UKC

Neil Foster reminisces about some belay devices of yore and reviews three innovative new devices: the Petzl Reverso 4, Mammut Bionic Alpine and Grivel Master Pro.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=4734

In reply to UKC Gear:

FYI, the Grivel video doesn't work.

In reply to Fraser:
Try this: http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/z9Ed3KwQb-w?fs=1?rel=0&hd=1&autopla...

Its another one of Grivel's slightly cheezy videos with Haston hamming it up.

The foot ascender is a nice technique which could be used on other similar devices.

In reply to Alex Thompson: Thanks, video works now...

Sarah

In reply to UKC Gear:

Many people have found the Reverso 3 wears very rapidly, creating disconcertingly sharp edges. Does the 4 also do this?

In reply to Alex Thompson:


Thanks. Cheezier than a very cheezy thing in a cheese factory!

In reply to Fraser: Probably still a bit new for anyone to know just yet. Also, why would you have someone write a review of three guide plates who doesn't know how to use or compare any of their functions?!

In reply to hexcentric: Bit of a flawed review not testing the guide mode of these plates when this is surely the only reason you'd buy one of these over a regular atc type device?

Using plates in guide mode is quick and efficient when the anchors allow. Out in the Dolomites at the moment and using guide mode at every convinient belay station.

In reply to hexcentric:
Used the guide function with the Reverso 3 on single pitch grit now and then, not that hard to set up if there is a suitable belay...

In reply to flaneur:

I've never come across this or heard about it. The Reverso 3 is commonly used by mountaineering instructors and guides. It's a lightweight device for sure so guess being lightweight it's prone to scuffs etc but I've not heard of it being prone to sharp burrs or edges which may damage the rope. have you reported this to Petzl?

In my own Reverso 3 I have a small burr at the top of the middle fin which has been caused by my 'pumping' the braking Krab to create slack in a loaded rope.

I use a krab that has a T section back bar so great for 'pumping' and creating slack, also 'bites' well on wet/icy ropes but as the Reverso 3 is made of lightweight materials does mean you crate this small wear groove. TBH though it does not affect the rope(s) in any way and is more cosmetic rather than an issue.

If using lightweight kit I'm always aware that I'll not get the same wear and tear out of it as i would a similar bit of kit made out of steel (hardwearing but very, very heavy).

Re the article. I'd echo the comments of other posters that to have an article devoted to belay devices who's main design feature is to be used in direct belay mode but then not to test them out in that mode is, well, odd.

In reply to george mc:

TobyA started it

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=510152

In reply to lithos:

That sounds like fair wear and tear to me - and easy to spot. It's a lightweight device it's not going to last for ever especially if it's been given heavy use. With all due respect what TobyA posted is different from what you posted.

In reply to george mc:


Oops my apologies to Lithos. It was not you who posted the original comment. Take it back mate

In reply to george mc:


It perhaps is "fair" but the speed of wear would put me off buying another. My ATC guide has had way more use and is less worn, particularly considering it was my year round device for a number of years, whilst the reverso I've mainly used during winter which for me is just ice climbing (i.e. very clean ropes). I'll try and do a pic of the wear, it's not bad enough yet to make me worry about using it, but it is going in that way (like the original Reversos did).

In reply to george mc:

ooh and there was me getting all hot under collar - not

maybe a good time to post a link to your excellent AMI article?

In reply to george mc:


Described in the supertopo review: http://www.outdoorgearlab.com/Belay-Device-Reviews/Petzl-Reverso-3

This mirrors my experiences. The problem is with using it as an abseil device or when lowering folk off sport routes. Mine has had 2 years light use - I'm a weekend punter and I've abseiled not more than 50 pitches in that time - but the edges of the tubes at the load end are now very sharp. I like the device a lot but would think twice about buying another. I'd therefore like to know if the same problem is exhibited by the Reverso 4.

In reply to flaneur:

Can't comment on the Reverso 4 - just ordered one in fact for use out in the Alps in September.

