|
brutusofwyde
Apr 20, 2005, 8:48 PM
Post #1 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
I switched from an ATC to a Jaws when I began using skinny ropes extensively.
Surprised myself last night when I weighed a few devices and found that my Reversino is about 20 grams lighter than my Jaws.
What's the lightest belay/rappel device out there for skinny ropes?
Note: Hip belay and Munter don't count, 'cause those are my backup belay/rappel device.
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Apr 20, 2005, 8:53 PM
Post #2 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
the DMM Bugette clocks in at 26g....less than half the Reversino's weight...thats probably as light as they get for skinny ropes, i suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Apr 20, 2005, 9:07 PM
Post #3 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: Surprised myself last night when I weighed a few devices and found that my Reversino is about 20 grams lighter than my Jaws. What's the lightest belay/rappel device out there for skinny ropes? Note: Hip belay and Munter don't count, 'cause those are my backup belay/rappel device. Brutus
On skinny doubles, I like the B52 to belay second, but don't think it really has the holding power to belay the leader. Rather than having leader and follower swap devices when they trade leads, I'd like to have one device that was good at both.
According to manufacturer's specs:
Jaws: 68g
B52: 60g
Reversino: 57g
So your Reversino is lightest there. What were your actual weight measurements?
Weight aside, if it grabs hard enough to catch a big fall on one skinny rope, I want one. The only place I found the B52 lacking in that respect was when we used it for overhung sport-climbing on doubles. It was hard to catch some of the falls. So far the only devices I've used that work well for catching a leader fall on one skinny rope are the Jaws and the ATC-XP.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Apr 20, 2005, 9:19 PM
Post #4 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: The only place I found the B52 lacking in that respect was when we used it for overhung sport-climbing on doubles. It was hard to catch some of the falls.
Forgive me if this question comes across harsh, cause I don't mean it that way:
What the hell were you thinking using doubles on an overhanging sport route?
Admittedly, I suck to a degree that has not yet been repeated... My Suck Factor (S/f) is higher than damn near anyone, and it's the object of envy among people who can actually climb ("Gee, Reno... why is it that you suck, while I'm good? I wish I could suck as a climber too... will you teach me?") I don't understand why using doubles on a sport route is a good idea.
Help?
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Apr 20, 2005, 9:52 PM
Post #5 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
well, the catch is softer, and since you can alternate clips, you wont fall further if you blow a clip since the other rope will catch you.
admittedly, though, i usually reserve my doubles for trad use only, since i want them to last as long as possible...
|
|
|
|
|
glyrocks
Apr 20, 2005, 9:52 PM
Post #6 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 614
|
Because sport climbers aren't smart enough? Just kidding, relax.
No real reason not to use doubles, it's just not common. General rope wear may be higher on sport routes, but probably not more than a normal trad route. Doubles take more rope managment, but it's a neglible difference on single pitch stuff. Also, correctly using doubles shortens the fall while clipping the next bolt.
|
|
|
|
|
geezergecko
Apr 20, 2005, 9:53 PM
Post #7 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 729
|
In reply to: I don't understand why using doubles on a sport route is a good idea. |
|
|
|
|
davidji
Apr 20, 2005, 10:00 PM
Post #8 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: What the hell were you thinking using doubles on an overhanging sport route?
In example below
1. We had a party of 3
2. Two ropes required for the rap off.
3. We reached this 2 pitch sport climb via a two pitch trad climb.
The first couple of times I did it it was to familiarize myself with double rope technique in a relatively forgiving (and close to home) environment.
Read more about doubles and their uses in sport climbing here.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=41167
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Apr 20, 2005, 10:04 PM
Post #9 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: admittedly, though, i usually reserve my doubles for trad use only, since i want them to last as long as possible... |
|
|
|
|
slcliffdiver
Apr 20, 2005, 11:18 PM
Post #10 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489
|
Don't know if they make them anymore but they used to make these things that were basicaly single or double slots like stitch plates but with the absolute least amount of material you could possibly think would be safe and probably less. Try to rap with it and you end up with 2nd degree burns and a nice glaze on your rope :lol: Basically you rapped with a biner brake if you were sane. I'm fairly sure there's never been anything lighter because there is about no way to have less material to push a rope through and hold together.
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Apr 21, 2005, 12:19 AM
Post #11 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
I'm curious that people find the b-52 lacking in friction on skinny ropes. one of its selling points is pretty consistent braking across rope diameters. i got mine because rapping on skinny ropes was too brutal with an atc. the b-52 doesn't grab as tight as the jaws, but it's smoother, and it grabs much harder than my atc.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Apr 21, 2005, 2:06 AM
Post #12 of 12
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
actually, i talked to Malcolm at Trango about the B-52 and he told me that if i was using skinny ropes that i'd be better off with the Jaws-- i'm considering switching to the B-52 this summer when i retire my current reverso....but i use doubles (8.6) quite a bit, so we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
