UKC

Anyone know if there's been any progress with the CE certification for the Soloist? Last I heard the company were hoping to start selling them in Europe.

In reply to bpmclimb:
I´d be suprised if Rock Exotica would bother since there are better and cheaper devices of the same design. Getting CE would be no problem, just justifying the expense for a niche product would be difficult.

In reply to jimtitt:

Ah, perhaps you're right - although, as I say, I did hear that they had plans to sell the item in Europe. Wishful thinking from a lonely climber, maybe!

As a matter of interest, what products are available in UK/Europe that do the same job just as well?

In reply to bpmclimb:
Petzl Stop, Rig, Edelrid Eddy or the usual device of choice a modified GriGri, all derived from the Soloist anyway so some of the same problems and some added benefits as well.

In reply to bpmclimb: any reason not to get a silent partner?

In reply to bpmclimb:

Order direct from Wren? In these days of online buying that's probably a good reason, from their point of view, not to bother with the hassle and expense of CE certification; both products (Soloist and Silent Partner) are both well known, very specific and pretty unique. They don't need to be in a shop window in Europe to sell - you either want one or you don't!

In reply to David Coley:

As far as I know, same situation as the Soloist; i.e not available outside US. Also, double the price of the Soloist.

In reply to Ian Parsons:
you either want one or you don't!

Thanks for the reply. Actually, it's not quite so simple as that, as I don't have an unlimited budget. I may end up doing as you suggest, but will have to consider the overall cost, including post, duty, etc.

In reply to jimtitt:

Interesting. I've heard about the modified Grigri, but never heard of those other devices being used for a roped solo.

In reply to Ian Parsons:

Had a look - the company's now reverted to the name Rock Exotica. They don't ship to Europe. There's a UK distributor but they don't import the Soloist or Silent Partner as they're not CE certified.

In reply to bpmclimb: what type of climbing do you want to use it for?

In reply to bpmclimb:

Sorry Brian - that's all news to me! Seemed quite odd at first; would there actually be US legislation in place to prevent the export to Europe of goods that, while illegal to retail in Europe, are not illegal to possess? The UK dealership makes more sense, however. It would be a normal part of any dealership agreement that RE undertakes to no longer supply their products directly to any other recipient on their dealers' "patch" and thereby undermine their dealers' business base; the fact that under European legislation their dealers are themselves unable to sell a couple of said products is probably regarded as irrelevant. If I'm right then there should be no reason for a normal US retailer - one that does mail order, obviously - not to supply you; have you investigated that possibility?

Jim may be able to contribute some more authoritative input on this!

In reply to David Coley:

Roped solo - ground anchor, starting with all the rope at the bottom, clipping gear and taking the risk of falls as if normal leading.

In reply to bpmclimb:

I've had very good experiences with ship it as a remailing service. They're pretty fast and have reasonably priced courier options. That would be my first avenue...


Re above poster...People use petzl stops for solo leading? Really?

In reply to bpmclimb:

That should have been the ID not the Stop, still a huge and heavy alternative to the GriGri.There are some Americans that prefer the Eddy but it´s hard to see any advantage.
Wren Industries stopped making the Soloist/Silent Partner some years ago and production reverted to the original company Rock Exotica.

As regards the CE stuff it depends on what it was imported/sold as. As a descender it might just get in without CE but as a fall arrest device it needs the mark. An American retailer can export it no problem, the offense it to import the product so that would be you if the customs pick it up.

In reply to bpmclimb: I use the eddy - I find it feeds better for free climbing (9.8 beal rope), and that nice chunky connection hole stays nicely on the front of the carabiner (still use a belaymaster or similar though)

In reply to bpmclimb:

If you haven't done much of it before, questions worth thinking about are:
1. can you tie a back knot on lead?
2. how fast do you need to be moving? (relevant for long multi-pitch routes)
3. will you be using a rope bag, or carrying on your back?
4. if you pre-tie a series of backup knots will the loops catch everywhere?
5. If is just single pitch, why not just solo top-rope it?

