UKC

Edelrid's Mega Jul belay device has been lauded and derided in equal measure. This assisted locking device certainly has its quirks, but once Toby Archer got the hang of it he came out on the 'like' side.

Read more

In reply to UKC Gear:
Unfortunately I think your review is too small in scope, and doesn't make the limited scope (single pitch climbing) very clear.

I've switched from mega jul to DMMpivot for multipitch routes due to the reasons below:

Megajul
- Plus: while not officially autolocking, does provide extra auto-locking function when lead belaying.
- Plus: possibly more versatile for abseiling since it can auto-lock.
- Negative: on a multipitch climb when swapping from bringing up a second to lead belaying them, you've got to re-feed the ropes the other way through the device. This confuses people and takes longer.
- The graphs from Jim Titt at http://www.mountainproject.com/v/edelrid-megajul-belay-device/109133730__8 (scroll down to the graph) shows that the Megajul locks quickly but has very worrying upper limits, so I reckon would not hold hard falls.
So I use the mega jul for single sports climbing where its auto-lockoff ability is safer, and you're less likely to have hard falls, but use my pivot elsewhere.

Pivot:
- Plus: don't have to re-feed ropes on multipitch route.
- Plus: slightly larger rope range for half ropes (Megajul 7.8-9.0; Pivot 7.3-9.2)
- Made in Wales

In reply to UKC Gear:
The who premise of the 'assisted locking' nature of the device is based the edges of the device that the rope runs through being a lot thinner/sharper, therefore providing a lot more bite against the rope when it locks down against the biner. The idea is sound, and when holding a resting/falling climber, it works very well; locking off nicely and requiring no effort to hold the brake rope for long periods.

The problems come when lowering, paying out and abseiling. The device is constantly trying to bite down into the locked position. Other devices like the gri-gri have managed to engineer around this to a greater extent, whereas the Mega Jul really struggles. To freely feed rope through the device required, in essence, to completely open the device. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium. It's either completely locked off or 100% open with rope flying through it.

I've had one for 9 months, so have had plenty of time to try and master the 'knack' of the device. I now only use mine for bringing up a second on single pitch trad with a walk off, almost completely avoiding a scenario when I'd need to open up the device to pay out.

Sorry Edelrid. Points for trying though!

In reply to UKC Gear:

Toby - you forgot to mention that after abseiling or lowering these things get roasty toasty. Far more roasty toasty than an aluminium plate. What with the Mega Jul's small dimensions and it being made of Stainless steel which is absolutely chronic for heat retention, you can get proper burns from them if you abseil for any distance. As for the rest of it, you know my opinions on this device. Just. Horrible. Alpine up might be 3 times the weight and size but it does everything the Megajul SHOULD do, including not slip like an seal in the mess made by th Exxon Valdez.

In reply to Jim Titt (pre-emptively seeing as you're boundto show up...):

"The graphs are a presentation of the relative power of various devices for the easy appreciation and understanding of those amongst the internet users who are neither engineers or statisticians. They are not part of a PHD thesis.
They can accept them at face value as reliable guidance from an experienced engineer who has more experience in testing belay devices than almost certainly anyone one earth and who regularly tests other products and uses (simple) statistical methods in his daily work OR they can choose to believe in lizards in space. Either way it´s not a burning issue in my life. " - best put down ever

In reply to David Barlow:


Do you? Why?

In reply to UKC Gear:

See http://www.edelrid.de/out/documents/downloads/GAL_MicroMega_Jul.pdf . Compare figure 7a and 8a (despite the angle of view switching): in 7a the dead rope is on the thumb loop side, but in 8a it's on the opposite side. i.e. you have to re-thread the rope.

And I've just noticed figure 8d which says that you must position the rope carabiner in a different way when you're using only 1 rope in guide mode. So that's another thing to remember.

To re-iterate a comment further up: good effort by Edelrid to try to come up with an improved belay device, but it has too many shortcomings and introduces new failure modes.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I find it great for abseiling and lead belaying. Rubbish for everything else. I'm on my second one mind, the wire loop snapped on the last one

In reply to UKC Gear:

On the plus side it is tiny, weighs nothing, and does everything (even if other things are often better for certain things e.g. grigri).

In reply to David Barlow:


OK, yes, if you bring up a second in that mode. Usually, on multi-pitch climbs, I would just belay a second as I would belay a leader.

In reply to beardy mike:


Unlike the Mega-Jul?

In reply to UKC Gear:

Thanks for the good review Toby!

One question thou: Can you comment on the initial locking of the device when taking a fall? Does it function more as a standard tube type of device (where quite a lot of rope passes through the device before you actually catch the fall) or more like an assisted locking device (like the grigri, which lets a minimum amount of rope slip thourhg the device when taking a fall)? Or do you know if Elderich has made impact force tests, so we can compare it to the forces created by a Grigri and a standard tube type of device?

My limited experience with the divice suggested the later; that it is quick to lock up the rope completely when taking a fall. And if that really is how it functions most of the time (and not only in my limited usage), you'll have the same problem as with any assisted locking device, compared with a non assisted device, when it comes to the impact force on the top-piece (or bolt) when taking a fall. See the following comparision of the impact force on the top piece between the Grigri and non-locking devices: https://www.mountainproject.com/images/0/36/108130036_medium_e2d97b.jpg

-IF- the Jul creates impact forces on the top piece closer to the ones created by the Grigri, I think the same advice applies to Jul as to the Grigri; it is great for sport climbing and other scenarios, where you don't have to worry about either the piece or the rock/ice/snow breaking, but it is definitively not suitable for applications requiring dynamic belaying, when you want to minimize the impact force on small and/or less than ideal natural palcements on rock, snow or ice.

In reply to UKC Gear:

The review states that it can be used to abseil without the need for a prussic, is this ever a sensible suggestion?

I'm also, probably unnecessarily wary of the extremely skinny looking suspension loop, the thought of bringing up 2 people on such a tiny sliver of metal, SS or not. It just looks too small!

In reply to Dell:

Have you used one? You don't need a prussic

In reply to Cheese Monkey:

Whether or not the MegaJul should be used without a prussik abseiling is very, very dependent on the rope diameter, whether you are on a single or double strand, and how much you weigh. Personally I am happy on doubled strands of 9mm and 8.5mm, and happy on a single sport rope, but abbing on a single strand of 8.5mm was deeply distressing - the one downside of the MegaJul is that if the locking part isn't doing the job for you, you have to apply considerable force (partly because you don't expect to have to pull hard with it since you are used to it locking, and partly because it gets less force-multiplication than a standard device).

You really really really want to have tried it using any given rope before trusting it to lock up. If you look at Jim Titt's graphs you get an idea of how much force the locking applies, and it is usually around bodyweight - a bit more for fat ropes, a bit less for skinny ropes. The minimum rope specification diameter (7.8mm) it is specified for should probably be ignored; if you are going to use tiny ropes I would try the Micro Jul instead.

Also remember that at the start of the abseil the weight of the rope below will help lock the device but this is not true lower down...

In reply to Cheese Monkey:
Probably should've mentioned I bought one of these last week, but have yet to use it. Abseiling without a prussic as backup goes against what is always drummed in as being safe practice, having said that I'd probably use it in 'normal' mode anyway, although I'll certainly try out the locking mode...with a prussic as back-up.

In reply to Dell:

I assume you have something backing up the Prusik as well? Once you use this device properly you'll see why a it isn't needed.... It'd be like using a one while going down a single rope on a grigri.

In reply to ogreville:


I can't say I have experienced these issues when lowering or paying out. Both are as smooth as on a grigri and I found the learning curve to be less steep than with a grigri so you are less likely to get short-roped while clipping when someone is getting used to the device. The only issue I have found with lowering is that it is a bit more sensitive to twisted or tangled ropes so you may need to keep your rope a bit tidier than with other devices.

I haven't used it for abseiling much so shan't comment on that.

For single pitch sport climbing and indoor use, the megajul is as good as a grigri in my experience. I don't use it for trad or for multipitches but then I wouldn't use any of the other assisted breaking devices for those either, there are other tools that are far better suited to the job.

In reply to Dell:


Is going climbing ever sensible?


That is never load bearing - it's just to stop you dropping it. If you're hanging anybody on it, you may well kill them.

In reply to Removed User:


I know I have already said this (and it is true for a grigri as well really) but...

IF (and only if) it locks on your rope, for your weight, reliably - which is certainly not true for me on a single strand of half rope (fortunately this is rarely a problem).

It is many things, but it is not a grigri. A grigri will hold a FF2 fall independently; I know you are supposed to always hold the brake rope (and I do) but it is almost totally reliable on the right ropes in the right conditions. A MegaJul will not realiably hold a fall on its own, even less than FF2. It will not reliably lock up on certain skinny ropes for which it is rated.

It's interesting that SDM uses theirs for single pitch sport and indoors; this is where I use my grigri as I feel it is the superior device. I save the MegaJul for trad and abseiling (where being able to use two ropes, light weight and abseiling without a prussik are the big advantages).

In reply to Robert Durran:


I suspect they meant the clip-in loop which is still tiny (barely thicker than the wire)!

In reply to andrewmcleod:


Of course I did, labelled in the instructions as 'suspension eye'

In reply to Robert Durran:


No. Have you seen how these people dress?

In reply to Dell:

I spoke to one of the designers at Edelrid and he says he prefers to use his abseiling "the normal way", with a prussik. That's the Euro normal way I guess, extend the device on a sling and have the prussik going to your belay loop. But anyway, absolutely nothing wrong with doing it that way round, I just found the autoblocking method works rather well.