Re the link above - nothing in that mentions edges - just wear and tear. As I've said it's a lightweight device. It won't withstand the same wear and tear as a heavier equivalent made out of more durable material. But hey that's why it's lightweight.

FWIW I have used an ATC Guide for work for two years now and it's still going strong - but it's heavy compared to the Reverso 3 - both do what they are designed to do. So I use the heavier but more wear resistant ATC Guide for day to day work stuff and the lighter Reverso 3 for either my own climbing or when I want the 'light'.

I'm perplexed as to why climbers think lightweight kit (which generally will gain it's lightweight by using what are often strong but not as hard wearing materials - one of the mysteries of climbing!) should last the same as the heavier equivalent.

Anyways back to the heady world of Mountain Training!

In reply to lithos:

I'm thinking it might be recycled next AMI magazine!

In reply to george mc:


From the link WML said: "They aren't kidding about sharp edges in the tubes appearing after rappelling, ..."


I own other lightweight devices, the DMM Bugette being silly-light, and none of them have worn as fast with as little use as the Reverso 3. I think this wear rate is more due to the softness of the metal (a very complex structure may require this) rather than lightness. Either way, it is a known issue and I was interested in whether, by a different design or material, Petzl had addressed it.

In reply to george mc:


Not dissimilar to me, my Reverso is now kept for big trips away when I want to be as light as possible.


I don't think that, indeed its rather obvious, I just think that the Reverso 3 seems to wear particularly quickly and in a worrying way. I don't think ATC guides and XPs are made of a very different alloy are they? The design seems to account for the weight difference.

Has anyone got any views on
1. Is a traditional sticht plate a good idea for a novice belayer due to increased friction. An atc seems much slicker.i appreciate paying out rope is slower but if the leader falls....
2. Do people find the original reverse better when using single ropes?

In reply to PGD:

get an ATC XP (or any device with groves) for increased friction. I find the sticht plates even with spring can jam a tad when paying out.

In reply to PGD:

I don't think any of these devices has enough friction to consistently hold a big fall on one of a pair of half-rope strands in a situation with low system friction, which is why there are periodic posts about burnt hands.

Petzl says as much about the Reverso 4 if you read the fine print.

"A single device for all rope types:
- effective braking on half and twin ropes [with diameter at least] 7.5 mm
- effective braking on single ropes [with diameter at least] 8.9 mm"

The way I read this (and I would say there is substantial confirming experience), you only get "effective braking" on a single strand that is 8.9mm or bigger, otherwise both strands have to come into play, which isn't the way half ropes work.

One of the problems is that higher braking capacity seems to correlate with worse handling, and the manufacturers are going for handling on the assumption, no doubt accurate, that most falls will either be relatively short or will have enough system friction to not really test the braking capacity of the belay device.

In my pretty extensive experience, the unremarkable-looking Metolius BRD has the highest braking capacity, but also, unfortunately, pretty crappy handling. (It also doesn't have a guide mode, in case you've jumped on that bandwagon and your seconds don't mind being pulled up the climb, at least while you are paying attention to them at all and not changing your clothes or eating your sandwiches.)

If you don't need to belay like a guide and don't use ordinary-sized single ropes, then the DMM Bugette might be the way to go; at least it is designed for thinner ropes. This is an option I haven't tried so can't comment on the braking capacity.

If you are worried about braking capacity (and I think more people should be), then you might have to turn to some of the "assisted locking" devices. One of these is the Mammut Smart Alpine, but I think half-rope handling with it is very clumsy and it is a rotten rap device. Another is the Alpine Up, which is as heavy, bulky, and expensive as a Gri-gri and puts some people off with its complicated looks, although it isn't really any harder to use than an ATC. It is probably the best half-rope belaying device at the moment (who knows what gadget will show up tomorrow) if you are looking for good handling and substantial stopping power.

If you are going to get one of the ATC-style devices (reviews notwithstanding, they are pretty much all the same), you are accepting the possibility that you'll have the brake strand zipping through your hands at some point---make certain to acquire and use a pair of belay gloves.

