Click Up was down and not up...that would be hard to test, I assume, eh?! And the 24-million-dollar question! I wonder if you've done any testing regarding when/if to clip the anchor as the leader leaves the stance? It seems generally accepted that clipping the masterpoint or highest/best piece is a good strategy to avoid a factor2 fall.....but imagine if the climber goes 8m above the anchor and then falls----the clipped masterpoint acts as a 2:1 pulley at that point, correct, doubling forces on the anchor? The fall factor must approach 2 at that point, yes? So----at what point is it better to unclip from the anchor and reduce forces? Is it better? As you have probably long since realized---I am no physics expert and can't even fathom a guess! Thanks Jim! |
coppolillo wrote: This diversion into mechanics of falls versus actual uses of safe belay devices is a fool's errand. We do not have control over the route and rock as much as we would like to think and cannot engineer ideal situations on the spot when confronted with a FF2 event. These are almost always going to be unexpected and the result of gear placement failure, rock breakage, rock fall etc. All we can do is use safe tools that give us a chance of surviving them, if you aren't using a safe tool tragedy may result. Never waste time thinking about whether or not you should or shouldn't clip the anchor as if that is going to make the difference. If you are worried about that then your anchor is bad and you shouldn't be putting yourself in any position to fall on it whatsoever. |
|
There's a lengthy discussion on Supertopo about whether or not clipping the anchor is a good idea, see http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=731822&tn=180. In terms of just the anchor load, clipping the anchor will usually result in a considerably higher anchor load than a factor 2 fall, with a break-even point occurring when the leader is still very close to the anchor in most cases (it of course depends on how far below the anchor the belayer is situated). But belayer distance from the anchor isn't the only issue, there is also the question of whether the belayer is anchored down or could collide with the anchor, whether slippage through the belay device is possible, and if it is, whether the belayer can manage it. The era I grew up in as a climber, when it was relatively common in the US to practice catching high fall factor falls with weights, is now a distant memory. Most belayers have not experienced anything close to such falls and have no idea how they might perform or what adjustments in their technique might improve that performance. Extensive experience on the kinds of moderate falls that are typical, especially in sport climbing, provides no insight into the extreme situations and may lead to unjustified confidence. Moreover, there is an assumption that belay technology is up to the task, but this assumption is questionable at best and demonstrably false in some cases. Deciding not to clip the anchor, in spite of the advantages in terms of anchor load, means relying on belay skills that might not exist. Modern bolted anchors can take whatever the situation can dish out, but there is a bit more to worry about for trad anchors, which could conceivably be overwhelmed by very high loads. In my 60 years of climbing, I've heard or read of about such total anchor failures approximately every five years. Except for one miraculous case, all such failures have resulted in the death of the party. Such extreme falls are so rare that we have essentially no empirical information on the reliability of trad anchors in general for such circumstances. I 'm not persuaded by the argument that there is really no problem because if you are thinking about the issue at all, you have a bad anchor and should do something about that. Personally, I've felt forced to belay from anchors I judged questionable on a number of occasions. I absolutely did not clip them, and discussed with the leader that I would be belaying dynamically in the original sense of the word, which means deliberately allowing some slippage through the belay device. But this is something I've actually practiced with weights and know how to do. Obviously, this is a leader must not fall situation, but embracing the optimum belay strategy for it seems to me to make more sense than just accepting that the leader isn't going to blow it. It seems fairly well known by now that the best strategy for such situations is to get the belayer far from the anchor and have the leader clip the anchor, but this isn't always possible; it depends on the terrain below the belay stance. |
coppolillo wrote: Like any device except the Grigri and it´s relatives the ClickUp doesn´t do anything faced with FF2 unless the belayer changes to brake hand up, then it should work like anything else. Hands-free (as in the paranoic but seldom encountered horror scenario of a disabled belayer) the ClickUp like all the rest does absolutely nothing, that is the difference between the test for the European standard, Cat 1 devices have to stop a hands-off FF2 and Cat 2 have no braking test at all. I don´t test applications, only the physical attributes of equipment. |
|