The answers to these will point toward the best device to use. If possible I would borrow a modified grigri, an eddy and a silent partner and play before you buy.

(Some of this is covered in http://www.andy-kirkpatrick.com/shop/product/high

In reply to David Coley:
>

Thanks for the reply- some useful considerations. However, the one above isn't relevant - I already do a lot of solo-top roping and am quite happy with shunt(s) for that purpose. I'm after a Soloist/Silent Partner (or something that does the job equally well if it's out there) specifically for lead-style roped solo.

In reply to bpmclimb:

.... but it's single pitch routes that I want to climb in this way. Specifically: on trips on my own, leading in some way pre-practised new routes which are too hard for me to justify the risk of soloing.

In reply to bpmclimb: I would then think about the backup knots. Will you:
a. not be using any?
b. happy to tie on lead - i.e. climbing has places to stop and get hands free or the odd bolt to hang from.
c. climbing easy enough to quick flick a clovehitch off a krab, but not to tie one.

In reply to David Coley:

I'm starting to lean towards a Silent Partner. Not sure of exact backup details yet; will be practising on easy climbs first and evolving a system, but would hope to be getting on harder and more sustained pitches pretty soon.

I don't want to be hanging on gear, and I think situations where both hands are free will be rare. As an initial plan for harder climbs I expect I'll be using several clove hitches which I remove one-handed as I progress.

Some way of getting rope through a single back up on the harness using only one hand would be very convenient, but that would need more investigation. An extra device, maybe, or a clove hitch with a screwgate through the central loop of the knot, possibly. Not sure yet.

Thanks for the continued interest

In reply to bpmclimb:


Did you see the thread http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=541770 earlier this year? A nice, slick system.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Hey Brian, do you know of the reverso/ATC technique?

http://www.mountainz.co.nz/content/article/article.php?article=220406_ropes...

This is what I have used before and find it very effective for free climbing. Climbed a few routes at FCQ with this set up, and taken a lob on it as well.

Chris.

In reply to cbonner:

Hi Chris. No, not come across that - looks interesting. I'm not sure I completely get it just reading it - I'll have to set it up.

In reply to bpmclimb:

The only downside is you want to avoid falling upside down, but you'll have a back up knot of course

In reply to cbonner: Also you need to be careful as the impact created by it will strip the rope sheath at a certain load which not really that high. Jimtitt did some tests for me to see what happened...

In reply to mike kann:

Really? I thought this applied more to devices with 'teeth'. Do you have a link to the data?

In reply to cbonner:

A quick google has found the link http://www.mountainproject.com/v/atc-guide/106838345__1

In reply to cbonner: This type of device is designed effectively for a static load in magic plate configuration, or as near to a static loading as you're going to get. Taking a lead fall is not recommended by any manufacturers. I will look it up.

In reply to mike kann: Couldn't find the UKC thread but Jim repeated it for the benefit of the yanks:

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/atc-guide/106838345__1

As it happens there was a thread on another forum about using guide plates for roped soloing and I went off and pull tested a few to see what happened under load:-

First Fail Mode:
The trapped rope escapes sideways from under the tensioned rope and gets trapped between the tensioned rope and the side of the slot.This is very difficult to free off and you have to dismantle everything and twist the locking krab brutally to release the rope. Take your Prusiks.

Second fail mode:
Apply yet more load and the trapped rope where it crosses the tensioned rope goes down through the slot with a bang. At this point the holding power drops off considerably but not catastrophically, though pretty near!
Easy to release, just unclip the krab when unweighted. Still need to take your Prusiks!