Addendum to my previous post:

The following thread has a number of positive comments about the Mammut Smart, and at least one negative one about the Click Up, which is the single-rope version of the Alpine Up.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=513997

In my experience, the Alpine Up is much better than the Smart at pumping slack to the leader without catching, and is much better at facilitating essential half-rope belaying maneuvers such as paying out one rope while taking in the other. The trouble with paying out rope with the Smart is that one hand (the braking hand) has to be employed to pull the Smart away from the body so the connecting biner stays out of the rope-locking position. This means that paying out one strand and taking in the other has to be done with the non-braking hand, which has to leap rather frantically from one side of the device to the other. Plus, if the piled or flaked belaying rope snags in a way requiring a tug by the brake hand, that hand will have to release its hold on the device, which will then be very sensitive to undesired locking.

The Alpine Up has a "paying out" region and a locking region in the connecting carabiner slot and these two regions are separated by a spring-loaded tab that keeps the rope in the free-running position until the load on it is high enough to pop it past the gate (this is the "click up" feature). The rope can be handled with both palms up and the braking hand can be fully involved in paying out slack.

Although this may be a minor point (until it happens to you), it will particularly awkward to get the Smart to catch a factor-2 fall directly onto the belayer. (This is true of ATC-style devices too, which should be used with brake-hand palm-up if the leader's rope is not redirected through the anchor and the leader has not yet got in good gear.) The Alpine Up, which can be used palm-up throughout, will work fine as long as the belayer understands the need to keep their (assisted) braking hand above the device for such falls.

None of the Smart admirers mentioned rappelling with it, which I found to be very unpleasant.

On the downside, the Alpine Up is much heavier and costlier than the Smart.

All of my experience with these devices is with relatively new Mammut Genesis 8.5mm half ropes. The printed rope ranges notwithstanding, I think that handling is likely to worsen considerably at diameters bigger than this.

In reply to TobyA:

Toby, I've binned my Reverso 3 in favour of my old NewAlp Magic Plate, (which I think was the original device of this type) even though it has two disadvantages - can't abseil with it, can't release it. The reason? Belaying in guide mode with the Reverso was so tiring with Genesis half ropes. The Magic Plate is a joy the belay with in comparison. Does the Reverso 4 suffer similarly? Or am I just a weakling?

In reply to rgold:


The only fall I've ever witnessed where the rope did slip through a modern toothed tube style devices was when my mates were perhaps inadvisedly using a single rope and thinnish half rope together as a pair, and the climber fell onto the half rope.

I've climbed with dozens (hundreds?) of different climbers around the world over the last twenty years and have loads of friends and acquaintances who are climbers. I've heard some scary stories of gear failure down the years (screwgates undoing themselves and releasing ropes for example, or snap gate snapping in seemingly clean falls) but I've never heard of anyone having problems holding falls with something like an ATC Guide/XP or Reverso. What has happened that makes you think these devices don't have enough friction to stop falls? Just how big falls have you been holding? Was it ice climbing or some other low friction environment for example?

In reply to TobyA:

Toby, my claims come from many tests I did myself, tests I've read about done by the CAI, and the experiences, some quite nasty, of several experienced acquaintances. And then there is that Petzl language, and the following quote from Jim Titt:

"Belay devices in general are limited in their capabilities, something few climbers seem fully aware of. With only one exception no device available on the market is proven to be capable of stopping a climber in a reasonably long factor 2 fall and with most devices the belayer risks severe rope burns and loss of control even in considerably lower (less than 1) factor falls."

On the other hand, I too know many people who have never had the rope slip. One of my friends has caught three factor-2 falls without the rope slipping through his hands, for example, and I have caught one factor-2 fall without burning my hands, although that was with a hip belay.

Here's another way to understand what I think of as inadequate braking power: do an overhanging free rappel on one strand of the half-ropes you use and see how much difficulty you have controlling it. If you struggle even a little, then consider how much harder it will be to hold on when a big fall impact hits.