In reply to andrewmcleod:


second that, lot of positive things about mega jul but won't lock 7.8mm (in fact IIRC it wont lock my 8mm)

In reply to UKC Gear:

I've use a number of assisted locking devices. I was hoping the megajul was going to be the one device to rule them all. It is not. I've used the megajul for a few seasons and spend almost all of last season using one.

Pro - light, huge range in rope diameters it can handle. assisted locking that takes minimal braking for the locking to engage.

Cons
bringing up a second or multiple seconds using the guide mode is way too much effort to get the rope(s) to go through the device. this is likely due to the device being able to handle skinnier ropes and therefore being far too tight for fatter ropes. this was a deal breaker for me.

your second leading through for the next pitch requires you to rearrange the device. this is not a big deal for me but it is something that the reverson and atc guide has going for it. although ill take the safety of assisted devices over this inconvenience any time.

rappelling in locking mode eventually gets tiring on your lever arm if you are doing multiple rappels. rappelling on slabby terrain is a lot of work for your lever arm. vertical is ok.

rappelling in non locking mode is fine, however, if for any reason you want to go back up the rope... feeding rope back
into the device is next to impossible

a device like the mammut alpine smart has been an overall device for me

verdict for me -- ill continue to use the megajul cragging due to the assisted braking feature. ill likely use it for multi pitching with small diameter ropes. multi pitching with fatter ropes I have found the mega jul and a gigi plate to be a very good combination.

In reply to TobyA:

To qualify my statement, I'll say that I really love my Mega Jul though I mostly use it for single pitch and indoor.
I found using the Mega Jul for abbing in the self locking mode to be genuinely terrifying - it's almost binary switching from locked to fully released though I haven't practice using it that way much. I far prefer the traditional reversed with a prussik option which was far more controllable.
Having worked through a number of belay devices over the years, this is by far my favourite.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Its prusik. PRUSIK!

The knot (or hitch) you use to lock on to a standing rope is a 'prusik'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prusik

For the sake of Karl Prusik please.....

In reply to JoelO:

I'd be interested to know more about the results in the jpeg you link - there are so many different tube type belay devices these days, I wonder if there is much variance between an ATC XP and say an original ATC - definitely the former feels much more grippy that latter, and if it is how much slippage the device gives that defines the force on the top runner, I do wonder if the megajul would be so different?

Anyway Jim's slightly worrying findings that Mike mentions in this thread is that MegaJuls can actually slip much more than other devices when holding severe falls - approaching factor 2, i.e. past the belay on multipitch route!

I have used the Megajul winter climbing, mainly because it is so light, and when you have to carry your gear uphill for 2hrs to get to a route, light is right! Perhaps I should worry more about these things and I'm too trusting of the manufacturers, but after now a couple of years using the MegaJul (this review was actually written ages ago, maybe just after I left Finland in 2014) I still find it quite a useful device. Last summer I mainly used the DMM Pivot as I was asked to review that, but I've been using the megajul again recently and still find it's good for many things.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I got rid of mine very quickly.
Maybe I didn't give it enough time but abbing was a pain in the arse. Giving slack with two ropes was a pain in the arse and I started getting a bit worried about how thin the metal was. I can't quite remember but it was either curing b into the crab or the crab was damaging the device when locking.
That aside it's seems very interesting that this has been reviewed again ?

In reply to TobyA:
The JPG I posted earlier is from a test done by Beal many years ago. I can't find the original article to that particular test, but here Petzl has done some more recent testing, comparing a grigri 2 to a reverso 4: https://www.petzl.com/en/Sport/Influence-of-the-belay-device?ActivityName=R... The results have the same trend. As the fall factor increases the difference in impact force on the top piece of equipment is significantly higher with the grigri 2 than the reverso 4 (6kn vs. 4kn).

Obviously, all these tests are ideal situations and any real world case would have many more factors affecting the finall stress on the top piece ( rope drag, etc.), but I don't think it can be disputed that any device designed to lock by itself will create more force on the top piece than a device that isn't (even if it has more friction than a normal tube, like the ATC XP, ATC Guide or Reverso).

When a fall is arrested, the top piece is loaded with different amounts of force during the arrest and the impact force is the highest force amplied during any given time. So, even if an ATC XP for example would absorb more energy in total than the Megajul, if it does so over a longer period of time (characterized by rope slippage) it will create a smaller maximum force on the top piece.

If I understand Jim's findings correctly, they show that the MegaJul, SmartAlpine and Alpine Up all lock up initially (as seen from the fact that even without a "hand force" they still have a "belay force". So, there is clearly no slippage until a sufficient force is applied. This is opposed to the ATC XP, where the belay force is 0 when the hand force is 0. In other words, with an atc-type device there is always initial slippage of the rope, before the fall is completely arrested.

So, in my mind the crucial thing is not how much friction you can eventually get with your belay device (or at what force it doesn't aid you anymore), but how progressive that fraction increase is. With a progressive friction increse, you will automatically get a softer fall and you have an easier time adjusting the stiftness of the fall, when wearing gloves in the winter for example.

This is why me, just personally, would never want anyone to belay me with anything else than an atc-type device when I'm climbing on marginal placements in the winter.

In reply to JoelO:

However!

If we assume the belayer locks down on the rope (or at least holds it tightly with minimal slack) then the hand force doesn´t ever start at 0. Even with the MegaJul and it´s relatives you need a certain amount of hand force to initiate locking, with some devices it´s quite a suprisingly high amount.
With something like the Climbing Technology devices then you´re probably looking at as hard a catch as a GriGri, with a Megajul it´s probably going to be as soft as it gets since it´s inherently got so little braking power.
The gaphs show the braking force relative to hand force and all the devices were initially locked up. They do not claim to show the hand force required to initiate locking.

By a quirk of physics you´ll get a lower top piece force if the initial braking force is as early as possible, delaying the maximum braking force will increase the loading.

In reply to jimtitt:



I thought the issue with the Megajul was that it had a low maximum braking force (compared to other devices) which would only be a problem with very high fall factors. Under "normal" falls it more or less locks like a Click-up. You seem to be saying it's more or less useless under all falls! Or am I missing or misunderstanding something.

In reply to afshapes:

I think it is very sensitive to rope diameter (which is an issue if you use different ropes). Thinner ropes best with Microjul, thicker with Megajul. I initially got a Micro but swapped it for a Mega. With the right ropes it's fantastic for abseiling due to the extra security without the faff of a prusik - with too thick a rope it can be jerky which is unnerving if there is any doubt about the anchor. Like wise for paying out rope when belaying.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Look again at the graphs. With a low hand force the Click-Up gives a satisfactory braking force (similar to how a Grigri would since it´s own locking efect is considerable, the MegaJul under the same circumstances gives an extemely low braking force.
All of these type of devices "lock". That is the karabiner moves into a position where the rope is jammed between the karabiner and part of the body. The karabiner is prevented from moving completely onto the body by the shape of the slots or the body itself to leave a residual gap as if it is not restained you experience rope damage and the device jams solid in normal use and cannot be released. How near the karabiner can move towards the body defines the braking force the "locking effect" can produce. The MegaJul has the largest residual gap for the rope and thus the lowest braking effect. This is the penalty for reducing the devices size such that releasing it under load would become impossible without an additional handle for example.

In reply to jimtitt:


I may be missing something, but the graph simply doesn't seem to make sense. Once locked, you can let go of the device and it remains locked (as abseiling; that means about 90kg braking for zero hand force in my case). As others have said on the linked thread, I suspect that a 7.8mm rope is too thin for a Megajul (no matter what Edelrid claim!). 7.8mm is right at the lower limit of the Megajul's claimed range and even quite low in the Microjul's claimed range.

The fact is that with an appropriate rope diameter the Megajul does work. According to your graph it won't!

Edit: The graph I was thinking of is the one you posted on page 4 of this thread http://www.mountainproject.com/v/edelrid-megajul-belay-device/109133730__4 which shows very different results with a 9mm rope; initially big braking force, but low maximum force (ie worry might be about very high fall factors, but very effective for "normal" falls).

In reply to jimtitt:

Thanks a lot for the reply!

So, to sum it up; if we, by whatever means, manage to absorb as much energy as possible while arresting the fall, BEFORE the highest force / impact force is reached on the top piece, the lower that highest / impact force will be.

In a non-locking device the initial energy absorption is achieved with a progressively increasing break force, as you thighten your grip and pull your hand down and backwards to lock the device.

In an auto-locking or assisted locking device, you start out with a fixed breaking force (once the device is locked, as you say), which then - if the locking force of the device is low enough - will slip once the arrest approaches its peak force.

But given that the breaking force increases quite little and quite slowly in the MegaJul (once the initial lock starts to slip), couldn't this promote belay practices where you lock your break hand completely (in fear of not being able to hold the fall) to the point where you de facto try to keep the device locked through out the entire arrest of the fall (and again create those high impact forces)? With a traditional tube (or in my case an ATC guide, with friction jacks), I've always found it reassuring to know that I don't have to lock my hand completely and prevent all slippage for the device to break with more friction and eventually stop the fall.

Anyway. I think you answered my question. Since the locking force of the MegaJul is so low, it doesn't behave like a grigri or the CT devices, by their auto-locking design automatically create quite high impact forces.

In reply to JoelO:


As I understand it, it behaves just like a Grigri or a Click-Up; it initially locks almost instantly. The difference is that, once in the locked position, the rope will slip through the Megajul at lower loads than through the Grigri or Click-Up and this will very much depend on rope diameter. What would be interesting to know is what sort of fall factors make this an issue.

In reply to JoelO:

This is so, with the CT devices, Grigri and similar the decision whether to let some rope slide throught is literally taken out of your hands. In certain circumstances this may be important or desirable. CT (with the Alpine Up) give a dynamic option but you first need to know you will need it and secondly even they admit the "dynamic" aspect is considerable, or put another way it´s as weak as it gets.

