UKC

Edelrid's new super-thin triple rated rope has won industry awards, but what happens when your average weekend climber takes it cragging?

Toby Archer finds out...

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=6738

In reply to UKC Gear:

The article repeatedly talks about the rope having a thin "sheaf". I assume you mean "sheath". You might want to tidy this up.

In reply to David Rose:

Thanks David, done.

J

In reply to David Rose:

It's probably because the of the River Sheaf in Sheffield, or the rope's organic or something.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Bit of a strange review. Despite going on about the light weight it is never once compared to other ropes to see how much weight is actually saved. I also don't see any benefit in thinner ropes at all, only the saving in weight but if there is one it would be nice to know what that is.

For rock climbing one obvious use is that of redpointing very long sport routes that are at one's limit, particularly where the cruxes are high up. In those situations the savings per metre add up because you've got so many metrres of rope hanging from your harness like a weight belt. People were using 8.8mm ropes back in the 80s for just this use (though admittedly the ropes weren't officially considered single ropes).

It's also worth mentioning that using ultralight ropes in such situations can also be helped by using roller-biners, karabiners that that have a rotating roller on the hook. These help reduce strain in two ways. First the roller means that you eliminate scorched sheaths from the heat generated by friction through the hook of of the karabiner. This is surely going to help prolong the life of ropes like this one that have a very thin sheath. Secondly the impact of the fall is distributed much better throughout the whole rope. This is very noticeable to the climber because falls always feel softer as more of the rope stretches absorbing the shock of the fall. I think these biners are great with any rope but with particularly light/thin ones, that wear out rapidly, I think they'd be pretty much a must have item.

With this rope maybe the benefits of rollers would be enough to turn it from a concept rope to something more practical? Who knows, another interesting test for UKC staff to try out perhaps?

In reply to stp:

It´s 1g per m lighter than the manufacturers claim for the Beal Joker which is also triple rated. If that 20 or 30g is what´s stopping that gnar send then carry on and buy one!

In reply to winhill:


I've recently moved to Sheffield so I'll go completely with that one! Not just the dementia setting in.

In reply to jimtitt:

I'm inclined to agree Jim. While it might be a big difference compare to a 10.5 rope, the weight difference is small compared to 9 or 8.9 triple, and after using it the Corbie I'd say that for most climbers an Edelrid Swift, Beal Joker or Mammut Revelation (all only 1 or 2 g/m more according to their stated weights) would be better just because they appear to be tougher.

In reply to UKC Gear:
I'm on my second Mammut Serenity - 8.7mm and also 51gm/m. This is a great and very hardwearing rope used for alpine granite, trad and sport. Can't fault it - and the lightness is significant over say a Revelation in 70m. The Revelation is 57 gm/m so nearly half a kilo heavier.

In reply to Jonathan Lagoe - UKC:

I actually meant the Serenity, that's what I have to from this review: http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=3765 I've used it loads over the intervening years and its still in good nick, although I stick with my findings from that review that both the Swift and Joker have better dry treatment. The Serenity is one of the nicest ropes to handle that I've had though. They've obviously made them thinner since then as well if its now 8.7 mms although diameters and weights I take with a pinch of salt these days.

In reply to UKC Gear:

More reviews from Toby!
First review I can remember which actually includes criticism. All too often UKC reviews are made entirely from praise, ranging from bland puff pieces to full on manufacturer tongue baths.

I find it hilarious that a rope making company would site "the belay device was too grabby" as a reason why a rope sheath failed. That's a bit like saying "the tarmac was too rough" as a reason for a car tyre getting a blowout. In both cases, the product should be designed with _precisely_ that use in mind and if the product fails during that use then it was poorly designed!

In reply to henwardian:

Thanks henwardian. I think the too grabby thing was more that because the rope has to have a thin sheath to get it weight they want, it is more vulnerable to abrasion than other ropes. Hence use it with a very grabby belay plate which stops a slipping rope very quickly and abrasion say as a climber swings, will all be concentrated on one patch of the sheath. This seems reasonable, although I'm not sure if that is how I damaged the rope. Nevertheless, I would reiterate the point that we as climbers/consumers can only go by the advice given with the product. I take that piece of paper in 14 languages that comes with every bit of gear as the fundamental source of info on what I should or shouldn't do with that bit of gear.