Another aspect of this has to do with absolute grip strength. A small light person can be fearsomely strong for their weight, but when it comes to stopping falls, what counts is their absolute grip strength, not their strength-to-weight ratio. A tiny woman belaying a big guy is at a substantial disadvantage, even if, on the rock, she outclimbs him by multiple grades.

As for knowing people who have burnt their hands, here is a very cursory sampling form this site:

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

Is this the accident you were referring to? It is possible that the 9mm rope interfered with the pinching action needed to control the 8.2mm rope, so this may not be a good example.

Typing this with 4 fingers heavily gelled and bandaged (by the lovely people at Chesterfield Royal ) after getting severe rope burn yesterday.
(My leader came off a a lot worse - looks like he's been a few rounds with the Haymaker...)

Scenario is: leader fall, top gear rips (9mm rope) and second gear holds (on 8.2mm rope). Leader flips upside down, goes someway down facing into crag, hence the bad facial damage but fortunately the helmet took a lot as well.

I've held lots of leader falls, some with ripped gear and never had rope burns that take full layers of skin off, maybe just a soreness. So I'm wondering is the brand new 8.2mm rope in my 15 year old belay device partly to blame for mine (and his) injuries??

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

Okay, so I manage to get rope burn on my right hand, 14 blisters equally spread over fingers and palm.
By now (after lot's of cooling) it doesn't hurt anymore to badly.

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

I suffered severe rope burn on my left hand about 18 months ago. I was out of action for about three months. During that three month period I had several trips to the East Grinsted burns unit, as the burn was too serious for my GP to deal with. Basically, as the tissue was healing, it was contracting, and my fingers were beginning the bend, the result being my hand resembling a claw. After lots of physio, pain killers, and time, the wound healed.

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

I've got a very painful rope burn on my hand, I want to know whether i should write off climbing for the next few weeks or not. I've got blisters on my finger tips, and a hole in my palm which goes through all but one layers of skin, so no bleeding. It hurts like hell!

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

I got a bad burn on my right hand after someone i was belaying appeared to try and kill themelves.

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

Same thing happened to me in the Emirates several years ago. Fortunately it was on a roadside crag and there were some large blocks of ice in the coolbox (chilling the beers). After about 20 minutes of ice treatment the pain had subsided enough to think about applying the burn dressings I had in the first aid kit then put a clean spare sock over the lot to keep any muck out. It was a painful and careful 20 minutes drive from the nearest A&E but got them to check it out, and they reckoned I'd done the best thing and they put proper dressings on the hand. I still had about 60 miles to drive back home virtually one handed.

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

Fell from the open book corner about 30 feet hitting the slab below. My second had let go of the rope so he wouldn't burn his hands, but fortunately the rope jammed in the crack!

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

He then fell off, snapping the peg and ripping me off my perch. i flew through the air straight into the wall forcing me to loose my shoe into the drink. luckily we could lower off. We pulled the ropes and i had burnt my hand trying to hold dave.

In reply to UKC Gear:

All interesting stuff but how many of these epics in holding big leader falls are down to incorrect or sloppy use of the belay plate? For example incorrect plate orientation i.e. braking ropes unable to be pulled back to an angle close to 180 degrees. In my experience the vast majority of climbers appear to be a tad cavalier in how the ropes are set-up in belay plates in relation to the breaking angle.

Granted ropes diameters versus the diameter of the rope slots in plates is a big influencer but couple incorrect matching rope diameter with slot size in the plate and poor technique - well no wonder you get a marked degree of rope slippage.

In reply to TobyA:


I have Toby.

Usually involving a combo of skinny ropes, an inexperienced belayer, or an inattentive belayer. One I can recount involved broken bones...indoors btw.

I'm using a Reverso 4 at the moment (and a Grigri2...depending on the situation), and used a Reverso 3 previously. I also have various other belay devices. One of my favourites is the Mammut Smart as Rich described above.

Alan's favourite at the moment is the CT Click Up.