In reply to Robert Durran:




Where do any of my graphs indicate it doesn´t work? They show where it works better than some other devices and where it works worse but it always "works".
With the exception that in some conditions it doesn´t fulfill the manufacturers claims, bit like a VW I guess.
Sure, if it´s good enough for your normal climbing then that´s fine, guess we could make all climbing gear as weak as shit on that basis though since it would "mostly be o.k". Personally I´d rather carry a device that gave me a good chance of stopping someone all the time.

In reply to jimtitt:


Well, your graph for 7.8mm ropes looked pretty dodgy to me (I wonder whether most belay devices would be equally dodgy at the absolute limits of the manufacturer's claimed diameter limit)


And do you think that the Megajul with an appropriate rope diameter wouldn't? Would a factor 2 fall produce the sort of loads where it would be difficult to hold the fall? Ok, so the rope slips in the locked position at relatively low loads, but is this actually a problem - will it result in something uncontrollable or just a bit of slippage? If you actually let go of the rope, would the climber fall almost completely uncontrolled as with a tubular device or would there still be plenty of friction to slow them down?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sure, with 7.8mm ropes the performance is completely inadequate, this is not however what Edelrid claim or what Toby´s review says "Suitable for 7.8 - 10.5 mm ropes". The more popular alternatives which are shown on the graph are adequate if not exciting. I use an ATC XP with two karabiners.
With a factor 2 and letting go of the rope the locking function is disabled, that is why devices like a Grigri are certified as manual locking assisted and the MegaJul as a manual braking device despite what Toby has written, it fails the FF2 test completely. However this is purely academic as FF2 falls are specifically excluded in the manufacturers instructions which may limit it´s usefulness in a multi-pitch environment. (I wouldn´t carry one for this very reason).
If you intend to take large falls (less than FF2) with thin double ropes then the Alpine Up is the only device (as the TRE Sirius is no longer made) which will stop a falling climber without injury to either the climber or belayer. Alternatively any quality conventional plate such as Reverso, ATC XP, Pivot and suitable belaying gloves which will of course cope with a FF2 fall.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I find the review to be superficial and to some degree wrong-headed. The author compares the Megajul to ATC-type devices, which don’t have an assisted locking feature. There are a pile of competing devices that have some sort of locking mechanism, but other than the Grigri none of these are mentioned. It is these devices the Megajul has to be compared to, not to an ATC-XP or Reverso.

The author says things I’m sure were true in his experience, but he wasn’t able to test the device in a suitable range of conditions. It worked for him, something that I think should have been emphasized a lot more. An example of personal experience masquerading as universal truth, the author says,

“Once you hold a climber on the device it 'locks' the rope in place, meaning that although you should never let go of the dead rope, you can hold it incredibly lightly and no slippage occurs. “

You don’t have to read much on the internet to know this is not the universal experience, and especially with thin ropes (still within the range “recommended” by Edelrid) or maybe the “wrong” carabiner, the device may slip. Later the author says about rappelling,

“In the opposite orientation it locks, meaning that you don't need a prussik…I think, again, it takes some getting used to but once you've worked it out it makes stopping on abseil (say, to recover stuck gear) easy and negates the need for a prussik in your rappel system.”

Again, with thin ropes, we already have evidence that maybe it doesn’t lock. And I’d be worried about locking when, either because of the ropes hung up somewhere (an application celebrated by the review) or because the rappeller is near the end of the lines, there is very little rope weight on the device. I think the potential for slippage means that unqualified advice about using the so-called locking feature is potentially dangerous.

I also think the handling issues, which are dismissed as something you just have to get used to, needed more critical attention. When belaying the leader, you had better have the rope neatly piled, because if anything happens that needs any kind of attention, the device is going to end up locked, because you can’t pull on the wire release loop—keeping your brake hand engaged—pull slack through the device with the other hand, and also deal with any kind of rope tangle.

I’m particularly surprised, given that this is the UK, that the author didn’t mention anything about handling half ropes. Sometimes you should be paying one out and taking one in. With the Megajul (and the Mammut Smart), this requires on hand on the release loop and the other hand perhaps frantically alternating between pulling out and taking in on the two strands.

A problem with virtually all the assisted locking devices except the CT Click Up and Alpine Up is that braking has to be basically disconnected to pump slack fast. There is then the potential for the belayer to fail to relinquish the disconnecting mechanism and so drop the climber. There are known instances of this with the Mammut Smart and Grigri, and my guess is that we’ll start hearing about analogous drops with the Megajul soon enough.

The author has a picture of bringing up two seconds with a direct belay, but nowhere mentions that many people who use the Megajul this way find it to be harder to pull the ropes through than most other devices. And then there is the issue of carabiner position. In this regard the Megajul is like the classic Gigi plate, which requires different carabiner positions for single or double ropes. The Megajul instructions say,

“When securing a top rope climber with a single rope, the carabiner must be attached to the rope loop and through the device (Fig. 8d) instead of attaching it to the rear of the device only as when securing with two ropes (8b/e). “

Edelrid doesn’t explain, but using the wrong carabiner position with a single rope can result in the carabiner twisting and so defeating the locking mechanism so many people treat as “hands-free.”

All of this is on top of the relatively poor performance observed by Jim Titt under the kind of high loads that might show up in a multipitch situation.

In spite of all the potential issues, the Megajul seems to be mysteriously popular. I suppose that one reason is that people primarily use belay devices in situations that don’t come anywhere near testing the device’s limits, so rarely if ever experience the deficits that have financed the advantages. (There is also a tendency among climbers to blame “pilot error” when one of these deficits causes an accident.)

One might still ask how the Megajul got to be a 2014 Gear of the Year award winner from Climbing Magazine. I suspect an analogous lack of appropriate testing protocols was involved. Moreover, the device was given to the magazine to test by an advertising client, calling the objectivity of the review into serious question.

One of the many problems with magazine reviews is that professional guides often write them, thereby implicitly skewing the reviews to giving upper belays and relying on unreliable beginners to provide some sort of lead belay—for leaders who never fall. Such testing protocols are hardly appropriate for the general user.

I don’t doubt that lots of climbers find the Megjul useful for at least some of the climbing they do. But I do think a review ought to at least alert potential users to the trade-offs they are embracing when they use the device.

In reply to rgold:

Do you have proof that it can fail to lock up? I bought one of these for my girlfriend as there is a bit of weight difference between us and it makes catches easier. I've used it too and we haven't had any experience to suggest that it won't lock, so am curious to see your proof as you have put a fair amount of doubt in my mind.

I think it is far more Reverso esque than a grigri and to me, definitely should be compared to one, you can get two ropes in for a start, how most of my climbing is done.

Also, all the stuff on locking and unlocking to pull slack has to be done with a normal belay plate as well, and there are many instances of people failing to lock a belay plate and dropping partners, or standing with it with hands in an unlocked position that you failed to mention.

I know you quote from the instructions, but have you actually got it used one? Or are you repeating what others have said on the internet?

In reply to jonnie3430:

Mine has failed to lock on one occasion. Belaying a leader on half ropes that were thin, but not especially so. Only one rope was weighted and it did not lock. The thing that worried me the most is that when it didn't lock the device provided very little friction, therefore making it tough to keep locked off. Luckiliy the guy I was belaying wasn't that big. But it would be very worrying if there was a large weight difference between climber and belayer.

I don't use mine any more. Mainly because of the above. But also because it's a pain to ab with. And as I mainly wanted it for long multi pitch routes that will probably require lots of abs to get off, I didn't like it.

In reply to jimtitt:

Could you tell me roughly what tension as a multiple of bodyweight is generated in the live rope during a factor 2 fall with a half rope? Just wondering what forces are actually involved in a worst case scenario.

In reply to DaveR:

What was the reason that it didn't lock? Was the crab rotated so that it didn't go in the locking notch? Am curious to know what went wrong as I can't see how it couldn't lock?

In reply to jonnie3430:


I'd like to know too. I wonder whether problems with the Megajul are largely because it is sensitive to krab shape as well as rope diameter.

I also wonder whether there are similar issues with the newer single rope Jul 2

In reply to jonnie3430:

Unfortunately I can't remember as it was a couple of years ago now. But I don't recall noticing anything to suggest it shouldn't of locked, i.e. it looked the same as when it had locked previously if that makes sense!

In reply to UKC Gear:

Despite criticisms of the review, I think there's one point the reviewer makes than we can all agree on.
The opening line!

"I do not remember another piece of climbing equipment that seems to split opinion so much as the Mega Jul."

and... "Nevertheless, on the UKC forums a number of people have expressed an open hatred of the Mega Jul as the worst handling belay device ever!"

Despite this, he does also clearly state "Having now used it for several months my opinion is a lot more positive than negative"

How many of the Megajul 'haters' who have posted here can say they've used the device for several months in the real world?

There's an interesting article in the latest Summit on belaying which is relevant here, it's not just about the device, it's the carabiner, the ropes and most importantly, the operator.

Trying to convince a Mega Jul fan that there is something inherently 'wrong' with the device is as pointless as me trying to convince my girlfriend that the Backstreet Boys do not create music of cultural value and that she'd be 'much better off' listening to Black Sabbath.

In reply to Dell:

It doesn't take much though, my bd seracs and bds reputation went from trusted to hated in the minute or so after breaking that it took to find that they weren't compatible with my ski boots.

If there is a safety concern with this I want to know about it! I'm the one hoping to get caught by it

In reply to Dell:

I suppose Isit in the "haters" group, although dislike would be more accurate. And I used the device for more than a few months; indoors, sport, sea cliff trad, multi pitch trad. I've certainly not just used it once and then come to the conclusion of not liking it, and I doubt I'm alone in this. And also I'm not trying to convice anyone of anything, just stating my experience and opnion. It's up to others to decide if they want to use it or not.