In Edelrid's defence, what they are trying to do with the megajul, micro jul and now the new single rope version of the jul, is really important. They are trying to design into their belay device a safety margin not there in other devices beside mechanical autolocking devices like grigris. Everyone can make mistakes and sadly some people just don't know what they're doing. If you are a falling leader, the megajul gives you a level of protection should your belayer **** up that just isn't there with regular belay devices. It's not perfect by any means, but I think that functionality outweighs the more finickerty (sp?) aspects of using it.

In reply to stp:
while other benefits may be gained from roller biners they weigh a ton
roller biners 51g compared to lightweight biners at 19g
probably just easier to buy a rope fit for purpose

mammut good

Good review, pleasant change from manufacturer hype

In reply to henwardian:


Not everything is immediately apparent on first testing, we´ve put nearly all of this kind of device through tests which sometimes vary from the requirements of the UIAA/CE test and the MicroJul isn´t the only one that can completely destroy a rope, the point loading on the rope in this type of plate is considerable and the potential for rope damage very near.
It isn´t really that easy to design reproducible tests that covers all eventualities and someone has to think of all the possibilities in the first place, the shambles with the sliding X show well how you can be easily led astray by not designing tests the right way. The MegaJul itself is one of the weakest belay devices out there and unlikely to damage anything though!

In reply to jimtitt:


Jim - have you had any contact with Edelrid about your tests? I think what you found is really interesting, but mainly because at lower forces, the Mega Jul works so well - they'll never say it but basically its autolocking. But if I understand right, you found that at high forces, it will be harder to hold a fall with a mega jul than on more conventional plates if remember what you were saying correctly?

In reply to TobyA:

No but someone else did, Brian on MP;- " I sent an email to Edelrid but they said "Yes we did fall tests, nothing that will stand the comparison to a 20m factor 1,9 fall though due to a lack of falling tower height... "
None of the companies I´ve asked (without telling them why) could give any data on large-fall testing they had done.

In reply to jimtitt:


Turns out I'm a little behind the curve here. I had assumed (wrongly!) that the megajul and microjul were similar to an atc or a reverso. After watching the video from Edelrid, I'm guessing the trade off for all that functionality and failsafeness is that the tight angle the rope goes through on autolocking (compared to a gri-gri) is what you suggest will damage ropes?
I am suprised that this sort of hair trigger locking (if I can't say "autolock" ) is at much risk of damaging a standard rope though. The locked position has the rope doing the same thing as a standard atc and I'm not aware that under the normal run of things I let rope slide through the device as I'm catching someone (if a dynamic belay is being employed I'm reasonably sure I do it just by moving my body).
Am I missing something?


I'm afraid I'm ignorant of the Sliding X, can you link it? (Googling just gives me sliding X anchors)
What do you mean when you say the Megajul is "weak"?
In terms of tests, belay devices have been around for decades, there are hundreds of designs, millions of people have used them and they must have held tens/hundreds of millions of falls. I think you would have to get pretty exotic to have any chance of thinking up a new way of loading them that hasn't happened at least hundreds of times before. Perhaps I'm being disingenuous but my take would not be that eventualities are not known but that they are not tested for one reason or another. It may be that situations like the 20m 1.9 fall factor fall isn't tested because the extreme stresses on equipment and a climbers body would preclude a manufacturer from risking a claim about this sort of use because any fall like that is almost certain to result in serious injury.

In reply to henwardian:







All this type of belay device work by using the force of the faller to pinch the rope between the karabiner and the body which puts considerable stress on a small area of rope. To save the rope from being actually chopped through the karabiner is prevented from contacting the body and a small gap is left which allows some rope movement at higher loads. The manufacturer has either the choice of making the gap small so braking performance is good with thin ropes in which case thick ropes can get into the zone where damage may occur OR they leave a bigger gap and braking performance with thin ropes is marginal. The various devices on the market cover both of these possibilities.
With conventional belay plates the amount of braking force is reasonably proportional to the gripping force of the belayer on the rope, the assisted braking devices such as the MegaJul are confusing because initially they provide a substantial amount of braking force with little or no braking effort from the belayer and it was always assumed this extra braking effect was also proportional, the reality is that initially they outperform conventional plates but at higher loads an increase in belayer gripping force is not rewarded with the same benefits as it would be with a conventional plates. At higher fall forces the MegaJul displays weak braking performance compared to many conventional plates. Whether this is of concern is another debate regarding the likelyhood of rope burns and injury due to excessive fall distance.