You do get accelerated wear on the lighter devices - the price you pay as you have mentioned before - and accelerated wear on ALL devices if used in wet and gritty conditions...multiple abseils in the wet with a lot of grit about can cut through metal like a knife through butter.

In reply to george mc:

I have no idea how instances of burned hands can be traced to "improper technique." I'm pretty sure that the two people I know personally were doing everything right. The point of the posts was to illustrate that belaying rope burns definitely happen, whether or not some of us have encountered them.

But more importantly, the conditions for "improper technique" are not entirely black and white. If a device has inadequate braking power for a given situation, it becomes sensitive to small deviations from perfect technique. Given the fact that humans cannot perform perfectly every time, such small mistakes can lead to rope burns. I think that calling such things "improper technique," even if it is technically correct, overlooks the real point, which is that the device won't tolerate any deviation from optimal handling. Personally, I view that as device failure, not technique failure.

I think it is a fortunate thing that belayers are rarely tested with falls greater than factor 1. You need a multipitch climb for this to even be a possibility. But when such falls occur, I think the common devices used by most climbers may very well not be up to the task if half ropes are being used.

In reply to rgold:
That’s the point I was making – often evidence is anecdotal – “I knew a guy who knew a guy…”

I agree rope burns definitely happen. And they happen due to a combination of factors I suspect – including for example poor technique; mismatched belay device with rope diameter; condition of ropes (wet vs icy vs muddy); position of belayer in relation to direction of impact force; intensity of fall being held etc.

I agree and disagree with the above. “improper technique” is a believe and based on my own anecdotal experience of teaching and coaching hundreds of climbers over the past twenty years is a key factor in miss operation of belay devices. Just go down to any climbing wall or busy crag and I reckon around 80% of climbers will be using poor technique to operate their belay devices. I’m not sure I totally agree with the statement about devices having inadequate braking power – I think that does depend greatly on the rope diameter being used and the device the rope is matched too. Given that skinny ropes in a mismatched belay device will create a situation where the belay device now behaves in a ‘slick’ manner the I agree that it then becomes sensitive to small deviations from <perfect> technique.

I agree – and that is why I think most of the incidents you tend to encounter in the UK are at walls or sport crags where climbers are routinely lowered. As to climbers being able to hold falls with their belay devices on multi-pitch climbs I’ll go back to my earlier argument that the majority of climbers will not change the orientation of their plate to allow for an upward pull (assuming the leader places and early runner). Now in most situations lead climbers on trad tend not to plop off . If they do and given the average grade led on rock is around VS then I suspect that with good gear, short falls, and a bouncy/scraping tumble then the impact forces due to rope stretch, rope zig-zagging thro gear etc are pretty low which means that all things being equal the belay device/rope combo copes with it all. Change the scenario to a long free fall and I think all bets are off. I think though that the belayer in holding this big long fall will encounter some rope slippage through the belay device and have some friction impact on their braking hand. This effect is all the more pronounced with skinny ropes in a mismatched belay device.

In reply to TobyA: I can think of two incidents in ratho wall in the last 12 months alone. Both involved thin ropes being used in combination with belay devices not suited to the diameters and both resulted in groundfalls from height and burned hands to belayers. Very luckily, both climbers walked away.

In reply to hexcentric:

And you can't get particularly big falls indoors unless you *really* muck up e.g. forget to put a clip in.

But is that people using the wrong belay device for the rope (e.g. using a very skinny rope in an original Grigri), or do you mean because the device wasn't good enough *but the instructions said it was*?

I mainly use a Black Diamond ATC XP and an ATC XP Guide, and with neither of those have I ever come close to enough rope slippage indoors to end up with burns, and that's including with one guy I climb with (who is out with an injury at the moment) who is 18 stone and has no fear at all, so takes lead falls from well above the clip all the time.