Personally i think it's a good idea, but it still needs some refinement to make it work as well as it should.

In reply to jonnie3430:
The crab cannot completely crush the rope; there is (as Jim Titt has already explained) a residual minimum gap (something like 6mm?). With a fat rope this is not such an issue. With enough force you can pull a 10mm rope through a 6mm gap; it obviously takes less force to pull a 7.8mm rope through such a gap.

What remains to be tested is what happens in an dynamic drop test. If the MegaJul slips in a big fall but subsequently catches as the energy is dissipated, it may actually prove 'better' (provided you don't hit a ledge) than using a conventional device (without gloves) where significant slippage will almost certainly mean dropping the dead rope.

I will always clip a redirect in at the belay when multipitching which should remove the risk of the FF2 (although you can still have say FF1.8). Assuming the piece doesn't blow, of course... I understand there are reasons this is not always ideal, but if your belay is that bad you can always hang yourself a few metres down and redirect through the belay, reducing the FF (unless it is so bad that just falling off at all is not an option!)

In reply to jonnie3430:

Believe me, Richards´ been around the block a few times, he knows what he´s talking about.
The usual failure mode is one of the bights of rope around the belay karabiner gets caught under the other which then gets loaded and prevents locking. The Mammut Smart also does this despite having seperator plates where the rope can get through the slot and stop the device working.
He was more specifically talking about where the MJ goes into locking position but fails to actually hold the climber, with my thin ropes and my well-built, muscular structure this is what happens. Abseiling with both the MJ and the Smart Alpine letting go of the ropes means going downward, not being "locked".

In reply to Robert Durran:


The force on the rope in a FF2 is a function of the belay device so can vary between 0kN and maybe 4.5kN if you used a GriGri. If you aren´t getting around 2-2.5kN you have serious problems.

In reply to jimtitt:


Is that because the deceleration would be too gradual and the fall would go on for miles?

Ok, so let's say I never need to hold more than 4.5kN, which is about the weight of 6 people. So, if I get 6 people (or equivalent weight) to dangle on a rope and put them on a belay device, I should be happy with the performance of the device (with that diameter of rope) if I can hold them comfortably with one hand? I wonder how many belay device/rope combinations people use would pass this test.

In reply to andrewmcleod:



That´s the problem, the residual gap is 6mm (I can put a 6mm rod through it) and when the belayer applies enough hand force the rope is already stretched thinner around the entry to the plate and the karabiner and with a 7.8 doesn´t actually jam between the karabiner and the body at all.

The question of what´s "better" is a matter of viewpoint, or put another way at what stage does a device "fail".
If both devices slip to the extent the belayer is burnt then the first to injure the belayer is the first to fail. Therefore the device with the lower braking power is more likely to injure the belayer so "worse." Whether we then need to rate devices for the subsequent effects of already failing is debateable.

In reply to Robert Durran:


No, it is because the slip of the rope through the device will burn your hands. You will very likely then release the rope and injure or kill your partner as well.


Well I did specifically say a GriGri but with some of the better devices you can expect to get around 2.5-3.5kN especially if you add one or two karabiners, I´ve seen over 4kN from an ATC XP with three karabiners but then again I´ve huge hands and do this stuff a lot. It´s also painful
A better rough and ready test is if the entire weight of the rope hanging down is enough to keep you from moving as an abseil then you´re probably o.k for most falls. We use a 6kg weight for the abseiling hand force so using the normal hand force values for belaying this would represent about 2.5kN.

In reply to jimtitt:



So less than this with the usual one karabiner? Which I presume might be dangerously close to the sub 2.5kN which you say is dangerous?


My intuition/experience suggests that the vast majority of commonly used set ups with unassisted devices would fail that test (?)

In reply to Robert Durran:



I think rgold first suggested this maxim. It makes a lot of sense in my experience. Setting off on a long abseil I expect to have to feed the rope to start progress. Looking at it the other way, if the ab starts slick you know it is going to get very hairy further down!

Regarding rope slippage, again without any experimental data, just too much fall catching practice over 46 years.
The Gri Gri presumably with the hardest catch slips very little. Devices like the ATC XP slip a bit and so reduce the max load. But the slippage required to get down from 4.5kN ( gri gri ) to say 3 kN ( atc xp ) is not that much, in my experience holding ( up to 30 m FF2 ) falls. Again, in my experience, if you hold the dead rope securely in one hand, let the belay plate do its job, the slippage is never drastic enough to need to wear belay gloves.

I have looked at other belay devices, but seeing these threads and Jim's research I think I will stick with my ATC XP's and DMM Belay Master/ CT concept krabs. I let folk belay me with similar or a Gri Gri / Click up, but berate them for not using the best krabs available.

What are you using now, Bob?

In reply to Robert Durran:



Depends on the rope, the device and the belayers grip strength.

In reply to jimtitt:


Well yes, that was my point!


I thought the idea was that it locked without holding the rope.

In reply to Rick Graham:


Buguette or Microjul for skinny ropes.
An HB tube (much skinnier than most tubes) or Megajul for less skinny ropes.
Click-Up for single rope. Though I've lost it - I considered replacing it with Jul 2 to save money but, in light of this thread, shall get another Click-Up (which I simply can't praise highly enough). Also, in light of this thread, might reluctantly ditch the Micro and Mega Juls.

Hopefully someone will produce an assisted locking double rope device without the issues of the Juls and the weight of an Alpine-Up before too long!

In reply to Robert Durran:



I find the V notches on the ATC XP enough of an improvement on the original ATC to tick this box.

Cannot see the logic in pruning the weight of a belay/ abseiling device when they get so F'ing hot on long abs and little tolerance for wear before getting sharp edged. I am all for light weight, but you only carry one belay device, easier to make savings elsewhere.

In reply to Robert Durran:



Salewa Antz, Metolious BRD, TRE Sirius, Mammut Smart, Hewbolt... The list is long and they all have issues. The Sirius was probably the best.

In reply to jimtitt:

I went through two of the Tre Serius's BITD. They were essentially an automated carabiner brake. I really liked them when they were new, but as the cross piece wore, and it wore pretty fast, the breaking effect continually declined.

My theory on the decline in braking power of assisted lockers like the Megajul, Smart, and Click-up, which is to say anything whose braking effect depends less on the bends and friction through the device and primarily on the pinching of the rope in a channel made small by the motion of the anchor carabiner, is that when the loads are very high, the rope stretch lessens the rope diameter, and this mitigates, or possibly in the case of ropes that are already very thin for the device, eliminates, the braking effect obtained from a narrowed channel. I think this is why such devices can seem better than fine for the modest duty most belays require, but then perform relatively poorly, compared to, say, an ATC-XP, when the loads are very high.

As for "review" articles that boil down to the reviewer using the device for their ordinary climbing activities for a while, it would help if they reported the actual ropes and carabiners used and the kinds of fall factors they encountered. This would be considerably better than reporting about a level of possibly quite restricted activity as if the device had been subjected to a full range of challenges.

In reply to rgold:

There was another model of the Sirius which tried to cure the pin wear problem but only partly succesfully. Pity the idea was sold to Edelrid who used it for the Zap-O-Mat instead of re-engineering the Sirius. Patent must run out soon so maybe someone else will do something.

In reply to Dell:


I´m indifferent to the MegaJul (and most of the large selection of devices I have). One look at the readout on my tester is enough, I certainly don´t need to take a huge whipper to find out that I own better devices.

In reply to jimtitt:

There appear to be so many issues with most of the devices that I am tempted to return to the good old waist belay. Just kidding

Seriously though I suspect most of us can only make decisions based on how various devices perform in our own hands. Unfortunately I don't have either the time or the where with all to test out the numerous options so I would be interested in any data that could be made available. Where do I get this?

In the meantime I would be interested to know what you use Jim for both single rope and double rope situations. For my part I used to use a Reverso for doubles but found that the Pivot felt a little nicer and alleviated the problem of lowering in Guide mode. For singles I use a Mammut Smart because I found the GriGri to be too "cak handed" when using the recommended method. I could however be persuaded to try the new version of the GriGri if I thought it was better in other respects. I was tempted by the Clickup but a friend who uses one tends to lower me in jerks and fits but this could be him.

It's all getting very complicated for a simple soul who started out with a 60 foot rope and two Ex-WD Karabiners

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Two krabs, we had none At least the rope we started out with was better than a washing line ( probably robbed from the local docks ) but would not have clipped thro krabs anyway.

Was quite pleased when Jim said on here he used an ATC XP for doubles and Gri gri for sport (He may be on soon if he has new toys).

However my latest ATC XP Guide bought in September 2014 has quite a shoddy finish.

For the sake of £25 or so, might just try a similar shaped product from a manufacturer with less recalls.

In reply to GridNorth:

The UIAA should have introduced a performance test when they brought out the safety label standard but didn´t, all you get is that it won´t break, not that it brakes.
To do all the available devices in a reasonably manner is time-consuming and expensive, all you can do is look at the various private information like mine and some of the data from the CAI and DAV. There was a fairly good comparison from Black Diamond but it mostly covered US devices and is well out of date by now.

I use a GriGri 1 and an ATC XP, anywhere I might want to belay direct off the belay which might be once a year I´d use the GriGri or an Italian hitch. I never belay in "guide" mode with a plate.

In reply to jimtitt:



May I ask why? Personally I wouldn't fancy carrying a GriGri on my harness on a long route, especially version 1 and in any case I would probably use either doubles or twin ropes. I think that is the attraction of the Mega Jul. At least in theory it's single and double ropes and is light and not very bulky. I was tempted but didn't like the feel of it when I tried one indoors.