The sliding X reference was regarding anchors, the original development and promotion of the idea was accompanied by some rather weak testing and failure to analyse what was actually happening and it was left to others to do the work more carefully and show the drawbacks involved. 30 years on we know a lot more but this could and shoulkd have been done before launching the concept onto the climbing world.

The test requirements to be awarded the UIAA safety label and achieve prEN certification require the device is tested with the thinnest allowed new rope and the rope is prevented from moving in the plate, with an older (but still satisfactory) rope of larger diameter and with no restraint on movement apart from the normal simulated hand force some of the devices are exhibiting the potential for rope damage . The concept behind climbing safety equipment requires all the equipment survives considerably worse than a 20m FF1.9 so devices which fail to do this are a problem, in particular when other well established but less "trendy" devices are capable of better performance with no negatives. That the manufacturers do not test their equipment to the extremes due to laziness is also a problem.

In reply to jimtitt:

This is quite scary. I wanted to ask about the falls that damaged this rope in 1 day of climbing though it definitely appears the review states rough rock and not falls damaged this rope terminally twice in just one day.
However it has been a bone of mine for a while that once slightly wet and carrying a bit of grit some belay devices look like they will damage a rope these days.
1- you say the microjul can and isn't the only one.
2- you say the megajul is weak.
I haven't heard from others or yourself which belay devices can damage a rope but do reckon a file for the edges which catch on such devices is a good idea myself, that sheath is very valuable. No nod of agreement in the various climbing shops before I bought the petzl reverso over other belay plates but I was looking for
no metal sharpness anywhere.
Common sense but leadership is the British way, until so and so says bimble on.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Basically overall this rope is a failure. My first sheath damage climbing was noticed as I was about to re-start climbing after a fall, I wouldn't have done the damage if I had super extended the krab over the slope/ledge. Surely in a couple of days you cannot break the sheath twice on a new rope without really really really clumsy work when there were not any falls.
They need to be sure about the belay device arguement that has been proposed and anyway, personally, I reckon the numerous devices now available have more devious details of concern than rope size these days, they are sometimes sharp at the point of braking friction whilst still in shop sale condition, ie when brand new. I have seen this and refused to buy but am so low on the expertise scale that it's laughable.
jimb

In reply to howifeel:

To be clear, Edelrid "speculated this might have been how I managed to damage the sheath" and now no longer sell the MicroJul as suitable for the rope tested. I have never tested the MicroJul.

In reply to jimtitt:

Worth confirming though I would think though as this isn't going to "send" anything if it was not damage from the belay device. So "might have" is inadequate for a professional gear review when no falls occurred, now that it is published.send

In reply to jimtitt:

Do you have any recommendations for semi-autolocking lead belay devices for half ropes that don't have a high risk of rope damage? (that also do guide mood for seconds, abseiling, etc. etc.)


Ah, ok. I am familiar with that setup. Don't remember every hearing a huge amount of debate about it (maybe that was before my time?) but I don't use it because I intuitively reason that it results in shock loading when one point fails and I always have enough sling or rope so that using it is not necessary.


Given the cost of launching a recall (is it just me or are recall numbers increasing?) of a popular product, this is rather suprising.

In reply to henwardian:


No, all the available devices have their satisfied users and I only measure their performance. I prefer not to use this type of device anyway so wouldn´t recommend any of them but others have different views.

In reply to henwardian:

I have nothing like Jimtitt's knowledge and experience but I did look into your very question some six month's back and concluded that the CT alpine Up was the best of the devices offering the functionality you're after. I've been using it for cragging and multipitch and it works well for lowering, abbing with lock function, assisted catches etc. And all across an impressive range of rope diameters, for double and single use. It's a lot heavier than a bugette though!!

In reply to BnB:


The Click-Up is great for belying but avoid using it for abseiling. It is okay on very short abs on slabby rock but gets incredibly hot on full-weight abseils, so hot in fact that it becomes too hot to touch. Since you need to touch the device in order to release it (unlike other devices which you control with the trailing rope) you end up dangling in space, cooling the device by blowing it, worrying about it melting through the rope - quite scary!

Alan

In reply to jimtitt:


So are you saying the assisted braking simply doesn't work in a big fall and that the belayer is more likely to lose control than with a conventional plate? If so, then it is doubly dangerous due to the reasonable expectation that it will work. Is this true of the microjul too (I have one of these and have found it brilliant.....).