Neil

In reply to george mc:

The difficulty lies in that out of all the variables there is only one certainty, that there is no manual belay device capable of stopping a worst case fall. That has been demonstrated and tested by quite a few people.
However we operate normally in a less than worst case situation and generally a very long way from it so people buy and use belay devices which cope reasonably with most of their climbing experience but will get let down when things start to get difficult. Since normal practice in climbing equipment design is worst case then belay devices fail to reflect this but this is not made clear enough either when purchasing devices or in the training given by climbing instructors.
Good or bad technique is of no interest when the device itself is incapable of the task, and furthermore if bad technique is so often the problem then either the teaching of belaying needs to be reviewed or the design of belay devices changed to cope with the widespread incompetence.

In reply to jimtitt:

I take your previous points but I'll take issue with your last sentence

FWIW the teaching belaying is generally speaking of a good enough standard (leastways form what I have seen whilst assessing/moderating). However not every climber does a National Governing Body climbing award and therein is the rub - most climbers do not receive any training in the use of devices. Also bad habits creep in just like with any other skill.

In reply to hexcentric: Neither of these incidents were big falls. I think both (definitely one) involved a standard ATC being used to belay a relatively skinny single rope. In the case I actually saw, the climber just sat down on the top of the route to be lowered (20m up!) and the belayer immediately (or almost immediately) lost control while lowering and wasn't able to regain it. The climber fell the full height of the ratho lead wall to the deck slowed only by the rope whizzing through the device. I think they were quite lucky to "get away" with it all things considered.

In reply to george mc:

True enough that many climbers haven´t taken a course but since most belaying teaching involves tiny falls on a top-rope it certainly is questionable whether the training is adequate, since it fails to show the limitations of what one is doing.

In reply to hexcentric:

"Neither of these incidents were big falls. I think both (definitely one) involved a standard ATC being used to belay a relatively skinny single rope. In the case I actually saw, the climber just sat down on the top of the route to be lowered (20m up!) and the belayer immediately (or almost immediately) lost control while lowering and wasn't able to regain it."

So no actual fall then?

That sounds like belayer incompetence to me. I get the point about Factor 2 falls being difficult/impossible to hold using a tubular belay device - I can't say I've ever tried as I mainly climb indoors, or single pitch when outdoors.

But if a belayer drops someone who has just leant back on the rope with no actual fall involved, that sounds like they have done something silly (be that not holding the dead rope tightly enough or at all, or having selected a device that was not designed to be compatible with the rope in use).

Neil

In reply to jimtitt:

I agree - the value of such training as described above is limited. What I used to do was have 'students' holding leader falls taken by myself or another instructor (with one or other backing up the novice belayer)in an indoor wall. Enough force is generated to lift belayers up and give them an idea of the impact force even a short 'free fall' can generate.

To simulate a fall factor 2 you can have the belayer belaying then take a run. If the plate is incorrectly oriented

I still hold that inability to hold large falls is down to a variety of factors and just to say this or that belay device does not work is omitting the fact that for a belay device to work effectively lot's of bits in the 'safety chain' have to all fit together.

OT - just checked the Petzl Reverso 4 instructions (just got my replacement for my Reverso 3)and it shows the belayer using gloves.

In reply to george mc:

The instructions with your old Reverso³ also showed this and recommended in print you wore gloves, no doubt instructions you followed and imparted to the people you were instructing
At least Petzl make an effort, with Black Diamond the original ATC is rated for single ropes down to 9mm so people saying belayers are mismatching the rope and belay device is perhaps putting the blame in the wrong place.

In reply to jimtitt:

Most beginners start out with single ropes (easier rope work etc) - so gloves ain't an issue. I must admit my summer ropes are 8.8mm - I only use skinny ones in winter and tend to wear gloves more in winter. Although given how godawful this summer has been I'm reconsidering that...

FWIW I have suggested/recommended to people using skinny ropes in summer that they consider a pair of belay gloves. I use em myself even if just to reduce the wear and tear on my delicate wee handies when playing with ropes.

I've held big whippers in the past and both times ended up with very minor rope burns so yeah I'll wear gloves if I feel the situation warrants it. I do think though most people think belay plate = no gloves. I'm off an age when belaying you wore gloves.