Al

In reply to jimtitt:

Hey Jim, who's the assignee on the Tre - would be interested to look at that! Just searched Edelrid but I couldn't find any very old patents. Also I assume the reason you don't use guide mode is because of the failure modes? Have you ever tested the autolocking friction hitch for strength?

In reply to jimtitt:


When I worked in the outdoor trade I asked manufacturers for performance data on belay devices.

The stock answer was that it was difficult/impossible to replicate the grip of the holding hand, something you have obviously managed.

Is it time for a campaign to get the powers that be sort out some standards?

Off topic, but another gripe is the reluctance to set realistic standards for the strength of ice axe spikes, lanyards and the effects of modern dry tooling techniques.

In reply to Robert Durran:

>Or am I missing or misunderstanding something.

Nope, but Jim is...

Real world impact forces, even with completely no-give belay device are always dynamic... simply because there's a person attached to the device... and said person can and will move/deform.... unlike the bolt used in the test scenarios.

In reply to HeMa:



I doubt it

In reply to jimtitt:


But better in what sense? Define better...

In reply to GridNorth:


Single rope the weight advantage over a GriGri is suprisingly little, don´t need all those extra karabiners to make it work and release it. And in all respects it works better. Normally just an Italian hitch anyway like doing stuff in the Dolomites, works for all the guides I see
Two ropes I never belay in guide mode.

In reply to jimtitt:



Do you ever have to belay two seconds when climbing as a three ?

Thats the only time I use guide mode, though I detest the extra faff every time.

In reply to beardy mike:


No idea, long time since I looked at it if I ever did. Been on the market for maybe 16 years now so the original patent must be expiring soon. Edelrid´s patents are probably held by a number of companies like Petzls are.
I don´t use guide mode because I like a more personal connection with my partner, pulling the rope through is hard work and lowering down/giving slack is a pain. And I´m not a guide.

In reply to jimtitt:

Ah OK. Petzls patents aren't too bad really in terms of finding them. I guess documents which have changed hands can be tricky though!

In reply to Rick Graham:




There´s two approaches, a sliding clutch (DAV) or rotating braked drum (CAI) for drop testing or constant pull using a weight which is what Black Diamond and others use including me. Once you have data from both methods it´s easy to get a comparison.
The actual problem isn´t the brake hand force, it´s the rope as there is no "standard" rope for the labs to use. The solution to this is only compare a limited number of devices so the same rope is used throughout or use a benchmark device with any particular rope to get a comparison factor. The ATC used to be the benchmark but nowadays it´s more likely to be the ATC XP since it´s the most widely tested and so more data is available.
It took 25 years to get as far as any sort of test, doubt anything is going to happen soon.

In reply to rgold:

Right, I guess I should try and defend my review, or at least put some context around it. In some ways I guess you can call it superficial, in that I don't have the skills, resources, or time to lab test the MegaJul (or any other gear I review). Just like any consumer in a shop I have to trust the instructions and information that comes with the device.

When I first wrote the review, I had used the megajul for something like 4 or 5 months across a summer of a fair amount of climbing. Due, I think, to the mega and micro jul being mentioned in my review of the Corbie rope from Edelrid, which included a call to Edelrid to be more clear with the rope diameter recommendations for juls, the stand alone review of the megajul wasn't published, and sort of got lost in the system. When Dan recently took over responsibility for Gear at UKC he contacted me and asked could he publish it. I checked it - my views hadn't changed in the intervening time, so just took a few more photos to go with it. Last summer I was reviewing the DMM Pivot so used that almost solely for all my climbing for maybe 6 months, but besides that, I have used the Mega Jul now for a couple of years - including last winter for UK winter climbing. I've used it with quite a variety of different ropes also from 10.5 singles to 9mm singles and various combinations of fat-ish and thinner half ropes paired up. And I am still finding it pretty straightforward to use, approaching it as described in the review.

I have to agree with Robert though, that Jim's findings are worrying - and I have no reason to doubt them. Currently I'm not getting the chance to do much multipitch climbing so perhaps the idea of falls approaching FF2 aren't a great concern, but it would definitely make me think to take an alternative device when I am heading over to Wales or the Lakes. But for crag climbing in the Peak where I'm mainly out currently, the Mega Jul has so far worked rather well.

Why are the gear reviews "superficial" in them just being written from a consumer's point of view (as opposed to say an engineer setting up lab tests as well as field testing)? I think it is purely to do with resources. I write my reviews as a hobby, I'll be out climbing or hiking anyway, and I like playing with toys. I don't get paid by UKC to do them, reviewers just get to hang on to the item after (of course, you might not actually like it or need it much!). I'm currently, and depressingly, having to work up to 80 hrs a week at my 'real job', so can't even spend as much time on hobbies as I would like to. But I don't think many people in the UK have been able to turn gear reviewing into a job, and UKC doesn't charge people to use the site so has to rely on advertisers to fund the site, including being willing to offer gear for review, so I don't think Alan and team at UKC central have plans for anything radically different in the reviewing set up in the medium term, although I don't speak for UKC! It maybe isn't perfect, but people do get the chance to read some independent opinions of gear before they put down their hard earned cash. And DMM at least, have actually tweaked designs in response to comments in my reviews. Other products have change also, although I have no way of knowing whether it was response to a criticism in a UKC review.

I was looking at Outdoor Gear Lab's review of the mega jul recently. In some ways I think they are the gold standard for reviews currently because they buy everything they review so are not reliant on firms giving items to be reviewed. looking at their current group reviews their budget for buying equipment must be tens, perhaps hundreads, of thousands of dollars a year. It's impressive that they can fund it all, and a few salaries I guess, with advertising alone. Anyway, even they hadn't lab tested the devices like Jim has, so they also don't make any mention of the possibility of slippage at very high Fall factors.

In reply to jimtitt:


Each to their own... I find regular belay to be nuisance, especially if you need to de-rack, eat, drink, look at the topo and so on...

And pulling the rope is actually less arduous than normal belay, if you have the stand/anchor properly set. That said, most of the multipitch climbs I do are generally long (300m +), so being quick is a rather good idea (which again means drinkin', eating and so on during the time you belay the second up)... Although most of the actual climbing I do is short single pitch... so again I can just as easily belay with grigri from the ground .

In reply to Dell:


More likely to stop me hitting the ground.

In reply to jimtitt:

>

As a suggestion, could the rope manufacturers tests be extended to indicate slippage and impact forces for recommended belay devices at say 0.2 1.0 and FF 2? It is in the interests of the belay and rope manufacturers, in quite a few cases, the same firm.

In reply to Rick Graham:



Probably only twice in the last 20 years, I rarely climb as a three. Even then I´d just belay normally.

In reply to jimtitt:

If that is your primary concern, then someone needs to invent a belay robot, so we can take the human factor out of the equation.

In reply to TobyA:
I couldn't agree more Toby, you conducted a review, not a test - I think people lose sight of the distinction between the two. One is drawn from facts and figures, the other from real-life experience.

As a topical aside, I was working for DMM back when they had plans to launch Jim's very own 'Chicane' belay device. Supposedly the device had the greatest holding power of any device available - which sounded great - but in practise it kinked the ropes to the point of which they became unusable (particularly noticeable whilst abseiling). As such, the tests looked great, but didn't tell you the whole story....

Facts and figures don't tell you everything you need to know, but neither do reviews - they both have their flaws. Read one, read the other - maybe even use the product in question - then make your own mind up. It's just guidance at the end of the day.

As a parting shot, I personally found Toby's review far easier to digest than the information cited within this thread and I suspect that the majority of climbers out there would too. Then again, I've never been much of a numbers person...

Rob

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:


But the trouble is that people might read about Toby's positive (but limited?) real life experience (mine were positive too) and, on that basis, buy a Megajul, completely unaware that it is possibly downwright dangerous - using a rope diameter within its specifications, it works really well with a number of falls, the assisted locking gives a (false?) sense of security but then it fails with a big fall and someone gets hurt or worse. Surely the first thing anyone wants to know about a belay device is whether it does the job safely.


Just because you eat something which digests easily doesn't mean it is good for you once in your bloodstream. Better to have a proper warning on the packet.


I've not found it easy to get my head round some of the graphs either (and I am a numbers person). Worth doing though.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
However the problems with the Chicane were identified in testing and despite considerable investment in time and money by both myself and DMM it was mutually decided that in some circumstances it could have caused danger to the climber and therefore, rather than burying an obscure exclusion clause in the instructions we decided to drop the project altogether. This is different to bringing products to the market without fully testing their parameters.
There are a fair number of devices out there that fail to live up to their advertising claims, usually when they are new they get glowing reviews then a few years down the line tales of dissapointment start and then reality steps in.
I bought (and I rarely actually buy belay devices) a Smart Alpine on the basis of the claimed performance and the reviews for a specific use only to discover it did not perform as advertised, that is the advertising was a lie. Plenty more out there like that.
The average punter CAN£T get performance figures for belay devices because most manfacturers don£t even test them (in the sense of measuring the performance parameters), DMM don£t, CT don£t, Black Diamond only released figures about 20 years ago, Petzl have removed their test results, Trango used to test by removing beer bottles from a basket until one of their workers started to slide down and so on.

In reply to UKC Gear:

No need to apologise or defend the UKC review process. It's resulted in a very interesting and useful thread. I bought a megajul last year on a recommendation. Not got round to using it and not sure I will now. I do like the click up for sport. Don't like gri gri

In reply to Robert Durran:

>...but then it fails with a big fall and someone gets hurt or worse.

But can we find many (or any) examples where this has actually happened?