ATC Guide. 10.2 Mammut, used, non-treated. First fail mode 4.8kN. No second fail mode, rope sheath cut at ca 9kN.
ATC Guide. 9mm Edelrid, used, non treated. First fail mode 2.96kN. Max fail load 5.58kN. Residual load 1.6kN
ATC Guide. 8.2mm Edelrid, new,treated. First fail mode 2.05kN. Max fail load 4.06kN. Residual load 1.2kN

Reverso³. 10.2 Mammut, used, non treated. First fail mode 3.68kN. No second fail mode. Rope sheath cut ca 9kN
Reverso³. 9mm Edelrid, used, non treated. First fail mode 2.25kN. Max fail load 3.60kN. Residual load 0.9kN
Reverso³. 8.2mm Edelrid, new,treated. First fail mode 1.6kN. Max fail load 2.38kN. Residual load 0.7kN
All with Petzl Attache 12mm round profile karabiner.

Not my idea of a reliable roped-solo device!

In reply to mike kann: although it is not the ideal way to rope solo, knowing you can use a reverso this way is useful for self rescue if your partner can no longer belay. (it works best with thin roped.)

In reply to David Coley:

How do you work that out? with thin ropes it's pretty much in its first failure mode straight away seeing as the minimum force you will generate in even a small force is 3kN...

In reply to mike kann:

Maybe I'll revise my methods then. Back to tying knots!

In reply to mike kann:

Because when I have used it I have found that with thicker ropes the reverso keeps locking up as you climb. I have never taken anything but a test fall.

In reply to David Coley: well ok, but if a thin rope is almost permanently at failure point, and thick ropes provide too much drag, then surely this is whats refered to as a pile o shite?

In reply to bpmclimb:

"as I don't have an unlimited budget"

A bad start to the concept if you ask me, roped soloing isn´t really the place to start counting the pennies.
I don´t rope solo (lead)a great deal but have done enough over the years and tried most systems and discounted some of the others.
The knots, guide plate, upside down Prusik, endless loop like Bonatti and so on are last resort methods and more faff or danger than anyone would normally want to be involved with.
The methods which seem to work reasonably are the GriGri/Eddy and the Silent Partner.
The Silent Partner is a large and expensive item which you can´t use for other things so unless you are a dedicated soloist possibly not worth the investment, they have a habit of not working with very slippery ropes and in freezing conditions and the disadvantage you can´t abseil on it.
The Mk1 GriGri and Eddy have proved to be robust and reliable and abseiling/lowering down are easy. With the GriGri catching the rope behind the handle is a concern and some tape this over or for aid climbing cut it off altogether but then abseiling is naturally out of the question. The Eddy possibly doesn´t feed so well as you can´t modify it so much but I´ve no experience with this. With both if you fall and need to ascend the rope you´re half way there, ascender or whatever on the rope and off you go. The GriGri seems to be the choice for solo aid.
The Soloist is the forefather of the GriGri and doesn´t seem to offer any benefits, I´m not keen on tying it into the harness with a piece of cord and abseiling isn´t so easy so wouldn´t be interested personally.
I won´t even let anyone belay me with a Cinch so certainly wouldn´t use one for self-belay.

You need a good system to keep the rope weight from self feeding, there are loads of ideas with Prusik´s, rubber bands, Garda hitches and so on all of which seem more or less of a fumble. I use large clothes pegs.
Desirable is a shock absorbing system on the belay to replicate the effect of having a belayer there, on a big wall you can use your haul sack but there are various other ideas around, I use an HMS and a weighted rucksack but I tend only to rope solo to bolt new routes so halfway to aid climbing anyway.

The biggest problem is mental, it´s fairly terrifying near the ground and a bit worrying a long way from the ground! Despite people saying it´s dangerous it doesn´t actually seem to be that risky, there have been a few near misses saved by the backup knot, a guy who decked out in a big way abbing with his Eddy and someone recently killed by bees.

In reply to jimtitt:

Useful info.

Could you expand a little on the problems with the Cinch? Thanks.

In reply to mike kann:

I wouldn't disagree.

In reply to the thread:

As always, Jim sums the situation up well.

The SP caught me perfectly in June when I pulled a hook, and I did a 15 pitch route with an eddy in August which went fast.

I think the main danger is not from the device you use, but from not having a partner to help out if you injure yourself. A minor break is going to turn into an epic.

In reply to David Coley: oddly enough this thread makes me want to try it more, rather than less...