This is an excellent discussion to have though

In reply to george mc:

Leather welders gauntlets don´t seem de-rigeur on the crags these days, that´s for sure! Posh people had those ones from MOAC if I remember rightly.

I was discussing thinner ropes and belaying with the guys from Beal one day, particularly about the problems now that they impregnate the ropes with lubricant. Their answer was `we sell gloves now´ which says a lot.
I´ve just got a pair of 7.8´s so be interested to see what they are like, especially as at the moment they are so slippery they are almost impossible to pick up. Really worrying are the new Edelrid twins at 6.7mm but they come with their own dedicated belay plate at least.

In reply to jimtitt:

Hmmm interesting issue with lubricant impregnated ropes - assume that's to make em waterproof?

Yeah there must be a point at which skinny rope = impossible to handle i.e. belay effectively? Although - jeez would you want to fall onto a couple of 6.7mm ropes?! I think there must be a psychological issue around rope diameter not withstanding the technical issues

I'm off to the Alps in early September with some new 7.8mm ropes and my spanking new lightweight Reverso 4 so assuming all going well I'll return with both tales of derring do and confirm the handling characteristics of shiny new belay devices with skinny ropes!

In reply to hexcentric:

I bought my first Reverso in 2001 after abseiling off the S. Face of the Midi using my original ATC + prussik and not being happy at all about how hard I was needing to hold the ropes. So I can well believe that a skinny single on an original ATC would be very slick!

In reply to jimtitt:

I bought my first skinny single years ago - the Mammut Revelation, and at the time it came with its own belay device which seemed to reflect what your saying - that skinnier ropes simply don't work well with conventional belay plates. But then they stopped doing this - perhaps because of the availability of more grippy belay devices?

It's a very interesting discussion though, as just the other week there was another "grigri for trad" thread and a number of us on that were saying that we felt it was very hard to get any kind of controlled slippage through modern belay devices and therefore whether you use a gri gri or not for trad, doesn't seem to matter. But this thread seems to be suggesting completely the opposite!? Perhaps we should all be using grigris all of the time!

In reply to TobyA:

Quite. I remember abbing into the Verdon with an original ATC on 9mm ropes - utterly terrifying. Was very glad that I also had an original Lowe Tuber with me, which was much grippier.

I have taken to wearing gloves for belaying on multipitch routes after reading Jim's article and forum posts.

In reply to flaneur:

Glad its not just me, I've noticed my reverso 3 has fairly sharp wear in 3 places. The worst is underneath where the karabiner would slam into the plate catching a fall, this was warped the metal which now has sharp bits either side where the rope runs, sharp enough to cut your finger I if you dragged over it quick enough. It also has weared down to a sharp edge where the rope runs through the plate.

Not good at all, this is only about 3 years old.

In reply to snoop6060:

I've had similar damage underneath to a Black Diamond ATC. It was easy to file it down smooth, though, using a metal file and a bit of sandpaper.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Aye, gonna do that. Though as noted by others, there are other sharp bits, though not as bad, I wont be able to file them. They wouldnt cut your finger like the one underneath mind.

I will tell my partners to lose some weight or stop falling off! Or both.

In reply to snoop6060:

I've just done my Reverso 3 - it turns out a nail file works very well for filing down aluminium. Also I think mine has worn better than some because I use a BelayMaster, so it's always the big less-sharp end of the karabiner that slams into the device.

In reply to TobyA:

If I was going out on some of the big run-out routes they tend to have in the US then I´d be using a Grigri probably as well, not that I use skinny single ropes anyway. 9.8mm is my lower limit since I like robust things to match my robust self! And I know the weight doesn´t matter one bit to my climbing either!
The rest of the time I´ve got a plate which is designed for thin ropes but never came on the market or an old Stitch plate or a Bugette or if pushed I would go to HMS (I don´t climb on halves much these days).