In reply to Robert Durran:



Not at all, the assisted braking continues to work all the time. The braking force component supplied by the belayer gripping the rope is however less than with a normal plate so the total braking force available to stop a large fall is less than with a more conventional system and a belayer of reasonable hand strength. Whether this matters depends on the circumstances, cragging at Stanage for sure it´s irrelevant but in other circumstances it may well be cause for thought. As stated above I have not tested the MicroJul (and have no intention of doing so as I have no use for it) and have not completed testing the CT devices.

In reply to jimtitt:


Isn't that the whole point of an assisted braking device - the force needed from the hand is very small (just enough to initiate the assisted braking from the device), but once the assisted braking takes over it can apply a far bigger force than any conventional device (enough to actually lock it), and this is why they are so forgiving and therefore so safe?
At least that is how my Click Up and Microjul Work and I assume the Megajul, being just a bigger version of the Microjul for fatter ropes, works the same way.

My only criticism of the Microjul is that it gives almost too much friction when abseiling and I might consider replacing it with a Megajul unless using very skinny ropes.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I can´t see why this is so hard to understand but them maybe I´m too familiar with the subject. The braking force provided by a conventional plate rises with the grip on the rope. With assisted braking devices the braking force also rises with increasing grip on the rope but to a lesser extent. At some point within the normal range of gripping ability the conventional devices generally start to outperform the assisted ones. With all the ropes I have tested I can achieve a higher braking force with an ATC XP with the exception of one test with 8.5 half ropes where the Metolious BRD was the best performer (though normally with this thin a rope I would normally think about adding a karabiner to an ATC). Depending on the rope(s) and devices the difference can be considerable.
The variation in the initial force provided by the device alone is also considerable but generally the braking force without belayer influence is considerably less than one would expect especially compared with something like a Grigri.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Blimey. I'll look out for that. May be different on the double ropes version with more surface area to disperse heat but I'll be wary.

In reply to BnB:


Double rope Alpine Up is different, plus it also has the option of using it as a standard belay device which is what I would do if I was using it for a long abseil. I suspect it is probably better in lock-up mode as well than the Click Up since the load is split between the two ropes, there is more metal to disperse the heat and there is a plastic lever.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Yes. the Alpine Up does seem a decent product. But I'll watch out nonetheless on long abseils.

In reply to jimtitt:
From previous posts/your graphs I remember two things:

1) the Megajul being better than/similar to the Reverso 3 for typical single and half ropes over the range of braking forces, yet nobody seems to think the Reverso is unsafe because it is not as good as the ATC-XP...
2) as you alluded to yourself I think, in the event of rope slippage due to insufficient hand force the belayer will probably get rope burn and release the rope. For a 'normal' belay device this is obviously catastrophic; the Megajul may let the rope slide a bit but then may or may not catch the rope once the peak force has been dissipated.

It would, as already stated, be interesting to see fall tests.

In reply to jimtitt:


Sorry, I still have no idea what the problem is. The assisted devices I have (Click Up and Microjul) provide enough force, once initiated, that they would still hold a fall if you let go of the rope (the whole point of them!) - ie they lock. If I let go of a conventional plate, I might well kill my partner. Very unlikely with an assisted one. I'll take your word for it that with a strong enough grip on the rope, a non-assisted device might provide a greater braking force (though I'm struggling to see how that could be the case), but that is totally irrelevant if I've let go of the rope.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Who said there was a problem? I was of the opinion that the MagaJul was unlikely to damage the rope being tested as it is a fairly weak braking device which appears to be a factor in excessive strain on the rope. As the term weak could cover either the devices physical trength or its braking performance I was asked to clarify this:- " At higher fall forces the MegaJul displays weak braking performance compared to many conventional plates. Whether this is of concern is another debate regarding the likelyhood of rope burns and injury due to excessive fall distance."
Without some more testing and information we don´t know to what extent the second part of the quote is relevant, that belay plates generally are considered to be inadequate for the extremes under which they may be called on to perform is well understood. Choosing one that is even more inadequate seems a dubious idea when one can have one with two or three times the performance.
With no information available from the manufacturers how does the average climber know what he´s using? Many of the assisted braking devices give an impression of ultimate braking performance that in reality they don´t provide and the user may only discover this the hard way.