In reply to UKC Gear:

Can I just say this thread is brilliant. Different points of view, all valid in one way or another, argued informatively and without rancour. Thanks to all.

I had a Megajul and quite liked it, but would agree that it was too grabby for a smooth abseil in locking mode and needed careful feeding when belaying the leader. I dropped it down a hole and chose to replace with an Alpine Up. Partly because I'm a gear tart and partly in acknowledgement of its failings. The AU is superior but damn heavy and could be improved by allowing a degree of slip in locking mode to reduce the load on gear. We've seen gear blow that really shouldn't because of raised impact force.

In reply to Dell: that's just a slightly bonkers thing to say though isn't. Why do you need people to be getting hurt to assess whether something is suitable or not for use? You wouldn't have the same opinion if it was a car airbag which inflated in little crashes but the when it was a big crash, it started to inflate but then deflated allowing you to smash into the windscreen. This is like saying you like the shape and the colour of the airbag and that it looks like it should work so you're just going to ignore an airbag expert who's telling you it has major failings...

In reply to BnB:


Wow! Really? Not meant as a criticism but can you be really sure it was the grabbyness of the AU, rather than just a crappy bit of gear? I've ripped a few runners in my time and had never thought about what belay device my second was using, normally (!) I knew they didn't look fantastic, a few have been a surprise though.
This issue was what my old climbing partner Joel was asking about the megajul 60 or so replies up this thread. His point was a fair one that if it is that grabby, it would be a bad choice for ice climbing for example. I think that's actually a really interesting discussion - but complex. Grigris are given as the ultimate grabby device but of course look at experienced sports belayers and how they leap "into the fall" to give a soft catch with a grigri: also cf. the difference in the big falls of Rhapsody between how MacLeod and Trotter took the falls. Compare that to most of us weekend trad punters whose response to a fall is brake hand clamps down in a death-like vice grip and maybe to step backwards to take in some slack in a half-hearted Hard Grit inspired version of throwing yourself off a ledge to stop your mate decking off Gaia!

Then again a few years ago Will Gadd was saying that with modern, slim single ropes, on massive Norwegian WI6+ monster icefalls he was using a grigri for belaying, so there are different ways to approach the issue I suppose.

Has anyone tried the Climbing Technology Be Up yet? It looks interesting although not assisted braking.

In reply to beardy mike:

It would be good if Edelrid would themselves address this issue. When I spoke to their (IIRC) chief designer 18 months back (he wanted to talk to me to discuss the problems I had had with the Corbie rope) he was saying that the Mega Juls have been very popular with climbing walls in Germany and that if he was climbing with someone he didn't know well, particularly a beginner, for the first time he would want them to belay him with the Mega Jul. Basically, although they won't ever say it, they think if someone totally messes up belaying you, an MJ is the device that is most likely to catch you on its own. But of course that applies to single pitch stuff.

I suppose that companies will only test as Jim is suggesting if all agreed/had to do so (i.e. it became part of the UIAA or CE testing norms)?

In reply to TobyA:


You're quite correct in questioning the circumstances but I'm thinking in particular about the occasion when a blue dragon burst the aperture of a gritstone crack. The gear didn't fail, the rock did. Must have been decent force or a suspect bit of rock. On balance I reckon the former is more likely at well polished Stanage.

In reply to TobyA:

The trouble with new norms and standards is that invariably they take a very long time to implement because you need all the various members of the UIAA in the first instance to agree on a testing proceedure, and for to then be adopted by the CE standards committees. And as many of those members are also the people who sell the devices, there are of course vested interests. For example its taken years to change the VF kit norm. Some people will want certain inclusions, others exclusions as it means their devices will have to be reengineered or conversely that they have a market advantage. It would be great if companies self regulated and employed engineers to really study the devices in depth in evey aspect of their operation but thats just not the way it works as far as I've seen.

For example, the recent BD recalls which are some of the more ridiculous recalls for a while are things which simply should have been picked up by QC before they left the factory. Theres simply no excuse for that sort of thing to happen, but it has and they are not the only ones. To be honest, BDs current run of recalls puts WIld Countries into perspective as theirs was a very difficult to spot problem and could only be prevented by automation of the process, whereas BD's is simply a case of not inspecting their product, either at all or carefully enough. Again a problem which could be prevented by automation and camera inspection and you would have thought a company with that sort of resource and experience would know better.

In Jims case highlighted above, it actually demonstrates a good case of self regulation, when a promising product was dropped after field trials. We simply dont know what testing has been implemented by Edelrid or what the process followed was, so when we have someone who has done a load of testing, gone to the effort of independently working out which devices work the best, thats valuable information which is simply not available anywhere else and should not be cast aside. Personally I think Jim should be commended for sticking his neck out and bringing this issue to light rather than being slated by armchair engineers who simply have no experience of comparitive testing of the devices in question. Sure, the device works to an extent, but when you have concrete evidence that a device performs poorly when being used with recommended ropes, that needs to be addressed, if only by recommending a smaller range of rope sizes.

In reply to BnB: You do realise a cam puts approx 4 times the load on the stem outwards don't you? Its absolutely massive. If the cam was behind a flake its quite likely that the rock could break. Grits not exactly the mechanically strong!

In reply to UKC Gear:

Just wondering whether anyone has used the new Jul 2 for sport climbing. Since there will never be a high fall factor (certainly not as big as 1) I presume the issues with the Megajul should not arise with an appropriate rope.

In reply to beardy mike:

I'm well aware of that.

The rock shattered, I was using an Alpine Up in locking mode. It doesn't prove anything, but that doesn't make it irrelevant, does it?

In reply to BnB:

How did you place the gear? The thing is, you're blaming the belay device when it could just as easily be the amount of rope you had out, weak rock, the cam being behind a flake, a static belay (which could be ameliorated by jumping towards the fall...

In reply to TobyA:

Well sure, it's not an instinctive reaction, or one which is always the right one (hitting the deck etc.). But think about the impact on the top piece as energy. If you elongate the time over which that energy is dissipated, the less the momentum required to bring the person to a stop is and the less force will be put into the piece. Might not be intuitive but you can't argue with physics... well you can but you'll probs lose

In reply to beardy mike:

Oh, I absolutely see why it is (in many cases) the right thing to do, I just think that for many of use dyed in the wool UK trad climbers its the opposite to what we are inclined to do!

I remember when Trotter did Rhapsody he said taking "the fall" was fine when his belayer stood down on the ground, with all that extra rope out, and able to move into it. Unlike Dave Macleod who if I remember correctly had his belayer tied in at the top of the the first pitch (the top of whatever that E4 (is it?) is that goes up to the Requiem crack).

In reply to TobyA:


I couldn't agree more. Falling further than necessary or letting someone fall further than necessary is totally counterintuitive.

In reply to TobyA:

Folk from across the pond have always been in to dynamic belaying.

In my youth and an avid reader of climbing instruction manuals, only the US authors discussed and recommended dynamic belaying.

Over 20 years ago, climbing a sport route in California with a yank I groomed on the walk in, I took a lob jumping for the chain. The fall took so long I had time to check my knot, stopping just off the deck. After squeeling " what the f*ck went wrong there then! All I got was a shoulder shrug and grunted " dynamic belay " as if it was standard practice.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Indeed, yet in many cases it might be smart (but not always).

In reply to beardy mike:

Well you know more about these things than me and perhaps I'm wrong in blaming the device. But what if it was the device? How can I ever know?

In reply to UKC Gear:
I have never held a big fall (as in high FF). I rarely even catch falls inside.

Consequently I am not confident about my ability to hold a high FF fall.

For this reason I have to wonder which is better - the reduced force I get with a MJ or the hopeful probability that it will catch them eventually after I smash my head into the rock/burn my hands and let go?

(as an aside, how many climbers never really catch _any_ lead falls?)

In reply to BnB:

Well you can't - that was my point! I agree with you that potentially it could have added to the situation but you simply can't define something as precisely as you have when the system has as many variables as a climbing fall. Down to the rope you use, how worn the rope is, whether you've fallen on it recently (within the last hour) etc.

In reply to beardy mike:

Not really an equal comparison. An airbag is a single use device, only deployed in the event of a crash. A belay device in it's normal use will be deployed time and time again. You don't get into your car expecting to have a crash that day, whereas a climber tying in fully understands that they might fall at some point, and probably expects to.

Also, an airbag doesn't have a human being operating it, the user is taken out of the equation, whereas as a belay device is operated by someone who will have had experience with it, knows how to operate it, and knows what is required to make it do what it's supposed to do. The mega jul might be perfectly fine at it's lower rope limit with a particular carabiner and a belayer with a strong arm.

In reply to Dell:

No. The problem seems to be that the assisted locking may fail just when you need it most (in a high fall factor fall), catching out a user used to it working at lower fall factors. This is not working "fine"; it is a recipe for disaster. It's like having a car with brakes which work fine except when you need to do an emergency stop

In reply to Dell:

Give Mike a break.

That is a problem with analogies, they are never exact, but just a way of trying to explain things.

I think Mike and Jim are doing quite well, even Robert is being persuaded.

In reply to Dell:
Right, so to clarify, you're happy with a system which is inadequate to hold all falls, because you think that if you're strong enough you should be able to hold that fall. What happens when an average woman buys it? Better stamp a yorkie symbol on the side of it...

In addition to which, you're happy that a device used repeatedly as opposed to just the once and is the difference between someone dieing or not is inadequate...

In reply to beardy mike:

Bit sexist?

In reply to Dell:

Oh f*ck my life, you're now disputing that the vast majority of women are weaker than you're average man? Girls aren't all the Pooch you know...

In reply to beardy mike:


I never said they were all dogs.