"I 'm not persuaded by the argument that there is really no problem because if you are thinking about the issue at all, you have a bad anchor and should do something about that." +1 Whether or not to clip the anchor has nothing to do with the quality of the anchor. It's a judgment call based upon the terrain and pitch at hand. Further---I see this one all the time now...a party, out of habit, clips the anchor and off the leader goes....not realizing that the farther he gets away from the anchor, the more forcefully the belayer will be pulled towards the clipped anchor--in some cases that could be upwards, but I too often see people sitting away from the anchor or leaning back---not realizing in a high-force fall they will be pulled into the rock, more than upwards---it's just asking to be smashed face first into the anchor/rock. I won't even ask, Jim or Rich, about direct belaying....that would open an enormous can of worms! It's a cool technique, though, for certain circumstances....and on bolts, perhaps the best option in the event of a factor2....(think: guiding Mental Physics in JTree with a 100-lb client)... Anyway, thanks for the chat, gents! RC |
|
I think the quality of the anchor is an important consideration, along with the terrain, the proximity of the belayer to the anchor, and the nature of the pitch to come, in deciding whether or not to clip it. Well, you didn't ask, but I think a direct belay with a Munter hitch on a pair of modern bolts seems to me to be about as good a belay as it is possible to have for single-rope climbing. But with a gear anchor, it seems to me that you'd want four pieces---two for upward loads and two for downward loads---and that isn't very practical much of the time. |
|
Yeah, the way you put it is a more accurate statement----sure, with a sub-optimal anchor, you'd think twice about clipping it....but my initial discussion wasn't about the quality of the anchor (which should always be built "up to task"), rather----the idea that clipping it creates problems as well as solves one.....this was my motivation for chiming it....that often one problem gets overprioritized (the holding power of a particular belay device), when the problem could be solved another way or another problem might be a consideration, too--- Anyway....the direct belay thing, I bet, will be the source of some innovation/creativity in the years to come...we'll see. Have a super weekend and hope you get out to climb! RC |
rgold wrote: What I was trying to say, Rich, and hope you can appreciate, is that it goes beyond human ability to know precisely when the anchor can hold in some sort of dynamic and heroically perfect belay (and the anchor holds by the smallest of margins) as a means of survival for the party versus the far greater likelihood of simply dropping the leader (ie the deadly atc et al) in a FF2 event onto a solid anchor due to bad technique or poor choice of device. Recognizing that the anchor is less optimal and that the leader must not fall is **the only guarantee** available, imo. I guess I come from this point from this side, primarily, and emphasize this as a fundamental to safe climbing, particularly as 99.99% of climbers have zero experience doing an ideal dynamic belay in a FF2 scenario. I just don't think its going to save hardly anyone (ie perhaps some tiny fraction of climbers) in the real world versus being aware and simply not falling. Being totally aware of the situation is very different than trusting the anchor blindly and then proceeding to push one's limits right above the belay etc. If your anchor is less than ideal, make it ideal or don't fall is the only advice I give. And bail if you think a fall is likely. Anything more I think is beyond the scope of internet prognostication ie the party in this situation better be advanced and cognizant of the situation and have learned this sort of esoteria from their mentors in the real world rather than simply reading about it. I tailor my comments to beginners in a sense in this regard, sparing them the rare situation and focusing them on the common. However, having the belayer as far below as possible is a very sound idea, though I will share as an ideal solution in an emergency. That's the most likely to be effective form of "dynamic belay" that can reliably be done, imo. |
|
In climbing we usually talk fall protection rather than fall prevention, but the fact is that fall prevention is going hurt a lot less and less frequently than fall protection. Obviously shit happens, but really your best protection from injury is holding on with your two hands and feet. On a side note, you might be amazed by what strength you can harness when you really don't want to fall. |
michael sticher wrote: Agreed that it twists the ropes. That said, it's so light, so good at assisted braking, and so easy to feed slack, I continue to use it anyway (but only for big alpine routes where I like being able to take my hands off for a second, and where weight is paramount). |
|
I have now had more time to play with MegaJul Sport and by far my new favorite! It does take some time to dial in how to use, but once you get the hang of it, feeds out easily for belaying a leader and can be used like ATC for top roping/gym use. Lowering is the trickiest to get down - helpful to have a glove on. |
|
I have a MegaJul and a MegaJul Sport. They both work well but the sport is definitely smoother for feeding, lowering and rappelling. |
|
extreme precautions when rapelling or tope rope securing/descending... It has happened to me in a real climb.Abseiling down with a new rope (10 M. M. Beal Tiger). With MegaJul Normally we must act to abseil down, like a Gri-Gri.Abseiling down I stopped on a ledge to untangle the rope. For a moment no tension was at the device and the rope crossed at the Megajul hole...and I didn´t realize that... as I put in pictures attached here ,result: if the rope is crossed no longer blocks the device!!! it is easier to happen with thin ropes even meeting the specifications of ropes accepted by the device from 7.8 to 10.5 M. M. and can happen at top rope securing/descending too I think this fact should be noticed in the user´s manual. B. Regards   |
|
I believe it is noted in the manual for top belay but I'm not sure if they warn about this happening on rap |