In reply to mike kann:

Hi Mike

Looking at the first failure mode, does the rope slip thro the device at this point? and then start to burn / strip the sheath?

Does this imply that the autolock devices are too wide for thinner ropes?

Have any tests been carried out on a fall test rig similar to the rope drop tests? Any Device.

IMHO the main advantage if you need to self protect / back rope is that a guide plate is light and multi purpose, and is the only device that you can use with doubled up ropes (twins)

In reply to Rick Graham: Hey Rick, tests weren't conducted by me but by Jim. The impression I get is that he did a straight pull test, rather than an impulse/impact test in a drop tower, which is a kinder test than a drop test. Towers are pretty far and few between as they are usually large and expensive!

To me (Jim I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong) it looks like the large diameter sheath was the one that got stripped - i.e. the force that pinches the dead rope is sufficient to prevent rope movement and slippage and therefore it breaks the mantle fibres. The plus side is that there wasn't complete failure.

On the thin ropes it would seem that after the first failure more, the rope is not ruptured so the machine continues to load the device until a second markedly lower failure mode is reached because of displacement of the rope in the device, at which point the holding power reduces to the point at which no further results are worthwhile as the rope is slipping through the device effectively uncontrolled.

I.E. the first failure mode is the one that does the majority of the work - if you impact it with a high force, I would suggest that both failure modes could occur from the one fall and you'd be left on the floor looking up at the sky.

As I say, a drop test would most likely give even harsher results than the pull test - usually static tests yield substantially higher results than drop tests.

In reply to mike kann:

Thanks Mike, I knew I could rely on you for a knowledgeable answer.

I just had the idea that in a drop test the rope might slip until the fall was arrested as in slipping thro a belay plate in normal lead falls situation.

Have the manufacturers not done tests for various fall factor situations?
If a client seconding in guide plate mode gets some slack in the system, a fall factor between zero and one is possible.

In reply to Rick Graham:

PS I like the way you defer to Jim's superior knowledge.

I also like his idea to use clothes pegs to stop slack developing in the active rope, neat.

In reply to Rick Graham: I'm sure there has been some testing, - not sure what or how much. However, the fact that they state there should be no slack in the system when belaying in guide mode on these tools would suggest that there has been and that slack is a problem. Bear in mind that these plates are not meant for belaying dynamically, or belaying a leader in this mode. I'm guessing though that if there was significant slippage you would at the very least see glazing on your ropes, or it creating enough heat to maybe be a problem. That's a gut reaction though so its probably wrong. I've been finding recently that gut reactions about things are quite often wrong in the world of testing stuff... and by the way, I defer to Jim as he's designed belay gear, and uses a test rig on a regular basis, whereas I am but a mere bystander in such things...

In reply to mike kann:
Well the first test was a kind of drop test, we were messing around with how strong you needed to be to release guide plates under load and while I was jerking around trying to release myself there was a bang and I was on the concrete. I then discovered that just bouncing on the rope was enough to get failure with a thin rope which is why i went off a pull tested.
There isn´t any measurable slip on the first stage, the upper strand just loads the lower one until it is squeezed out to the side. from what I remember the rope creeps a few cm as it escapes completely.
It´s one of the advantages of slow testing in that you can watch carefully exactly what is happening and stop at any time to check things, for most work it´s not really interesting the actual highest or lowest force but identifying what´s happening. I could do a drop test sometime I guess (but my main drop tower is in bits under the undergrowth awaiting a new foundation) but doubt the numbers will be substantially different, at least in the context of either piss poor or catastrophically poor, failure is failure!
If I remember rightly the thicker rope can´t escape completely and twists so the the karabiner forces the rope onto the side of what is really the underside of the plate and gets damaged there.

In reply to jimtitt:



Sorry, but I find that a little patronising. I am capable of separating the issues of expense and safety. If I conclude that the Silent Partner is the only method that's acceptably safe, but also that the cost of getting one is unjustified for me, then I simply won't rope solo.

In reply to jimtitt:


What happened there?