In reply to Dell:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

In reply to BnB:


Sorry, but its kicked off a bit now.

This is UKC, after all.

In reply to Rick Graham:

You got a family sized pack of hula hoops handy

Ok, I've been a bit facetious..... BUT THIS ENTIRE F'KING THREAD IS FACETIOUS.

The problem with the mega jul is this, it's not quite like other belay devices. It's 'not like the other kids' and subsequently it gets bullied. The negative view seems to be:

"Using the mega jul in the worst case scenario (skinny crab, skinny rope, even skinnier belayer, big fat climber [too many Yorkie's], FF2 on a Friday the 13th) MIGHT GET YOU KILLED!"

Surely you could apply the same rule to ALL belay devices. In the 'worst case scenario' they all have their failings, and 'might' get you killed.

So we are arguing fact vs fact, opinion vs opinion, fact vs opinion and opinion vs fact, and getting our knickers in a twist.

Some people are happy MegaJul users, get over it!

In reply to Rick Graham:


This thread's not been completely without merit, Mike's (sexist) Yorkie comment has made me think up a new saying:

"About as much use as a Marmite belay device!"

In reply to Dell:
>..... BUT THIS ENTIRE F'KING THREAD IS FACETIOUS.

You are coming across as somewhat thick and a bit of an arse. As BnB said, this was an excellent thread with a serious discussion on a very worthwhile topic (until you started spouting crap - as arses tend to)


I used to be one of them. As a result of this discussion, having thought about the arguments and evidence, I no longer am; for me, the best I can say is that the jury is still out.

In reply to Dell:


No. In a reasonable fall the MegaJul´s braking capabilities at it´s lower rope limit are completely inadequate. I have well above average grip strength and considerable experience braking high forces and can assure you this is the case.
It is also a fact that the values given in the graph referenced are the best possible case, that is each strand of the rope is equally loaded. If only one strand of the pair actually is fallen on then you can expect a further 30%-40% less braking performance (as is the case with all belay devices and half ropes).

In reply to Robert Durran:


Thank you for your kind words, I shall add you to my Christmas card list.

In reply to jimtitt:

Do you remember which carabiner this was with?

Edelrid do sell the device with a biner package..

http://www.berg-fest.com/products/en/Climbing/Belay-Rappel-Device/Edelrid-M...

"The HMS Bruce Steel FG has a spring bar that holds carabiner in place when belaying to prevent cross loading; it is also designed to perfectly complement the Mega Jul"

In reply to Robert Durran:
Apart from the issues Jim has brought up I think this belay device is often misused. First time I was belayed using this my partner kept letting go of the break end of the ropes and holding then device open when paying out rope (his thumb was through the loop but he had his fingers of that hand UNDER the ropes so he couldn't have grabbed them at all). He claimed it was auto locking and he didn't need to hold the brakes. I was quite near the ground at the time about to do some hardish moves for me with a bad landing. A few tests later and we quickly showed when held open like that the brake certainly wouldn't auto engage as quickly, if at all and also I insisted he belayed in a manner where one hand was controlling the brake lines below the device as much as possible - as per the instructions.

Seems there are more issues with the device also.

When it comes to belay devices like your self I generally listen to Jim, he knows his stuff - through actual research too.

In reply to TobyA:



It´s an interesting solution, the problem with forging belay plates is getting enough depth as the deeper they are the better they work (why the tube design took over from the simple plate). With their idea they can get a really deep device without the metal flow problems and also move the attatchment eye a bit closer in which helps releasing in guide mode.
Guess I´d better get one for testing, it could possibly displace the ATC XP from the top of the heap.

Regarding testing there are other problems apart from the technical ones. If a performance test is introduced then someone has to say what is pass or fail, that is set a performance mark. To get agreement on this will probably take us into the next century. Alternatively the device gets a comparative rating say 85% or whatever of some standard device.
BUT! There are some people who wish to see belay devices included in the PPE directive as all other parts of the safety chain are included but not the part that actually keeps you off the ground. A belay device would then be required to show it functioned in the worst possible case without injuring the operator, since 100m ropes are available this then means holding a ca 200m FF2. Without a suitable performance test it cannot be shown a device would fail and therefore there is little interest in pursuing an effective test, otherwise nearly every device would have to be removed from the market.
Additionally the directive is specifically for personal equipment, a device operated by someone else is excluded so either the directive will have to be altered (another twenty years if ever) or only fully automatic devices will be permitted. The current test for belay devices means our choice will be the GriGri, Camp Matik and Edelrid Eddy (and presumably the new Trango Cinch).
Another example of being careful of what you wish for is the recent scaremongering over SCC and titanium bolts, at least two areas are currently re-bolting with plated steel since it doesn´t suffer from SCC and a couple of others have just stopped rebolting altogether, not the original objective but that´s life!

In reply to Dell:





There you go ,, fixed.

In reply to Dell:

Edelrid Strike, that´s what came with it. Not suprised they´ve had to bring out a steel HMS after seeing the state of the alloy karabiner after the testing, still the device is nice and light

In reply to TobyA:

Toby, and others after him, make several good points about my criticisms of his review, which is not of course the same as a proper test. In that regard, I wish I has just made my points and not used either the term "superficial" or the term "wrong-headed," because I never intended a personal attack and should have been better at avoiding the appearance of one.

I do think most of my points should stand, but will try to clarify a bit. The comments that follow are meant to be general in nature and not specific to Toby's review, although it does appear in one or two places as an example for a point I'm making.

I have no problem with "I used it for a few months and here's what I found" reviews, and I understand the distinction between a review and a proper test. The problem is that reviewers can themselves forget the distinction and act as if they have tested, when in fact they have not.

If it is a review and not a test, I think the reviewer has to be continually clear about "this is what I actually did and here's what I found." The minute the reviewer inserts a version of the manufacturer's boiler plate into their review, they imply that this boiler plate has been verified by their experience, and at that point the reviewer becomes an advertising agent and not a reviewer in any proper understanding of the term.

So, for example, if a reviewer says "I did numerous abseils with xxx ropes and xxx carabiner and never had any problem letting go and having the device lock," that's fine, appropriate, and useful for the reader. I would hope that at one point in one of their days they could find time to test whether the device locks with their gear and little or no rope weight present, because this is a serious safety concern. Perhaps such a test is simply not part of the reviewer's ordinary day, but I am suggesting that even if they are reviewing and not testing, they ought to take an extra step or two to check out things of real importance to the audience. And if it never occurs to them to do something like this, I would say that the requirements for reviewing competently are not simply being a competent climber.

But if a reviewer is going to make a blanket statement, "the device locks and eliminates the need for a backup prussik," then they are either (perhaps unwittingly) flogging the gear for the manufacturer or they have forgotten the distinction between reviewing and testing, because they are now making a general statement possibly involving situations they have never encountered and have no way of verifying.

I think a theme of this discussion, not mentioned explicitly, is whether a reviewer ought to be aware of and address information that is commonly available on the internet. It is true that information on the internet is fairly saturated with noise; you have genuine experts like Jim Titt posting along with blithering idiots claiming the same level of authority and weight for their conclusions, and a whole spectrum of partially informed folks in between.

The presence of noise leads some people to totally reject internet information, but I think this is wrong-headed. There is nowhere else we are likely to have access to, say, Jim's knowledge and insights, and there are lots of other people whose posts on technical matters have been extremely useful. Furthermore, no individual (at least no one not engaged in a formal testing program) can come close to spanning the range of situations that might occur, but a large group of separate individuals can do this, and either ignoring or rejecting out of hand the evidence they offer, because of the unfortunate systemic noise, is to throw an important and very useful baby out with the bath.

When, as is the case with the MegaJul, there is a lot of existing chatter on the internet, my personal view is that it ought to be part of a reviewer's job to attend to the concerns that have surfaced and, when possible, address them in the light of the reviewer's personal experience. Here's an example with the MegJul. One of the posters on the Mountain Project thread found that when their pear-shaped carabiner flipped around, the narrow relatively pointed side of the carabiner jammed in the MegaJul's slots. No one else mentioned this, but it could be important. A reviewer could test it in seconds and say, "the reported issue did/did not occur with my gear."

Incorporating internet information in a review requires, among other things, separating some of the wheat from the chaff, and I think that is one of the instances in which the reviewer's expertise is brought to bear in the service of the audience. I don't think, in the age of information we live in, it is appropriate to just take some gear out for some climbs and report on it almost in a vacuum, but that's just my opinion. I might add that when Outdoorgear Lab did their belay testing article, one of the authors did in fact log on to Mountain Project, read the discussions, and explicitly asked for advice. In other words, at least an attempt at reviewer due diligence was made.

Of course, anyone can use some gear (or who knows, maybe not actually use it) and post a "review" on a climbing web site, personal blog, or video site. They can do whatever they want, and the audience has to understand that and factor it into any conclusions. But I think that when review comes under the imprimatur of an organization, in the present case UKC, it automatically acquires, rightfully or not, an extra level of authority that imposes more conditions of diligence on the reviewer.

In reply to Dell:


I take it you're being facetious, because otherwise you really are being a bit daft... I was making a quite valid design oriented comment, having sat in plenty of meetings discussing exactly this sort of product development. Women are usually weaker than men. It is a consideration which needs to be included in your design decisions. Would you say that health and safety executive is sexist because they impose lower lifting limits on women working? No, because its simply a fact. My Yorkie comment was making an in jest suggestion based on the old adverts, its not sexist in the slightest. If you want to carry on using the Megajul, crack on. Just remember what Jim has highlighted here when you're next a long way above a piece of gear looking at a long fall. Your comments re other belay plates having faults are correct. There is a chance they will fail too, and that is what Jims been saying at length through out this. There are plenty of stories of belayers getting bad burns from large falls with all sorts of devices, so this isn't a new or made up problem.