In reply to jimtitt:

I was under the impression that you were saying that the braking effect of the Megajul was less than that of a conventional belay plate under a high load. If this is true (though I find it hard to see how it could be true), then it is a serious problem because people naturally assume that an assisted braking device will have a bigger braking affect and that therefore less force is required from the hand - the devise would be giving a false sense of security which could easily lead to accidents.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think that is what Jim's testing suggests, but from what I understand it has to be very high loads - a near FF2 fall with many metres of ropes out. Possible of course, but not likely. I also haven't worked out from what Jim has says as to whether he thinks the increased grip you would have to hold the rope with in such a situation with a device like a megajul is actually perfectly possible for an experienced climber to do, or whether its beyond the strength of most.

In reply to TobyA:

Depends on the ropes as these devices generally seem to be more sensitive to diameter. From climber experience over the decades we know a "good" belay plate should be achieving 2-2.5kN braking force for the majority of the population to accept it as a solidly performing device. Start getting below this and one has to be concerned about injury to the belayer (from rope burns) if the falls are reasonably long due to excessive slip distance. A belay device sold for use with half ropes down to 7.8mm which fails to produce 1kN when tested with this diameter of rope is not a product I choose to use.
Nor would I use the devices where the assisted locking is insufficient to hold my body weight when abseiling with ropes within the rated range as they become an inconvenience and not a safety feature since one has to fumble with both a Prusik and the locking release. The Smart Alpine for example claims "an enormous braking effect" but then tells me to use a Prusik when abseiling as "If you are abseiling / rappelling with the Smart Alpine in combination with the right carabiner and rope, it is easy to believe that the device is self-locking so the added safety of the prusik sling might seem unnecessary. However, this added safety really is essential. The braking effect gradually falls, especially towards the end of the rope when the lower rope weight reduces any locking function applied........" . Clearly there is confusion about what "enormous" means but with my twin 7.8´s it measures at 0.6kN. The MegaJul is worse.

With the "right" rope(s) the MegaJul and others are good performers but they are sold as suitable for ropes which in my opinion give unacceptable braking performance for my purposes. Since other devices perform adequately I prefer to use them.

In reply to Robert Durran:


If you install the karabiner into the device and look at the area where the rope pinching occurs you will see a gap, on the MegaJul this gap is large enough to pass a 6mm steel rod through so under load with thinner ropes the pinching effect is non-existent as the rope diameter reduces and is smaller than the gap. The Mammut Smart devices have a smaller gap and they perform better.

In reply to jimtitt:


Ok. Presumably this is why they also produce the Microjul which works very well with thin ropes. An ATC is also dangerous with modern thin ropes, yet people often use it too!

In reply to UKC Gear:

First of all if UKClimbing would do at least a little research on new ropes on market you would found that there is a Beal rope called Opera 8.5mm UNICORE - that is rope for absolute minimalists!!! Tripple rated rope - with 8.5mm diameter and only 48g/m!!!! And this is FIRST ever single rope below 50g/m!!!!

And Impact force only 7.4kN for single use!
And UIAA Water repellent standart and so on...

http://www.beal-planet.com/2014/anglais/cordes-opera.html

But as I see Beal does not sponsor your revies so you keep writting a bullshuit!!!! This is not the first case....

In reply to marixman:

Dear Marixman,

Thanks for your reply.

The Beal Opera 8.5mm rope that we have already featured here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/news.php?id=6551 isn't actually available for sale or review yet (due out summer 2015), but when it comes in to production we will try and review it if possible.

And, just so you know, Beal actually are an advertiser on UKC. I'm not quite sure of your terminology, but I guess that means that they do in fact 'sponsor our revies'.

May I just politely point out that I think you have a fault with your exclamation mark on your keyboard. It seems to be stuck on.

Best,

Jack

In reply to marixman:
Hi Marixman - I'm not sponsored by anyone, we just get sent gear to review by companies who want those products reviewed. That Beal rope isn't available yet, but I did review the Beal Joker a couple of years ago and I thought it was the best value of the three triple rated ropes I reviewed at that time.

Incidentally, do you know what belay device Beal will recommend for use with that rope when you use it as a single?

In reply to UKC Gear:

The take-away from this thread for me is a confirmation that rope and belay devices have become so diverse that you can't really take it for granted that every rope will be compatible with every belay device. Based on my own experiences, I've concluded that the rope(s), belay device, and the belay biner really should be tested a bit first before you commit to relying on them to work smoothly.