The wear issue under the plate is a big problem in some ways, when we were doing belay device testing we casually added a karabiner as one does to see how much more power one got and watched the sheath rip off the rope! This wasn´t a worn sharp plate either, just a brand new, very popular (and crudely made plate) without any effort having been made to round off the rope entry slots underneath.

In reply to jimtitt:

Since I climb on half-ropes, a Gri-gri isn't an option, but more and more I want something that is going to lock up, and not just for those "big USA runouts." Frankly, I don't trust belayers so much any more. The burgeoning array of inattention incidents in which people are dropped in totally trivial gym falls and are lowered off the end of the rope, together with a style of sport-climb belaying that is poorly adapted to non-overhanging routes with trad gear, have led me to a receding sense of confidence in many of my belayers. I'm a lot more confident in the old guys from my generation who learned to belay before devices and didn't grow up with electronic-device-induced attention deficit disorder.

Moreover, as a matter of technique, many belayers using tubes keep their braking hand much too close to the device. This means there will be little or no effect from the "inertial phase" of the fall arrest, in which the belayer's hand is drawn towards the plate while resisting (see CAI analyses). For these belayers, the belay-dynamics sequence loses a source of fall energy absorbtion and will to go straight to rope slippage.

Add to that the fact that many tube users seem blissfully unaware of the need, if the belay is not directed through the anchor and before the leader's first protection piece is in, to belay palm up with braking action being braking hand to chest. This means that they have little chance of stopping a factor 2 fall onto the belayer.

After all this comes the issue raised in this thread, that the Petzl and BD tubes cannot, with thin ropes, reliably handle worst-case scenarios even if the belayer's technique is adequate, and in spite of this reality only a minority of belayers even partially compensate by wearing gloves.

So I'm definitely on the lookout for something better than the seemingly never-ending series of inadequate tweaks of the ATC that passes for innovation in the market place, something that will circumvent all these issues by just locking the hell up!

Sorry to come off so curmudgeonly. Once out at the crag, I don't complain to my companions about any of this and so am not as thoroughly unpleasant company as I must seem here.

In reply to rgold:

In reply to ripper:

rgold means if the leader is above you but has no gear in you should be holding the braking rope up above the plate as you would if you are belaying a second even though the belay device is infact upside down (don´t worry, it will turn itself over if it needs to).

In reply to ripper:
he's saying that if the climber factor twos you need to belay in such a way you can get a brake by making the rope go through an angle of close to 180 degrees (to do this you'd really need to belay as if you were belaying a second up a pitch). This problem is made worse by people belaying in the normal way and also with the hand on the other side to the belay anchors (if there is a side) as a lock can just not be made. I often pick up my belayers on this later point if the moves off the belay look tricky and not well protected and I don't want to clip the belay anchors (maybe they are not good enough individually or enough of them that I want to clip one)

In reply to jimtitt:

You mean because the leader will fall below the belayer and therefore pull the belay plate down, rather than pulling it up as he would if falling onto gear?

In reply to ripper:
"You mean because the leader will fall below the belayer and therefore pull the belay plate down, rather than pulling it up as he would if falling onto gear? "

yes and then the brake line and live line would be near parallel so no brake would be made.

In reply to rgold:

Also, to clarify further, presumably this is referring to a belay some way up a multi-pitch route (I was initially trying to imagine why one would be doing this when the leader was leaving the ground)?

In reply to nufkin: presumably yes, and (I assume) mainly on hanging/semi-hanging stances, not ones where you're belaying off a huge ledge

In reply to nufkin:

Note that I described a problem for a factor 2 fall. With the belayer on the ground or a big enough ledge, only fall factors less than 1 are possible if the rope is to have any effect at all, so those situations were implicitly excluded.

As Jim explained, if you have to hold a factor 2 fall and you are reflexively braking with your hand down near your knee, then the only friction you'll have is that of the rope going over a carabiner; you'll have effectively taken your device out of the system in a situation that produces the highest possible loads.

These worst-case scenarios are fortunately very rare, but they are not astronomically rare; I've had to catch a factor 2 fall and I know others who have had to as well.