In reply to rgold:

I think an additional problem, from a European perspective, is that we are now used to assuming that because a product has an EC stamp on it that is is fully tested and hence "safe".

Jim and others have pointed out that this is perhaps not the case. The Mega Jul and other devices are not the panacea we would like them and assume them to be.

Have we now got back to the situation ( in the late 60's ) where new gear came onto the market, was used circumspectfully, before general acceptance ( or not ) by feedback you got on the crag and back in the pub?
If fit for purpose standards are years away, we probably are, unfortunately.

In reply to beardy mike:

>n. Just remember what Jim has highlighted here when you're next a long way above a piece of gear looking at a long fall.


I´m not too sure that Dell really knows about areas where one bolt every 20m is considered generous.

In reply to rgold:
"But if a reviewer is going to make a blanket statement, "the device locks and eliminates the need for a backup prussik," then they are either (perhaps unwittingly) flogging the gear for the manufacturer or they have forgotten the distinction between reviewing and testing, because they are now making a general statement possibly involving situations they have never encountered and have no way of verifying."

Especially when the manufacturers recommend turning the device around into the non-locking position AND using a Prusik back-up.

In reply to jimtitt:


Has this changed? The instructions that came with mine and the videos you find online all show both methods. Actually last weekend when I was out with my son, I put it on the "wrong" way round to ab down, and had to add the extra krab as a release handle. Then it went nice and smoothly (9.0 Mammut Revelation doubled BTW).

In reply to TobyA:

"For abseiling we recommend to turn the securing device around ...... Additionally use a Prusik sling for back securing."

In reply to jimtitt:

Having looked up the pdf I think you should quote the rest of it though Jim also:
"For abseiling we recommend to turn the securing device around so that the thumb bracket points to the body (Fig. 11a). Additionally, use a Prusik sling for back securing.
The rope can also be inserted in the securing device as described under item 3 (securing a lead climber) (Fig. 11b/11c). For abseiling, the securing device may be unlocked by means of a karabiner attached to the unlocking eye. The unlocking eye is optimally adapted to the EDELRID Pure Karabiner. If an unfavourable combination of karabiner, securing device and rope is employed, the rope‘s run may either be inhibited or too fast. Check the compatibility of the combination, using it in a safe environment."

It still sounds like they are recommending both methods but are kicking over the responsibility for checking rope/krab compatibility to the user.

In reply to TobyA:

Not sure I would agree on the Outdoor Gear Lab as being 'gold standard'. I followed a lot of their reviews for a year or so and found a distinctly partisan streak present. US is best basically, not all the time, but on a fair few occasions. The worst I ever saw was a cam review where Totems were given a glowing review in the write up then given really poor % points scores in the final analysis and summing up. Many of the facts quoted were just plain wrong - Totems are very heavy compared with Camalots (they considerably were lighter), and the subjective quotes such as 'Totems are too floppy to use'????? Not surprisingly Camalots came out the best - and I would suspect it would be a brave commercial reviewer in the US that didn't put BD kit at the top.
I would still look at OGL for a review but be very aware of their leanings.

In reply to philhilo:

Yeah, the Outdoor Gear Lab is more like the Bronze standard. At best. Their treatment of Totem cams was absurdly biased and riddled with internal inconsistencies, but that was perhaps the nadir of their reviewing efforts. The fact of the matter is that any reviewer is going to bring their own take on things, and this may not seem to be very objective to others.

If there is a gold standard in reviewing, it is probably the reviews (or are we now speaking of tests?) provided by the DAV, mostly in German of course. They have money and resources that are beyond the wildest dreams of any US organization; I don't know about the UK. But some attitudes and details of European climbing might skew the DAV perspectives from the viewpoints UK and USA climbers would find most relevant, and if you don't read German you're out of luck.

In reply to rgold:

I thought Outdoor Gear Lab worked for BD. Just kidding.



Al

In reply to jimtitt:



Why would I need to remember that if I'm using a mega jul with a 9.8mm rope, which hasn't been highlighted?


No, and I suspect that neither do many of the users of UKC. Not really relevant. Is it?

In reply to TobyA:





Well my take on "recomended" and "can" are that they have two different meanings, not that both mean recommended. In fact in the original German it says the locking way is "possible" which I take to have a further negative connotation even further away from recommended. That Edelrid then give a caveat about using it in this position warning that it may either be too weak or jam up speaks volumes about their experience which matches that of many others.
That you found it rather good doesn´t mean anyone else will.
Anyway the first time you try with 4 different rope diameters and find either it doesn´t lock up OR is a fumbly, jerky pain in the ass with three of them you give up and turn it round. Like this guy who really should know:-
"I spoke to one of the designers at Edelrid and he says he prefers to use his abseiling "the normal way", with a prussik. That's the Euro normal way I guess, extend the device on a sling and have the prussik going to your belay loop. But anyway, absolutely nothing wrong with doing it that way round, I just found the autoblocking method works rather well."

In reply to jimtitt:

Overall I AGREE with you Jim, it seems a pretty pointless suggestion to have in the instructions if they know there are situations where it might not work. I don't know why they don't take it out of the instructions, and as a method it is still there on all the instructional videos that the pdf actually refers users too.

I have used it in the (lets just call it now) "wrong" orientation quite a lot. Call me a sucker if you wish, but that was following the instructions that came with the mega jul I have. When using it on, I suspect now, more than 4 different rope combinations, from double, new, 8.6s up to double, old 10.2 I've always found it works well in the "wrong" orientation, if I had a come across a situation where it hadn't I would have absolutely written about it in the review. If you lock the MJ while abseiling, say to get a piece of gear out, it does jerk when you release it again, but prusiks can be similar.

I've have had two scary experiences in the past where I felt I was having to hold on way too much while abbing. Once was down the South Face of the Midi with an original ATC and a prusik, a long time ago. That led me to buying the original Reverso to see if that was better. The second time was ice climbing in Lapland, using a shunt as a back up and that reverso, although that was exceptional icing of the ropes in a way I've never seen elsewhere (not just frozen like they get in Scotland, but actually covered in layer of translucent ice). Anyway, I guess I'm happy with devices that feel like they are giving you a lot of friction, rather than a little, even if that makes them hard work, which the MJ with krab as a release handle can be.

In reply to Dell: because one day you might be climbing on skinny doubles on trad gear. You seem a little obsessed with the way you and you alone climb. It's a device with a recommended use on double ropes, including skinny double ropes. No where does it say, no trad, no weaklings, only twin rope technique etc. people will quite rightly assume that all these uses have been tested extensively before product release to ensure that use is completely safe...

In reply to beardy mike:

Speaking of skinny doubles, how many folks have noticed the---I think universal---fact that manufacturers give different rope ranges for single and "double" ropes, in spite of the fact that half-rope technique requires that falls be held on a single strand? For example, to stop kicking the MegaJul when it is down, the latest Reverso specifications say

- effective braking on half and twin ropes (7.5 mm or greater diameter)
- effective braking on single ropes (8.9 mm or greater diameter).

The only rational way to read this is that for braking on a single strand, the strand has to be 8.9mm or greater, and yet half ropes as thin as 7.5mm are also supposed to be capable of "effective" braking. My guess is that whether the ropes are halves or twins, the sub-8.9 ones are expected to be used as twins, i.e. clipped together. But there are plenty of half ropes, maybe most of them, in the 8--8.5 mm range, and for these one can only conclude that braking on a single strand might not be "effective."

In reply to TobyA:

Probably the most viewed and most discussed review you´ve done though!

In reply to rgold:





Sure is bizarre, especially when you take the loss of gripping performance with only one strand loaded out of a pair. Half ropes need to be at least .5mm bigger to get the same braking as twins, possibly more.
The handy graph of braking force for pairs of ropes loaded equally or only one strand is here in the same MountainProject thread http://www.mountainproject.com/v/edelrid-megajul-belay-device/109133730__6

In reply to UKC Gear:
does the presence of the unloaded rope limit the movement of the device relative to the krab and loaded rope, so limiting the space available to the loaded rope to go out the device, round the krab and in again, so affecting the braking?


To Jim - the graph discussed extensively earlier was for a 7,8 yes? With two ropes in the device? Don't suppose you have similar for something like a 9.5?

In reply to wbo:



The graph for single 9mm is on page 4 of the Mountain Project thread linked to at the top, 10mm is on page 5. I´ve never tested a 9.5 as I don´t own or use one but you could guess somewhere in the middle of the two I´ve given.

Braking force is reduced if only one strand is loaded of a pair as all the load goes through a smaller contact patch on the belayers hand so it slips earlier. It´s actually better to only grip the loaded strand and drop the other but your leader may not think this is cool! The only device I know of that the unloaded strand prevents the loaded one from being locked is the Petzl Shunt, I´ve never tried this in a TRE Sirius but it´s possible it might occur there as well.

In reply to UKC Gear: thanks. My interpretation of those graphs is, at , say a braking force of 140 to 180 kg is required, with the thicker ropes the megajul requires less hand force, and at the lower end, considerably less. This I suppose is the assisted braking?

I don't think I explained my point very well re. The twin/ half rope effect. The device has two slots , like others, and when only one is filled, and th device is loaded it 'rocks' a little bit on the metal between the two slots, reducing the size of the unfolded slot, and reducing braking effect on the rope. If two ropes are present this effect is reduced . This is noticeable on all the twin slot tube devices I've used. I wonder if it's significant?

In reply to wbo:


This is so.


Possibly but it´s going to be minimal as the gap hardly changes at all, the difference in braking force is anyway more marked with non-jamming devices where uneven karabiner position is relatively immaterial or doesn´t exist at all.